EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[painted wolf]

The definition of "evidence" keeps changing.

wa:do

 

[Gharib]

The definition of "evidence" keeps changing.

wa:do

in what way, or what do you mean by that?

 

[DarkSun]

They expect a crocoduck.... which is silly because such a chimera would disprove evolution.

But they will ignore these...

(a-b) Dorudon (c-d) Maiacetus

wa:do

That's one of the transition links that PW has pointed out. I'll put more in my next post. Sorry. My computer is really slow.

 

[Gharib]

That's one of the transition links that PW has pointed out. I'll put more in my bext post. Sorry. My computer is really slow.

they are drawings. not fossils?

thats someones imagination, do you know the difference between real and imagination?

 

[DarkSun]

they are drawings. not fossils?

thats someones imagination, do you know the difference between real and imagination?

Well, I shall post some photos for you soon, when photobucket is done uploading them.

But I suppose even after I do that, you'll say that the photos were fake, right?

Tell me... Have you ever been to a museum?

 

[Gharib]

Well, I shall post some photos for you soon, when photobucket is done uploading them.

But I suppose even after I do that, you'll say that the photos were fake, right?

Tell me... Have you ever been to a museum?

how many times will this question be asked?

yes i have been to a museum many times.

if the fotos are of real creatures then i would be dumb to say they are fake.

 

[DarkSun]

how many times will this question be asked?

yes i have been to a museum many times.

if the fotos are of real creatures then i would be dumb to say they are fake.

They're of real fossils.

The reason that the question is being asked is because some museums will have fossils of extinct species. I think a fossil of an ascendant of humans has been posted in this thread.

It was a real photo of a real fossil looked at through a museum window.

Anyway, I've just taken my notes from university and put them onto a computer, screencapped what they say about lines of evidence for evolution, uploaded them onto photobucket and displayed them here.

That shows a transition specimen between a dinosaur and a bird.

That shows how arthropods have changed over time. This was found out by digging deep into the earth and taking fossils out from certain depths. The fossils deeper down were older than the ones higher up, for obvious reasons. What they found with the fossils as time progresses, is that the arthropods changed in appearance over the millenia.

I'll upload some photos which list some homologies in my next post. It'll take just as long to upload, so please be patient.

 

[Gharib]

They're of real fossils.

The reason that the question is being asked is because some museums will have fossils of extinct species. I think a fossil of an ascendant of humans has been posted in this thread.

It was a real photo of a real fossil looked at through a museum window.

Anyway, I've just taken my notes from university and put them onto a computer, screencapped what they say about lines of evidence for evolution, uploaded them onto photobucket and displayed them here.

That shows a transition specimen between a dinosaur and a bird.

That shows how arthropods have changed over time. This was found out by digging deep into the earth and taking fossils out from certain depths. The fossils deeper down were older than the ones higher up, for obvious reasons. What they found with the fossils as time progresses, is that the arthropods changed in appearance over the millenia.

I'll upload some photos which list some homologies in my next post. It'll take just as long to upload, so please be patient.

wow wow take it easy, not all of them for one night. i'm going to bed in about 10-15 mins.

 

[DarkSun]

wow wow take it easy, not all of them for one night. i'm going to bed in about 10-15 mins.

Well, here are some of the homologies I was talking about:

Sleep well. I should go to bed soon, too, hey? It's almost 1am here.

 

[YmirGF]

OH THE REFERENCE IS FROM HARUN YAHYA. WE ALL KNOW WHO HE IS.

That is the problem here, Eselam. You are using the "work" of a non-scientist to explain science. You must try to appreciate that Harun Yahya (aka Adnan Oktar) has NO CREDIBILITY whatsoever. Here is what one famous, highly respected, scientist has to say about Harun Yahya.

[UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya


Given the nature of Dawkins' critique of the "work" of Harun Yahya, why is it that you feel that we need to tell you what is wrong with his unscientific, poorly researched, Saudi bankrolled, ignorant "thesis"?

Frankly speaking, given his popularity in Muslim countries, Adnan Oktar should be tried for crimes against humanity for reinforcing the ignorance of a people who really need far better instruction and guidance.

Der Spiegel Interview with Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya) - Aug. 23, 2008

Frankly, Eselam, after reading this interview in the HIGHLY RESPECTED "Der Spiegal" one can easily see what kind of a nut Adnan Oktar really is.

 

[Autodidact]

let me ask you something, is it possible for the ancestor to co-exist with it's descendant? an example would be the Archaeopteryx to co-exist with modern birds?

is that or is that not possible?

Yes.

so you are saying that a water creature, "evolved" into a land creature, to later change back to a dolphin? does that sound kind of weird, or is it just me?

I don't know. Most of reality is incredibly weird, and there's no reason why it should conform to our tiny window on it. I mean, quantum mechanics is about as weird as a thing could be, but the physicists tell me it's for real.

and from what animal did the dolphin "evolve" from, i know whales "evolved" from bears, so what about the dolphin?

Dolphins are very closely related to whales. Both descended from the same land-dwelling mammal; their evolution diverged from a common water-living ancestor. More here.

so? is that soposed to mean anything? i'd say it's no more than a lucky blind guess.

You'd be wrong. Think about it for a moment. They could look anywhere on earth. Out of the entire planet they choose one spot and boldly predict it will be worth the money and time (over two years) to dig there and only there. And they're right. Could you do it? Can your "theory" do that?

so what about a crocodile having a wrist bone? how can that be?

Because crocodiles have evolved to live in a similar environment to Tiktaalik, so have evovled similar structures.

]and this is coming from somone who knows nothing about paleontology right?

Not nothing. Obviously I know a ton more than you do. I just don't know much--I'm not a paleontologist.

 

[Autodidact]

i believe i have read many times in many posts that i do not provide evidence on my side that refutes evolution, and since i already dissproved 2 examples put forward by Autodidact, but was not accepted

No, you didn't. In fact, you utterly failed to do so.

then i think i should start putting forward my facts and evidences that say "evolution is nonsense" and if anyone of you dissproves them, then i will accept that.

Sounds good.

Remember, it's not about proof, it's about evidence. ($1, please.)

 

[Autodidact]

The Fossil Record
Refutes Evolution

Baloney
​

　

According to the theory of evolution, every living species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.

Correct.

If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring.

Yes, and that's exactly what we observe.

For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had.

Almost. We would see in the past a gradual shading from one ancestor to its descendant, that is, various shades of gray. We should not expect to see a creature that's half fish and half reptile (half black and half white) but one that has features between the two. And lo, that is exactly what we see.

Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed.

That's right, creatures like this:

and this:

and this:

and this:

We believe their ancestors looked something like this:

Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms".
If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record.

Yup. That's what those pictures are.

The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world.

No, this is mistaken. Fossils are very rare. We're lucky to find them at all.

In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:
If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.

That's right. Another bold prediction fulfilled. Darwin predicted we would find these fossils, and we have. That's what I've given you pictures of.

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms.

At the time he wrote.

He hoped that they would be found in the future.

And he was right.

Despite his optimism, he realised that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties of the Theory":
…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.

But no longer does, because we do. Remember, Darwin was writing over 100 years ago, before we found all these neat fossils.

The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found.

And he was right.

Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionist paleontologists have been digging up fossils and searching for missing links all over the world since the middle of the 19th century. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered.

Sorry, you've been misinformed. In fact we have literally thousands of them. The world's museums are full of them.

All the fossils unearthed in excavations have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.

This is exactly what they don't show. Every fossil ever found has fit right in the scheme that ToE predicts, a nested hierarchy of life, with each and every one being intermediate between at least two others.

Trying to prove their theory, evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.

Baloney. Have you been listening to those lying creationists again?

 

[Autodidact]

....CONTINUED

A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.

Yes, this is called punctuated equilibrium and turns out to be the way that new species tend to emerge. This is the current, most accepted model of the ToE today. If you accept this model, you accept ToE, which is what Ager, Czarnecki and others are explicating.Punctuated equilibrium is nothing like sudden creation.

Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:
A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.
These gaps in the fossil record cannot be explained by saying that sufficient fossils have not yet been found, but that they one day will be. Another American scholar, Robert Wesson, states in his 1991 book Beyond Natural Selection, that "the gaps in the fossil record are real and meaningful". He elaborates this claim in this way:
The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.

Couple of questions:

1. Who are you plagiarizing? Stealing other people's work without crediting them is dishonest, immoral, and against forum rules.
2. Do you know what the term "quote-mining" means? It's a special type of lie. Creationists revel in it. What it means is taking a portion of someone's quote and using it to attempt to portray the opposite of what they're saying.

Since you don't understand ToE, you also don't understand that what these scientists are promoting is the modern version of ToE, called "punctuated equilibrium." It has nothing to do with and is nothing like sudden creation, and all of these scientists have objected vociferously to their work being lied about in this way.

When they say "sudden," they mean in geological terms, such as 50 million years. What they're saying is that it doesn't go: 1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9. It goes: 1.......23..4..5...678.........9. That's all. It doesn't help your position at all.

 

[Autodidact]

scientists make up a lie then discard that when they have a better one, and so on and so forth.

Just as I thought. You oppose science.

btw, not only is this false, it's not circular.

eselam: Does the scientific method work, or doesn't it? (hint, you're typing your answer on a computer.)

 

[Autodidact]

Life Emerged on Earth Suddenly and in Complex Forms
When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years.

Stop right there. You may find this hard, but actually take the time to comprehend and think about what you are posting. 500 million years. Do you have any idea how long that is? Can you even conceive of that kind of time? I can't. That's nothing like sudden creation, eselam. What you're describing is evolution. When creatures emerge over 50,000,000 (count the zeroes!) years, that's exactly what ToE describes. You're endorsing ToE.

 

[Autodidact]

Life Emerged on Earth Suddenly and in Complex Forms
When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years.
The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record-there are no pre-existing ancestors. The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.
Most of the creatures in this layer have complex systems have complex systems and advanced structures, such as eyes, gills, and circulatory systems, exactly the same as those in modern specimens. For instance, the double-lensed, combed eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of creation. David Raup, a professor of geology in Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says: "the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today".
These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely without having any link or any transitional form between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them.
Richard Monastersky, a science journalist at Science News, one of the popular publications of evolutionist literature, states the following about the "Cambrian Explosion", which is a deathtrap for evolutionary theory:
A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth's first complex creatures. ...the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian ...and they were as distinct from each other as they are today.
Deeper investigation into the Cambrian Explosion shows what a great dilemma it creates for the theory of evolution. Recent findings indicate that almost all phyla, the most basic animal divisions, emerged abruptly in the Cambrian period. An article published in Science magazine in 2001 says: "The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today".30 The same article notes that for such complex and distinct living groups to be explained according to the theory of evolution, very rich fossil beds showing a gradual developmental process should have been found, but this has not yet proved possible:
This differential evolution and dispersal, too, must have required a previous history of the group for which there is no fossil record.
How the earth came to overflow with such a great number of animal species all of a sudden, and how these distinct types of species with no common ancestors could have emerged, is a question that remains unanswered by evolutionists. The Oxford University zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in the world, comments on this reality that undermines the very foundation of all the arguments he has been defending:
For example the Cambrian strata of rocks... are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.
As Dawkins is forced to acknowledge, the Cambrian Explosion is strong evidence for creation, because creation is the only way to explain the fully-formed emergence of life on earth. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionist biologist admits this fact: "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." Darwin himself recognised the possibility of this when he wrote: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection." The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin's "fatal stroke". This is why the Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengtson, who confesses the lack of transitional links while describing the Cambrian Age, makes the following comment: "Baffling (and embarrasing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us".
Obviously, the fossil record indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to the advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden and in a perfect state. In short, living beings did not come into existence by evolution, they were created.

This is nothing but a pastiche of lies stitched together. Raup isn't saying that trilobites were designed! He's saying that evolution accounts for the appearance of design. They didn't emerge suddently, with no link to what came before them, that's just a lie. Here's a long article (that you won't read) about trilobite evolution. Trilobites descended from pre-Cambrian worms and basal arthropods.

The trilobite fossil record extends across some 300 million years. With the advent of mineralised hard parts, trilobites radiated rapidly and soon reached their peak clade diversity. They first appear in the Early Cambrian where the faunas are dominated by the orders Redlichiida and Agnostida.
At times, trilobite lineages exhibit rapid evolutionary change, the basis for many zonal schemes both local and wide-ranging.

from here. (see the way I only quoted a portion of the article, in context, and credited the source. That's the legal, honorable and forum-permissible way to do it.) We don't find anything first in "an advanced state of evolution." That's just a lie. Dawkins has never acknowledge that the Cambrina explosion is evidence for creation--another lie.

The Cambrian explosion isn't a deathtrap for ToE, it's a wonderful example of it. During the cambrina period, many new species evolved. Those exact transitional species that you deny exist. 50 million years is a long time. That's why evolutionary biologists are so interested in studying it. Futuyama is saying that if ToE were not true, then creatures would have to be designed. But it is true--that's his point.

Obviously, the fossil record contains an orderly progression of creatures from more primitive and ancient to more modern and complex. Every time. Every fossil. The fossil record is completely totally absolutely consistent with ToE, which is why all the people who study it, paleontologists, accept ToE. Do you think they're all idiots?

 

[Autodidact]

OH THE REFERENCE IS FROM HARUN YAHYA. WE ALL KNOW WHO HE IS.

I'm not very familiar with him--only come across him a couple of times. From your excerpts, apparently he's a well-known liar?

so scientists claiming that life came about by chance with a sudden "WHOOMPF" is not silly, right?

1. Evolution isn't about how life came about. 2. No one is asserting life came about by chance. 3. No one is asserting life came about with a sudden "Whoompf" but you. And yes, that would be silly.
How many errors can you fit into one short question?

 

[Autodidact]

just look at their dogmatic ways of trying so desperately to prove darwinism as being true.

Whose?

You understand that "nebraska man" was rejected by the scientific community, right? Unlike ToE, which survived the kind of scrutiny that caused this mistake to be found and eliminated so quickly?

It's not that scientists are perfect, it's that they use a system that uncovers and rejects their errors.

 

[YmirGF]

It's not that scientists are perfect, it's that they use a system that uncovers and rejects their errors.

Unlike religious claims, scientific claims follow a rigorous auto-correcting discipline. This concept would be foreign to the likes of Adnan Oktar/Haun Yahya and apparently to the Muslims on RF.