Science vs. Creationism

[carolinajazz]

I would like to see what explanation creationists would come up after watching this video on very interesting bird Hoatzin from S. America. Another living proof on evolution, another nail in coffin of creationism.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00bm2c7

...oh, so now were back to using that old "missing link" between birds and reptiles Archeopteryx....that strange birdlike creature the size of a crow....that once glided over an ancient Bavarian lake and was brought down by a "gust of wind" and drowned in the shallow waters below! This extinct genus is comprised of two fossilized bird-like creatures found in stratified rocks in Bavaria, Germany!

To simply call Archeopteryx another of the many UNUSUAL creatures, and place it in a special classification....has never occurred to evolutionists! Rather, it is seized upon by dumb-witty bird brains like AKMVP as a "connecting link" between birds and reptiles!

The fossil "record" concerning the hazy hypothesis that supposes birds came from reptiles is much like dozens of feet of missing film in a motion picture! Where are all the many hundreds of very different creatures which would have represented the intermediate stages of development?

And remember, IF these notions of evolution could possibly be true....these "intermediate" would be NOWHERE NEAR so well equipped to survive as the "fully developed" ones! That means that if it took only a "sharp gust" of wind to bring down Archeopteryx, his imaginary ancestors would have been falling out of the skies like BRICKS! And the fossil record would contain far more "intermediate" species that it does of the ones which were supposedly "better equipped" to survive! BUT THERE ARE NO "INTERMEDIATE" SPECIES!

That's why ornithologists and evolutionists have to admit that "strangely, few people would suspect that the closest living relatives of the birds are crocodiles"!

True!.....FEW PEOPLE would ever suspect such a strange thing......because all the combined powers of OBSERVATION, COMPARISON, DEDUCTION, REASON & LOGIC put together with the ACTUAL EVIDENCE prove otherwise!!!

 

[PearlWatson]

Better word would be convinced by it. I don't even need fossils to know the evolution is true. Live animals give me that proof daily.

If seeing is believing for you, you definitely don't KNOW that Darwinism is true.

You didn't see any of it happen. You simply have strong faith that it happened.

 

[PearlWatson]

Who says I want to believe in vestigial organs? They are established fact. Thus I KNOW about it and see it every day in front of my eyes.

You see the features and BELIEVE they are "vestigial."
I see the features and BELIEVE they are designed.

 

[carolinajazz]

And socialist and godless countries like Denmark, Finland Sweden and Norway left USA in dust when it comes to general quality of life.

https://lifestyle9.com/worlds-best-country-to-live-in-2013/10/

...yeah, great "quality" of life, alright!???

https://www.thelocal.se/20130605/48350

https://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=498

 

[PearlWatson]

Well communism was just a theory, it never happened in any country.

lolz

 

[MVP]

You see the features and BELIEVE they are "vestigial."
I see the features and BELIEVE they are designed.

So you see hind declaws in one dog and believe it is design and you see other dog with no hind declaws and believe it is designed as well? Ain't making sense to me at all my friend.

 

[MVP]

If seeing is believing for you, you definitely don't KNOW that Darwinism is true.

You didn't see any of it happen. You simply have strong faith that it happened.

I do not need faith to know it is happening. Antibiotics we used 20 years ago are not effective anymore. MRSA, MRSP and other infections are becoming more and more prevalent.
And getting 4 wisdom teeth pulled since they had no room in my jaw and were causing constant pain and gum infection was very unforgettable experience. If I had believed in designer I would have cursed at it very badly during that time.
Do you still have your " beautifully designed" wisdom teeth Pearl?

 

[MVP]

...oh, so now were back to using that old "missing link" between birds and reptiles Archeopteryx....that strange birdlike creature the size of a crow....that once glided over an ancient Bavarian lake and was brought down by a "gust of wind" and drowned in the shallow waters below! This extinct genus is comprised of two fossilized bird-like creatures found in stratified rocks in Bavaria, Germany!

To simply call Archeopteryx another of the many UNUSUAL creatures, and place it in a special classification....has never occurred to evolutionists! Rather, it is seized upon by dumb-witty bird brains like AKMVP as a "connecting link" between birds and reptiles!

The fossil "record" concerning the hazy hypothesis that supposes birds came from reptiles is much like dozens of feet of missing film in a motion picture! Where are all the many hundreds of very different creatures which would have represented the intermediate stages of development?

And remember, IF these notions of evolution could possibly be true....these "intermediate" would be NOWHERE NEAR so well equipped to survive as the "fully developed" ones! That means that if it took only a "sharp gust" of wind to bring down Archeopteryx, his imaginary ancestors would have been falling out of the skies like BRICKS! And the fossil record would contain far more "intermediate" species that it does of the ones which were supposedly "better equipped" to survive! BUT THERE ARE NO "INTERMEDIATE" SPECIES!

Are you really that dumb? Who was talking about Archaeopteryx you moron, you wasted all this time to write all that useless gibberish without even getting to the point I was making. And even if I want to talk about Archaeopteryx you can't deny that it had feathers. It was dinosaur with feathers. Since birds evolved from dinosaurs it is not difficult to see striking similarities to both dinosaurs and early birds.
I was making point about HOATZIN. Not fossil but living evidence of evolution. See video one more time.

 

[MVP]

Where are all the many hundreds of very different creatures which would have represented the intermediate stages of development?

And the fossil record would contain far more "intermediate" species that it does of the ones which were supposedly "better equipped" to survive! BUT THERE ARE NO "INTERMEDIATE" SPECIES!

Usually I just ignore blatant rubbish you posting but this time I feel a need to post facts.

There are numerous fossils found and documented which can be described as transitional species as they have both dinosaurs and bird like features.
Microraptor were among the most abundant dinosaurs in their ecosystem, and the genus is represented by more fossils than any other dromaeosaurid, with possibly over 300 fossil specimens represented across various museum collections.
The Shandong Tianyu Museum of Nature in Pingyi County, China was reported to hold 255 specimens of Anchiornis in its collections in 2010.
There is as well Xiaotingia, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Protarchaeopteryx and Aurornis xui fossils. Plenty more being discovered on regular basis.

 

[VINYLONE]

Just finished reading this. Not too long of a read. I originally heard the reference to the cockroach on an episode of my Science Fridays podcast.

https://nymag.com/news/features/cockroaches-2014-2/

 

[carolinajazz]

Are you really that dumb? Who was talking about Archaeopteryx you moron, you wasted all this time to write all that useless gibberish without even getting to the point I was making. And even if I want to talk about Archeopteryx you can't deny that it had feathers. It was dinosaur with feathers. Since birds evolved from dinosaurs it is not difficult to see striking similarities to both dinosaurs and early birds.
I was making point about HOATZIN. Not fossil but living evidence of evolution. See video one more time.

....I saw the video, numbnuts! The slop dummy mentioned Archeopteryx in connection with this bird as if to make us believe that "the fossil of a bird found in China is a little younger than Archeopteryx but seems to show that the change from bony jaw to lightweight beak must have happened very quickly and must have made flight much more efficient." Notice his broad sweeping statements of "fact" with the expressions "seems to show" and "must have happened very quickly" based on TOTAL bogus speculation that tied in with Archeopteryx! The video even speculated that the bird could "easily" evade predators both in the water and from the air even though he had feebly developed claws and p-poor swimming skills! TOTAL pseudo-intellectual BS!

 

[carolinajazz]

Usually I just ignore blatant rubbish you posting but this time I feel a need to post facts.

There are numerous fossils found and documented which can be described as transitional species as they have both dinosaurs and bird like features.

....."numerous fossils found" that prove what? According to the so called "experts" on bird evolution they still maintain that "possibly the best known of all transitional fossils, is the Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx." Here's a great statement by one of your cohorts on the subject I found quite interesting....and much more honest than any of the rubbish you've been spewing!

Warning 1: The images are only artist's conceptions and might contain errors.

Warning 2: When a fossil is called "transitional" between two types of animal, that means it shows some of the traits of both, but it does not mean it links those animals by direct descent. Evolution is a branching process - by which we mean that species often split in two. Therefore:

"Because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process that produces a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other."

— Rusty Cashman / Wikipedia

In short, transitional fossils are best thought of as being close relatives of the species which actually link two groups. They may have lived at the same time as those actual links, or they may not have (this confuses many people).

 

[MVP]

....I saw the video, numbnuts! The slop dummy mentioned Archeopteryx in connection with this bird as if to make us believe that "the fossil of a bird found in China is a little younger than Archeopteryx but seems to show that the change from bony jaw to lightweight beak must have happened very quickly and must have made flight much more efficient." Notice his broad sweeping statements of "fact" with the expressions "seems to show" and "must have happened very quickly" based on TOTAL bogus speculation that tied in with Archeopteryx! The video even speculated that the bird could "easily" evade predators both in the water and from the air even though he had feebly developed claws and p-poor swimming skills! TOTAL pseudo-intellectual BS!

wow, you are just special. Again not a single word about HOATZIN. I accept it as you admitting your loss. Or discovery institute and creationists have not yet come with their divine explanation for this living fossil?

 

[MVP]

....."numerous fossils found" that prove what? According to the so called "experts" on bird evolution they still maintain that "possibly the best known of all transitional fossils, is the Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx." Here's a great statement by one of your cohorts on the subject I found quite interesting....and much more honest than any of the rubbish you've been spewing!

Warning 1: The images are only artist's conceptions and might contain errors.

Warning 2: When a fossil is called "transitional" between two types of animal, that means it shows some of the traits of both, but it does not mean it links those animals by direct descent. Evolution is a branching process - by which we mean that species often split in two. Therefore:

"Because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process that produces a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other."

— Rusty Cashman / Wikipedia

In short, transitional fossils are best thought of as being close relatives of the species which actually link two groups. They may have lived at the same time as those actual links, or they may not have (this confuses many people).

LOL. Do you even understand yourself what you just posted?

 

[Zulu]

....so at best, AKMVP is a believer, not in "evolution" but in "de-evolution" if he wants to believe in all these "vestigial" organs! I suspect he might be on to something....if they ever examined what's inside his cranium!

There is No such thing as de-evolution!!! It's all evolution!!

 

[One Brow]

An old ability used under different conditions on an animal that didn't change form at all.

Using an old ability under new conditions is a new ability, and therefore change of form.

It would take a miracles for a fish to begat a frog. They are a completely different design form.

Since the parental frogs are already fish, fish lay frog eggs every day. For that matter, I watched a fish give live birth to my kids.

 

[One Brow]

So what begat a cat again?

Cats are a version of miacoids.

 

[One Brow]

When you pair random with created you have an oxymoron.
Creation denotes purpose.

However, the purpose often differs from what is created, due to an accident in the creative process, that is, accidental creation.

So humans designed a reading machine that rearranges words...or replaces letters within words with other letters?

Both happen, and many other things as well, depending on how the text is being read by the OCR. Any copying process that produces errors produces new information, and all copying processes produce errors.

 

[One Brow]

And remember, IF these notions of evolution could possibly be true....these "intermediate" would be NOWHERE NEAR so well equipped to survive as the "fully developed" ones! That means that if it took only a "sharp gust" of wind to bring down Archeopteryx, his imaginary ancestors would have been falling out of the skies like BRICKS!

Actually, they would have used briefs flying stints while mostly running on the ground (even today, many birds live mostly or entirely on the ground), and those brief bouts of flying would still be an advantage (in certain conditions) over things that could not fly at all.

Many of the dinosaurs were very bird-like, and not much transition was needed. Even so, there are many more than two fossils of one species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Dinosaurs_to_birds

 

[One Brow]

If seeing is believing for you, you definitely don't KNOW that Darwinism is true.

You didn't see any of it happen. You simply have strong faith that it happened.

Actually, we can see, and test, evidence from the results of evolution. Describe to me the evidence you can test from being designed.