Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution, what missing link?

GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2009 5:50:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If evolution was not a concept, how could one know what a missing link is or isn't. The motion flow of a creature turning into another creature, (fish into a amphibian into a mamale). When evolutionists put a motion piece together, seemingly making the viewer believe that evolution does as such, this occurs in Walking with Monsters. If it was true, I, you and everyone should be witness to it occuring as it is shown in a motion piece, but it does not happen.

It tricks a person into believing that evolutionists know how creature evolve, when it is a clear geuss, evolutionists would need to find a fossil or a group of fossils that as a living creature, has died right next to it's mother or father, and then the next creature dies which was an offspring from the same creature that died beside it. So basiclly you have your self a collection of fossils that all look the same when you look at the two next to each other, but if you look at the last fossil in the collection compared to the first, you will see a huge difference. Impossible, concluding if evolution was true, this would have to be true also.

Please ask if you don't understand.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2009 6:31:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I have no clear idea what you're talking about, but I do know that there is no reason why this should not be in the "Science" forum.

Anyways, on this, 'argument'.

If evolution was not a concept, how could one know what a missing link is or isn't. The motion flow of a creature turning into another creature, (fish into a amphibian into a mamale). When evolutionists put a motion piece together, seemingly making the viewer believe that evolution does as such, this occurs in Walking with Monsters. If it was true, I, you and everyone should be witness to it occuring as it is shown in a motion piece, but it does not happen.

This is, well, I don't know. You're saying that because the documentary/show Walking With Monsters is able to use special effects to speed up the process of evolutionary change (fish->amphibian->mammal), which somehow shows the "missing link," and because we do not see this occurring in reality, it must not be true.

Now, I don't think I need to explain the difference between TV and reality is. But it would be good to note that whatever Walking with Monsters shows is based off of fossil evidence already noted. Any "missing link" ideas they present are based off of scientific estimation of what these ancient creatures look like, based on what their predecessors and successors look like.

It tricks a person into believing that evolutionists know how creature evolve, when it is a clear geuss,

Yes, that is what science is - estimation, but estimation based off of fact and observed phenomenon. I have never heard any evolutionist who knows what they're talking about say that they can guess what these "missing links" are outright.

So basiclly you have your self a collection of fossils that all look the same when you look at the two next to each other, but if you look at the last fossil in the collection compared to the first, you will see a huge difference. Impossible, concluding if evolution was true, this would have to be true also.

This doesn't make sense. So if Fossil D is really different from Fossil A, evolution is not true, because it is similar enough to Fossil A. This ignores all tenets of evolution.

Fossil A with these characteristics, turns into Fossil B with slightly different characteristics, which turns into Fossil C with slightly different characteristics, which turns into Fossil D with another slight difference in characteristics. It makes sense then that Fossil D will be drastically different from Fossil A in several ways, due to genetic drift, inherited traits, etc.

I have no idea how this does not make sense.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2009 6:38:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If I am reading this correctly, it seems that Godsands is making a crude version of another weak argument I have seen.

It basically goes like this:
Because we do not know that the specific animal making up a fossil had offspring, we cannot use them as a link because their genes may not have been passed on.

Hope that clears up what he was trying to say.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2009 6:44:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Then that is a silly argument. If you find Fossil A with such and such characteristics in the same geological sediments as Fossil B with similar characteristics but with slight difference, as well as using the geological record to date the time period where these creatures existed as well as the environment, scientists can make very accurate correlations between these two different creatures.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2009 6:50:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Alright, off the bat let's just get rid of this offhand conception of a "missing" or "transitional" link/fossil.

According to the modern evolutionary synthesis, all populations of organisms are in transition. The idea of a transitional fossil is simply a human construct, in which some fossils "looks" like a transition (common conceptions are animals that can swim and crawl, half bird/half reptile, etc.). Of course, such a shady line as "looking like" is unacceptable in science.

You could say that cladistics is somewhat involved, but to be technical any talk of transitional fossils is redundant and pointless. To say there are no transitional fossils is to say either no organism exists or only one does, which is clearly ridiculous.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2009 7:10:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
: At 8/19/2009 6:31:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
I have no clear idea what you're talking about, but I do know that there is no reason why this should not be in the "Science" forum.

Anyways, on this, 'argument'.

If evolution was not a concept, how could one know what a missing link is or isn't. The motion flow of a creature turning into another creature, (fish into a amphibian into a mamale). When evolutionists put a motion piece together, seemingly making the viewer believe that evolution does as such, this occurs in Walking with Monsters. If it was true, I, you and everyone should be witness to it occuring as it is shown in a motion piece, but it does not happen.

This is, well, I don't know. You're saying that because the documentary/show Walking With Monsters is able to use special effects to speed up the process of evolutionary change (fish->amphibian->mammal), which somehow shows the "missing link," and because we do not see this occurring in reality, it must not be true.

Now, I don't think I need to explain the difference between TV and reality is. But it would be good to note that whatever Walking with Monsters shows is based off of fossil evidence already noted. Any "missing link" ideas they present are based off of scientific estimation of what these ancient creatures look like, based on what their predecessors and successors look like.

It tricks a person into believing that evolutionists know how creature evolve, when it is a clear geuss,

Yes, that is what science is - estimation, but estimation based off of fact and observed phenomenon. I have never heard any evolutionist who knows what they're talking about say that they can guess what these "missing links" are outright.

So basiclly you have your self a collection of fossils that all look the same when you look at the two next to each other, but if you look at the last fossil in the collection compared to the first, you will see a huge difference. Impossible, concluding if evolution was true, this would have to be true also.

This doesn't make sense. So if Fossil D is really different from Fossil A, evolution is not true, because it is similar enough to Fossil A. This ignores all tenets of evolution.

Fossil A with these characteristics, turns into Fossil B with slightly different characteristics, which turns into Fossil C with slightly different characteristics, which turns into Fossil D with another slight difference in characteristics. It makes sense then that Fossil D will be drastically different from Fossil A in several ways, due to genetic drift, inherited traits, etc.

I have no idea how this does not make sense.


I am talking about motion not steps or frames but motion. Fossil 1 is no different to fossil 2, as we are not different to people 40 years ago, no different. Well doesn't there come a time where we are different looking according to evolution? But if the next fossils is no different, what makes you think that fossil 2974 will be different from fossil 1? Because of time?

If evolution was true fossil number 1 would not be any different from fossil number 2, 3, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 300, 700, 1000 etc... Since if evolution was true, fossil number 1 would be different to fossil number two, not by much but it would be different. Evolution says, that our generation or the next born person will be better than the person who was born eariler, only though by a tiny bit. But we are more better that those who were alive 2000 years ago. It's alittle racist in that respects. So anyway, if this motion audio does not occur like it does in what we can witness, that it is not true, right? Because I am witnessing the motion of a creature turning into a completely different creature, but when I look at a cat it does not change or are we speeding up time here. Because apparently now, creatures do not give birth, well not according to a fast forward piece of motion footage which these evolutionists has merged together.

And if you have not watched Walking with Monsters, go and watch it, you will know what I mean, infact here is a clip of what I mean... It's actually apart of the creatures ability almost, like that is what the creature does. Silly theory, interesting series.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2009 7:17:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/19/2009 7:10:36 PM, GodSands wrote:
I am talking about motion not steps or frames but motion. Fossil 1 is no different to fossil 2, as we are not different to people 40 years ago, no different. Well doesn't there come a time where we are different looking according to evolution? But if the next fossils is no different, what makes you think that fossil 2974 will be different from fossil 1? Because of time?

Where is this proof that the fossils look no different? Your entire theory hinges on this, yet you offer no proof.

And yes, we are different to people than 40 years ago, very different.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2009 7:23:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
: At 8/19/2009 7:17:17 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/19/2009 7:10:36 PM, GodSands wrote:
I am talking about motion not steps or frames but motion. Fossil 1 is no different to fossil 2, as we are not different to people 40 years ago, no different. Well doesn't there come a time where we are different looking according to evolution? But if the next fossils is no different, what makes you think that fossil 2974 will be different from fossil 1? Because of time?

Where is this proof that the fossils look no different? Your entire theory hinges on this, yet you offer no proof.

And yes, we are different to people than 40 years ago, very different.


Get me two human fossils and I bet on my life, that one will not look any less human than the other. Thats my proof!
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2009 7:32:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/19/2009 7:23:18 PM, GodSands wrote:
Get me two human fossils and I bet on my life, that one will not look any less human than the other. Thats my proof!

http://www.bbc.co.uk...
patsox834
Posts: 406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2009 7:37:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/19/2009 7:32:53 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/19/2009 7:23:18 PM, GodSands wrote:
Get me two human fossils and I bet on my life, that one will not look any less human than the other. Thats my proof!

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

I wouldn't expect a reply, Volkov, because GodSands just lost his little bet.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2009 7:47:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/19/2009 7:37:55 PM, patsox834 wrote:
At 8/19/2009 7:32:53 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/19/2009 7:23:18 PM, GodSands wrote:
Get me two human fossils and I bet on my life, that one will not look any less human than the other. Thats my proof!

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

I wouldn't expect a reply, Volkov, because GodSands just lost his little bet.

There isn't any way you can honestly believe those two skulls, one from a Neandertal found in the fossil record, the other from, well I don't know where but based off of our own skulls, and say they're the same. So I agree patsox, except this kind of definitive answer doesn't seem to discourage ignorance at all, and I'm willing to take bets on what kind of answer GS comes up with; will it be the easy Elephant Man solution, or will he go a route never seen before?
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 11:52:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
: At 8/19/2009 7:47:57 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/19/2009 7:37:55 PM, patsox834 wrote:
At 8/19/2009 7:32:53 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/19/2009 7:23:18 PM, GodSands wrote:
Get me two human fossils and I bet on my life, that one will not look any less human than the other. Thats my proof!

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

I wouldn't expect a reply, Volkov, because GodSands just lost his little bet.

There isn't any way you can honestly believe those two skulls, one from a Neandertal found in the fossil record, the other from, well I don't know where but based off of our own skulls, and say they're the same. So I agree patsox, except this kind of definitive answer doesn't seem to discourage ignorance at all, and I'm willing to take bets on what kind of answer GS comes up with; will it be the easy Elephant Man solution, or will he go a route never seen before?


Is the neanderthal man a type of human? Yes. And the other skull was a homosadian skull. The neanderthal man is basiclly a digraded speices of the Niphilim, they grew from 6ft tall to 36ft tall. You really thought that you could smoothly post a single link and think it was all over with.

However here is a quote, ""The creationists in those days [the 1860's] responded 'Now wait a minute. Neanderthals are just plain people, some of whom suffered bone disease'"
"Nowadays, evolutionists agree with creationists: Neanderthals were just plain people, no more different from people living today than people than one living nation is different from another." Parker in (Morris and Parker 1982).

"Nowadays, Neanderthal Man is classified as Homo sapiens, completely human" (Huse 1983)."

So really the Neanderthal Man is just as human as us humans. Probably because over a number of 1000 years, our DNA and the Nephilims DNA were within each, Nephilim and humans having sexual relations as the Bible says, and thus over time you get your self a unatractive human, with a strong facial bone out line. This is my reasoning anyway.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 11:59:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/20/2009 11:52:57 AM, GodSands wrote:
The neanderthal man is basiclly a digraded speices of the Niphilim, they grew from 6ft tall to 36ft tall. You really thought that you could smoothly post a single link and think it was all over with.

This is why it is pointless to argue science with Godsands.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 1:28:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
: At 8/20/2009 12:08:31 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
http://www.popsci.com...

And there is no way we evolved from a 36ft creature in less than 6000 years


Good golly man, are you having a laugh? These 36ft giants were that size to begin with. Nothing, not even machinary has evolved in a macro scale. Ideas appear from other ideas, but the other ideas are improved them selfs, same with animals of all sorts. God created creature like this, but God knew what He would create in the Beginning. It really isn't difficult to grasp.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 1:32:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/20/2009 1:28:17 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 8/20/2009 12:08:31 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
http://www.popsci.com...

And there is no way we evolved from a 36ft creature in less than 6000 years


Good golly man, are you having a laugh? These 36ft giants were that size to begin with. Nothing, not even machinary has evolved in a macro scale. Ideas appear from other ideas, but the other ideas are improved them selfs, same with animals of all sorts. God created creature like this, but God knew what He would create in the Beginning. It really isn't difficult to grasp.

So, Adam was 36ft tall?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 1:41:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
: At 8/20/2009 1:32:16 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/20/2009 1:28:17 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 8/20/2009 12:08:31 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
http://www.popsci.com...

And there is no way we evolved from a 36ft creature in less than 6000 years


Good golly man, are you having a laugh? These 36ft giants were that size to begin with. Nothing, not even machinary has evolved in a macro scale. Ideas appear from other ideas, but the other ideas are improved them selfs, same with animals of all sorts. God created creature like this, but God knew what He would create in the Beginning. It really isn't difficult to grasp.

So, Adam was 36ft tall?


No, but Adam was probbaly around 7-8 ft (guess, I would like to have thought so), these 36ft giants were are still are fallen angels, they aren't human, although they can breed with humans.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 1:45:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Goes back to the orginal question Volka; give me two fossils of a cat (any type of cat be it lion, leapod or whatever) and point out which one is less of a cat than the other. That would be great if you could, and also proof for evolution, a doube bonus.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 1:45:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I am a Panda, you are missing the essential absurdity of his position. It is not that we evolved from 36 foot tall neanderthals. He is claiming that neanderthals were not neanderthals, but 36 foot tall nephilims. This is a biblical reference. He is claiming that neanderthals are actually 36 ft. tall biblical characters.

This, of course, ignores that neanderthals were no where near 36 feet tall.

This is just one more example of Godsands taking something that has scientific credibility, then applying it to something theistic in an attempt to make theism scientifically credible. In reality, he makes it less credible.
patsox834
Posts: 406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 1:52:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
My great grandfather was 30 feet tall. No kidding.

What's weird about that, though, is that my great grandmother was only a little about 6 feet tall. Freaky.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 1:54:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/20/2009 1:45:00 PM, GodSands wrote:
Goes back to the orginal question Volka; give me two fossils of a cat (any type of cat be it lion, leapod or whatever) and point out which one is less of a cat than the other. That would be great if you could, and also proof for evolution, a doube bonus.

Gladly:

This is a Hyracotherium, which is an early version of a horse:
http://planet.uwc.ac.za...
Here is Hyracotherium's skull:
http://media.photobucket.com...

Here is the skull of a modern horse, notice the stark difference:
http://www.azdrybones.com...

You can see some phases the horse went through from the first one above to the modern version here:
http://chem.tufts.edu...
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 2:04:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/20/2009 1:54:58 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/20/2009 1:45:00 PM, GodSands wrote:
Goes back to the orginal question Volka; give me two fossils of a cat (any type of cat be it lion, leapod or whatever) and point out which one is less of a cat than the other. That would be great if you could, and also proof for evolution, a doube bonus.

Here are some other good pictures with easy comparisons:

Lined up here are early versions of the horse:
http://facstaff.gpc.edu...
Pliohippus (10 million years ago), Merychippus (25 mya), Mesohippus (40 mya),
Hyracotherium (55 mya).

Here is Merychippus 40 million years ago:
http://facstaff.gpc.edu...

Here is Merychippus 25 million years ago:
http://facstaff.gpc.edu...

Notice the differences in structure as well as size.

Humans:
Here is Homo Erectus (right) next to Homo sapien (left). Both early versions of humans. Also pictured is a neanderthal skull (middle), not a precursor to modern humans:
http://facstaff.gpc.edu...
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 2:04:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
: At 8/20/2009 1:52:51 PM, patsox834 wrote:
My great grandfather was 30 feet tall. No kidding.

What's weird about that, though, is that my great grandmother was only a little about 6 feet tall. Freaky.


Do not ignore my question by typing a bunch of yap. Anyhow I will clear it up. The Nephilm were tall fallen angels which God created. The Neandithal is only called that because they are roughly the same size as us. However one brave woman stepped in first and had sexual relations which a gaint (the giants actually went in first). And if you have a normal sized woman with a 36ft giant having sex, the offspring would be smaller than the father but much larger than the mother. Such legends came about like Hercules and his half brother Dionysus were the off spring to such action while Zues the father, who was probably a direct fallen angel seen as a god to the Greeks.

Anyway please answer my question.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 2:08:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
: At 8/20/2009 2:04:49 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/20/2009 1:54:58 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/20/2009 1:45:00 PM, GodSands wrote:
Goes back to the orginal question Volka; give me two fossils of a cat (any type of cat be it lion, leapod or whatever) and point out which one is less of a cat than the other. That would be great if you could, and also proof for evolution, a doube bonus.

Here are some other good pictures with easy comparisons:

Lined up here are early versions of the horse:
http://facstaff.gpc.edu...
Pliohippus (10 million years ago), Merychippus (25 mya), Mesohippus (40 mya),
Hyracotherium (55 mya).

Here is Merychippus 40 million years ago:
http://facstaff.gpc.edu...

Here is Merychippus 25 million years ago:
http://facstaff.gpc.edu...

Notice the differences in structure as well as size.

Humans:
Here is Homo Erectus (right) next to Homo sapien (left). Both early versions of humans. Also pictured is a neanderthal skull (middle), not a precursor to modern humans:
http://facstaff.gpc.edu...


So ok, you have posted some pictures of some horses, now which horse is less of a horse or more of a horse than the others?
patsox834
Posts: 406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 2:10:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/20/2009 2:04:49 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 8/20/2009 1:52:51 PM, patsox834 wrote:
My great grandfather was 30 feet tall. No kidding.

What's weird about that, though, is that my great grandmother was only a little about 6 feet tall. Freaky.


Do not ignore my question by typing a bunch of yap.

It's true. My relatives were that tall. You must stop ignoring truth, GodSands. If you don't embrace the take of my freakishly massive relatives, then you're rejecting truth.
patsox834
Posts: 406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 2:10:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/20/2009 2:08:23 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 8/20/2009 2:04:49 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/20/2009 1:54:58 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/20/2009 1:45:00 PM, GodSands wrote:
Goes back to the orginal question Volka; give me two fossils of a cat (any type of cat be it lion, leapod or whatever) and point out which one is less of a cat than the other. That would be great if you could, and also proof for evolution, a doube bonus.

Here are some other good pictures with easy comparisons:

Lined up here are early versions of the horse:
http://facstaff.gpc.edu...
Pliohippus (10 million years ago), Merychippus (25 mya), Mesohippus (40 mya),
Hyracotherium (55 mya).

Here is Merychippus 40 million years ago:
http://facstaff.gpc.edu...

Here is Merychippus 25 million years ago:
http://facstaff.gpc.edu...

Notice the differences in structure as well as size.

Humans:
Here is Homo Erectus (right) next to Homo sapien (left). Both early versions of humans. Also pictured is a neanderthal skull (middle), not a precursor to modern humans:
http://facstaff.gpc.edu...


So ok, you have posted some pictures of some horses, now which horse is less of a horse or more of a horse than the others?

A horse is a horse, of course of course.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 2:11:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/20/2009 2:08:23 PM, GodSands wrote:
So ok, you have posted some pictures of some horses, now which horse is less of a horse or more of a horse than the others?

By your questioning, all of them are less horse than the modern horse (though, such terminology isn't really useful). They are "less" horse because they do not have all of the same structure and attributes.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 2:22:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
: At 8/20/2009 2:14:01 PM, JBlake wrote:
I guess an easier way to put it is that the earlier versions were not horses at all. But their decendants are horses.

Ok so out of the horse you posted which horse is more of a horse than the rest or the one which is less of a horse? Remember science is not opinionated. By saying the mordern horse is more of a horse is opinionated, not factual. So what more of a horse could you get, you cannot say, "This one is more of a horse than this one over here." They are all as horse like as each other. Because if you think that, you will be getting into the mordern day horses, which of the mordern day horse is more or less or a horse.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2009 2:27:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
: At 8/20/2009 2:14:01 PM, JBlake wrote:
I guess an easier way to put it is that the earlier versions were not horses at all. But their decendants are horses.

And if the eariler versions were not horses, then they are not versions of horses. I am not at all getting what you are saying. Big logical gap there.