EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Jose Fly]

Eselam,

Unfortunately, it appears you have chosen to ignore my posts to you. I've posted the following three times now, and you have yet to respond to it. If you ignore things like this, there's not much anyone can do to help you....

Even though you've already been provided several examples of "transitional fossils", I think a little background might be necessary before we dive too deep into the data.

First, understand that if you are truly interested in examining specific fossil series, you're going to have to do some work. By that, I mean you're going to have to read a lot and understand some basic terminology. Paleontology is a very technical field of science, with its own jargon and such. In order to get a grasp of even the basics, you need to familiarize yourself with some of it. Of course if you're not really interested and instead are just trying to "stump the evolutionists" then you should be honest and tell us now and avoid a lot of wasted time.

Also, I've found that before we get into specific fossil specimens, it's a good idea to have a mutual understanding of what we're talking about when we say "transitional fossil". If we don't, we end up going in circles. You mentioned the transition from reptiles to birds, so we'll start there. Would you agree that if birds descended from reptiles, then we should find fossil specimens that show a mixture of reptilian and avian (bird) traits?

That should be a good enough start.

 

[camanintx]

nice try, but that does not work with me. how do you know that we will turn into someething else in the future? you don't, thats why for the present time (which is now) we say that evolution has seized taking place due to us not noticing the changes (if that were true anyway).

You don't seriously think that your children are exactly the same as you, do you?

6,000 years ago just about every human being was lactose intolerant. Today, lactose tolerance is spreading out of northern Europe where it started (90% of Danes and Swedes are lactose tolerant compared to 50% of Spanish and French or 1% of Chinese) and will eventually become a predominant trait among humans. Evolution is happening right in front of your eyes if you would just open them.

 

[painted wolf]

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

Just that it seems that some people when shown evidence find ways of changing what they will accept as evidence. It can get very frustrating.

for instance... "there are no transitional forms"
I show an image of a transitional form...
"that doesn't count because of _____." (usually because it doesn't look like what they want it to look like.)
or...
"No one has ever seen _____."
give a list of people or times ____ has been seen, in nature and in controlled lab conditions.
"That doesn't count because of _____." (Well, I've never seen it.... they were lying... )

they are drawings. not fossils?

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

Sorry I used an illustration because it was a little more straitforward than photos... and it was only meant to make a quick point... (that they would be dismissed for some reason...)
Here are photos
Maiacetus

Dorudon

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

oh come on man, how old are you?

What does that have to do with anything?

is there something important that you wish to say, or do i have to waste my time with questions like this?

Is this your way of saying you have no good response? It's OK, I already knew that. I just think it's funny. Nice try, at least.

 

[Gharib]

Eselam,

Unfortunately, it appears you have chosen to ignore my posts to you. I've posted the following three times now, and you have yet to respond to it. If you ignore things like this, there's not much anyone can do to help you....

isn't this becomeing old already?

sorry friend i do remember reading it twice, but never read it to the end. ok i am replying to this now.

Even though you've already been provided several examples of "transitional fossils", I think a little background might be necessary before we dive too deep into the data.

yes the background is on wiki. unless you have a better site about this kind of stuff.

First, understand that if you are truly interested in examining specific fossil series, you're going to have to do some work. By that, I mean you're going to have to read a lot and understand some basic terminology. Paleontology is a very technical field of science, with its own jargon and such. In order to get a grasp of even the basics, you need to familiarize yourself with some of it. Of course if you're not really interested and instead are just trying to "stump the evolutionists" then you should be honest and tell us now and avoid a lot of wasted time.

i am studying the "evidence" provided to me. ask Autodicat on how well i analysed and studied one of her examples, the tiktalik i believe it was.

Also, I've found that before we get into specific fossil specimens, it's a good idea to have a mutual understanding of what we're talking about when we say "transitional fossil". If we don't, we end up going in circles. You mentioned the transition from reptiles to birds, so we'll start there. Would you agree that if birds descended from reptiles, then we should find fossil specimens that show a mixture of reptilian and avian (bird) traits?

yes i would agree, but the specimen or creature must fit the profile, don't just give me some chicken thats got teeth and call it a transitional form.

and since i mentioned chicken, a chicken is a transitional link between which animals? i keep wondering about this?

That should be a good enough start.

i totally agree. and i recon we should focus on one example rather than all at the same time, since you mentioned the reptile-bird example then we should start of with that, a new begining that didn't evolve OK.

sorry for the late response.

 

[Gharib]

What does that have to do with anything?

it doesn't.

Is this your way of saying you have no good response? It's OK, I already knew that. I just think it's funny. Nice try, at least.

ok you know what, you can believe that.

i will get back to you, but not now.

 

[Buttons*]

thats talking about humans, not animals. well i think both verses are.
no it doesn't speak of a particular group or civilisation, it is general.

So if these verses only apply to human civilizations, why are you using them to try and prove that God made fossils and buried them?

but thats gods' doing, he can create anything he wants, why are you limting his powers i don't understand this? god can create anything he wants, so why would it be hard to accept that god created animals that are similar to some others but didn't come to be in the way evolution says so?

I'm not limiting his powers that I know of... I don't pretend to speak for something or someone I don't understand. I can't claim that everything is God's doing... because I don't have any proof of it. Not only that, but I don't know the God you know... and it would be very hard for me to speak for your God and not feel ashamed and wrong.

So you think that God created these other animals that look similar to creatures we have today... and then he decided to let them die? Did he kill them off? I'm sure that God could have done it, but I mean to say that to me, evolution seems to make more sense.

not really. they would have to explain it to make it more effective. i don't need a scientist to tell me that god created all the creatures in an instant, i already believe that, but i would want to know what came first or what came second, and whats what and whats not.

If some evolutionists can fill in the gaps here, would you accept what they have to say?

no actually we would. in the quran, Allah (swt) already mentiones the following fields of science:
(note: i'm not good with these terms so i may end up getting some wrong)

biology, astronomy, weather study, geology, marine biology, and maybe a few more.

we are encouraged to find things, science is part of islam, it has come out of islam to be more specific, there are things that are unexplainable, and thats where god comes in.

I want to ask you just one more thing about this specific topic. Do you believe or understand things that have not been mentioned in the Qur'an but are part of our lives? For instance, physics, astrophysics, nuclear physics...etc.

exactly my point, but some evolutionist who do not believe in god, assert that life came about by chance and evolution started afterwards. trying so badly to not give credit or to prove that god is not the source of all things.

But if they don't "see" God when they look at all these fossils and evidences... why would we expect them to give credit to God? Like, if someone is a Christian, they don't believe that the Earth is as old as Geographers say it is. However, there is some hard evidence that the Earth is extremely old - much older than about 2,000 years. It would be hard for the person believing in the absolute truth of God to try and explain why God doesn't mention the "real" age of the Earth.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

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

Well at least I do. He is an idiot and a criminal.

 

[Gharib]

Well at least I do. He is an idiot and a criminal.

sure. ok

 

[Gharib]

i'll get to the rest of the posts tomorrow. so be patient ok.

 

[YmirGF]

sure. ok

Eselam, please understand that using Harun Yahya as a source for your information does not do your case any good. Mr. Oktar has no scientific credentials whatsoever. The man IS a convicted criminal in his native country of Turkey. Did you read the interview I posted between Harun Yahya/Adnan Oktar and Der Spiegel? It is clear, the man is obviously a lunatic.

 

[painted wolf]

I actually read his book (or should I call it a tome as it was huge) Atlas of Creation... It took quite a while to get through.

I wont call him an idiot... but he makes the same fundamental mistakes when he thinks of evolution. The ladder of progression, the idea that a transitional form is a chimera... what a mutation can and can't do...

He also did a very poor job of picking his images... many do show evidence of change (especially the leaves of trees)... he has a sea snake labeled as an eel.... he has fishing lures labeled as living insects!
Also the dates that he gives some of the fossils are way way off.... some by tens of millions of years or more.

So again... not an idiot... but I think he has some mistaken ideas and he wasn't as careful as he should be in trying to support them... This is why I see him as a poor source when making a case.

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

Eselam,

i am studying the "evidence" provided to me.

My point is, you are going to have to do a lot of studying to truly appreciate the depth of the evidence. If you are willing to do so, then we shouldn't have any problems.

Yes i would agree, but the specimen or creature must fit the profile, don't just give me some chicken thats got teeth and call it a transitional form

Ok, we both agree that if birds evolved from reptiles, we would expect to find fossil specimens that show a mixture of reptilian and avian features.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fit the profile". Can you explain further?

 

[Gharib]

Eselam, please understand that using Harun Yahya as a source for your information does not do your case any good.

heard that before, i see it's becoming a classic.

if it did me no good, then great news for you, right?

Mr. Oktar has no scientific credentials whatsoever.

i can agree to that, to an extent, thats why he is ussing statements of western scientists, in his books, not just his own words.

The man IS a convicted criminal in his native country of Turkey. Did you read the interview I posted between Harun Yahya/Adnan Oktar and Der Spiegel? It is clear, the man is obviously a lunatic.

yes he is a lunatic to you, you being an atheist (or something else that does not accept god) and him being a muslim, there is a rather big reason fo you to say that.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I doubt that you are even willing to listen but at least I tried. He was a very popular muslim once as long as he spent his time writing that pseudo-science-ideological rubbish about evolution, creation and miracles. And obviously with a lot of folks like you he still is... I ripped him apart some 8 years ago when commenting his "Evolution deceit" book. Anyway.. Enough scholars don't even take him as a muslim anymore. Not since he told others that they should only pray three times a day. Not since he told women to stop wearing a veil.

yes he is a lunatic to you, you being an atheist (or something else that does not accept god) and him being a muslim, there is a rather big reason fo you to say that.

You seem a very prejudiced person. Even to the extend of ignoring obvious and verifiable evidence just because someone who tells you about them is an "atheist".

 

[YmirGF]

heard that before, i see it's becoming a classic.

if it did me no good, then great news for you, right?

I don't need the help, thanks, Eselam. You and your arguments are the ones in need of help. What I am trying to tell you is that using the writing of a convicted felon isn't probably the wisest move.

i can agree to that, to an extent, thats why he is ussing statements of western scientists, in his books, not just his own words.

Eselam, I could quote you extensively and create an article that meant nothing like what your original quotes implied. Surely you can see the credibility problem of a non-scientist trying to discredit scientific ideas. The man isn't qualified to render an opinion. Frankly I think he should be charged with Crimes against humanity for giving people like yourself the wrong idea about evolution. His "work" is nothing sort of willful deception. To think that his "work" is well financed is disturbing.

yes he is a lunatic to you, you being an atheist (or something else that does not accept god)

I am an atheist in the sense that I do not accept your primitive concept of God, Eselam. I would be lying if I said I believed in any version of the Abrahamic God. I don't. That does not mean that I don't believe in a god concept that would be quite impossible for you to understand given your current mindset.

and him being a muslim, there is a rather big reason fo you to say that.

His being a Muslim has little to do with anything, Eselam. It is simply inconvenient for you and other Muslims that the mischief maker known as Adnan Oktar is a Muslim. I'd speak out against him if he was a Christian, a Jew or a Democrat for all the difference it makes.

 

[DarkSun]

yes he is a lunatic to you, you being an atheist (or something else that does not accept god) and him being a muslim, there is a rather big reason fo you to say that.

Belief or disbelief in God have nothing to do with this situation. The man is a lunatic , he is a criminal and he has a poor grasp of the theory he is against. Those are the facts.

 

[Gharib]

Yes, and that's exactly what we observe. 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.

this really caught my attention.

how many creatures are there to support the theory that dinosaurs turned into birds?

can you post some of them, i only know of the archaeopteryx. can you post some more and i have some questions afterwards.

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

so then scientists don't have a variety of creatures, they just use one example or fossil and make it fill that very wide gap inbetween 2 very different species. and your previous statement supports this claim of mine.
you said;

Yes, and that's exactly what we observe. 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.

if it doesn't explain how it doesn't.

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

:yes:

is it the creationists that are lying or the evolutionists? i can't get my head around that.

 

[Gharib]

and can we not talk about Harun Yahya. where i get my information or references is up to me. why do you guys have a problem with that?
if harun yahya was a liar then i believe i have also called evolutionists (the scientists) liars, so why are you guys using them as references?

 

[Gharib]

[/b]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.

oh it really is, if you accept that, then you are a creationist.

i thought there were fossils that supported every change and there were many transitional creatures that changed gradually? where'd they go?

so far i have come to understand that when something unexpected comes out that cannot be dissproven by evolutionists, they tend to accpet it but change it. darwin himself stated that there should be plenty of transitionla forms present, and yet evolutionists have changed that and are now saying that things just went "poof" and changed imediately to something else. i must say they are a peice of work those scientists, but too bad the rest of us can't see that. because as far as i know evolution means gradual changes, not "magic poofing". a lie or a cover up, does not get any clearer than that.

Couple of questions:

1. Who are you plagiarizing? Stealing other people's work without crediting them is dishonest, immoral, and against forum rules.

i am crediting them, i am using harun yahyas work. this is probably the 6'th time i've said it by now.

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.

so you are saying that harun yahya is not against evolution, but i am making it look like that?

(i know what you are talking about, you can think that if you wish, he is using their words, not making them up and saying this person said it)

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.

you are so proving me to be right.

you said to me that evolution is not in contradiction with god right?

as far as i know, evolution is in total contradiction with god. but since evolutionists can't dissprove the beiliefs of many people and god himself, (they do very well know that god exists) it is being said that evolution is not in cotradiction with god.

in europe you know what scientists are trying to prove with the electron-positron collision right? now if that ends up being successfull (which i think will be a miserable failure) then i bet you that evolutionists will support the atheistic belief of life coming about by chance and not by god who then set everything in motion.

if you think that i am wrong about scientist changing their theory so that it has no contradiction with reality, then please show me where darwin himself said that evolution supports a god creator? ( a statement made by darwin to support your claims that evolution is ok with a god creator)

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.

oh so you are saying this:

we have the following numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and are selecting them at random from a box. so then
1+[ ]=2
and if that second number ends up being a 9 then we just change the expected outcome to what it actually adds up.

thats what you are saying right? cos to me it looks like you are saying that