| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
22 Apr 2007 11:15:10 AM |
| Object: |
Yet Another "Missing Link" Turns Up |
Ars Technica (new face, same ars)
http://tinyurl.com/yscvhf
"New fossil unites three branches of life in the Cambrian" -
Orthrozanclus reburrus
Also in Science Daily:
http://tinyurl.com/24mrlc
Pharyngula:
http://tinyurl.com/25jrnx
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet Another "Missing Link" Turns Up |
24 Apr 2007 01:59:37 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
Ars Technica (new face, same ars)
http://tinyurl.com/yscvhf
"New fossil unites three branches of life in the Cambrian" -
Orthrozanclus reburrus
Also in Science Daily:
http://tinyurl.com/24mrlc
Pharyngula:
http://tinyurl.com/25jrnx
Budikka
Duke is proof enough that missing links are present. He's the missing
link between a rock and a slime mold.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet Another "Missing Link" Turns Up |
22 Apr 2007 06:55:03 PM |
|
|
In article <1177258510.294394.272340@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Ars Technica (new face, same ars)
http://tinyurl.com/yscvhf
"New fossil unites three branches of life in the Cambrian" -
Orthrozanclus reburrus
Also in Science Daily:
http://tinyurl.com/24mrlc
Pharyngula:
http://tinyurl.com/25jrnx
Oh, my! More gaps being filled in. Where are they going to hide their
little god now?
Budikka
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet Another "Missing Link" Turns Up |
23 Apr 2007 03:48:52 PM |
|
|
johac wrote:
In article <1177258510.294394.272340@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Ars Technica (new face, same ars)
http://tinyurl.com/yscvhf
"New fossil unites three branches of life in the Cambrian" -
Orthrozanclus reburrus
Also in Science Daily:
http://tinyurl.com/24mrlc
Pharyngula:
http://tinyurl.com/25jrnx
Oh, my! More gaps being filled in. Where are they going to hide their
little god now?
No, no, no. That's bad. Don't you understand? Instead of only one gap,
you now have two, one on each side of the link. We are being punished just
like we were when we were kids and our parents cut our sandwich in half.
Then we had to eat two sandwiches.
Budikka
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet Another "Missing Link" Turns Up |
23 Apr 2007 11:36:02 PM |
|
|
In article <462d1c28$0$1386$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <1177258510.294394.272340@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Ars Technica (new face, same ars)
http://tinyurl.com/yscvhf
"New fossil unites three branches of life in the Cambrian" -
Orthrozanclus reburrus
Also in Science Daily:
http://tinyurl.com/24mrlc
Pharyngula:
http://tinyurl.com/25jrnx
Oh, my! More gaps being filled in. Where are they going to hide their
little god now?
No, no, no. That's bad. Don't you understand? Instead of only one gap,
you now have two, one on each side of the link. We are being punished just
like we were when we were kids and our parents cut our sandwich in half.
Then we had to eat two sandwiches.
So they'll just have to cut their little god in two. There have been so
many 'links' found recently, that they had to divide their god so many
times, that I think there's just nothing left to split again.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet Another "Missing Link" Turns Up |
24 Apr 2007 03:45:47 PM |
|
|
On Apr 23, 3:48 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <1177258510.294394.272...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
Ars Technica (new face, same ars)
http://tinyurl.com/yscvhf
"New fossil unites three branches of life in the Cambrian" -
Orthrozanclus reburrus
Also in Science Daily:
http://tinyurl.com/24mrlc
Pharyngula:
http://tinyurl.com/25jrnx
Oh, my! More gaps being filled in. Where are they going to hide their
little god now?
No, no, no. That's bad. Don't you understand? Instead of only one gap,
you now have two, one on each side of the link. We are being punished just
like we were when we were kids and our parents cut our sandwich in half.
Then we had to eat two sandwiches.
You obviously had an interesting childhood!
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet Another "Missing Link" Turns Up |
26 Apr 2007 04:46:03 AM |
|
|
On Apr 25, 6:45 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Apr 23, 3:48 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <1177258510.294394.272...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
Ars Technica (new face, same ars)
http://tinyurl.com/yscvhf
"New fossil unites three branches of life in the Cambrian" -
Orthrozanclus reburrus
Also in Science Daily:
http://tinyurl.com/24mrlc
Pharyngula:
http://tinyurl.com/25jrnx
Oh, my! More gaps being filled in. Where are they going to hide their
little god now?
No, no, no. That's bad. Don't you understand? Instead of only one gap,
you now have two, one on each side of the link. We are being punished just
like we were when we were kids and our parents cut our sandwich in half.
Then we had to eat two sandwiches.
You obviously had an interesting childhood!
Budikka- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I've lifted another text from the web. Helpful stuff all these people
have already donated to the argument for creationism. I've allocated
"points" to highlight relevant information.
by Babu Ranganathan
Why The Fossils Don't Support Evolution
April 13, 2007 01:00 PM EST
Millions of people are taught that the fossil record furnishes proof
of evolution. But, where are there fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs
or other creatures?
Point 1.The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-
formed species.
.. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a
gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists
there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions
of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-
like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should
still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't
observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats
among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-
formed.
Point 2. Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and
animal species survive over millions of years when their basic organs
and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example,
were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory,
digestive, and reproductive organs were still evolving?
Point 3. What about all those spectacular and popular claims reported
in the mass media of evolutionists having discovered certain
transitional forms in the fossil record? Such claims have not been
accepted by all evolutionists and, after much investigation and
analysis, these claims have been found to have no hard basis in
science. This has been the case of every so-called "missing link" and
"transitional" form discovered since Darwin.
Recently it was thought they had discovered fossils of dinosaurs with
feathers until they found out that the so-called feathers were really
scales which only had the appearance of feathers. Scientists theorize
the scales took upon a feather-like appreance during some brief stage
of decomposition before being fossilized. Even if they were feathers,
this still wouldn't be any kind of evidence to support macro-evolution
unless they can show a series of fossils having part-scale/part-
feather structures as evidence that the scales had really evolved into
feathers.
(My comment - There goes your dinosaur-bird transition, Buddika, along
with a few other questions eg. cold blooded to warm blooded, 2
chambered heart to 4 chambered heart, solid bones to hollow bones with
internal struts, moveable vertebrae to fused vertebrae for the shock
of landing (resulting in the peculiar head nodding of birds when
they're walking), huge chest muscles for power in flight, rather than
huge leg muscles in dinosaurs, eyes which take up much of the head
compared to small dinosaur eyes, and of course the extreme
vulnerability of any proposed transitional species which cannot yet
fly nor get around on the ground safely.)
Many times, evolutionists use similarities of traits between different
forms of life as a basis for claiming a transitional link. But, the
problem for evolutionists is that the traits which they cite are
complete and fully-formed. The issue of comparative similarities and
traits will be discussed later on in this article.
Point 4 - Not only are there no true transitional links in the fossil
record, but the fossils themselves are not in the supposed geological
sequential order as evolutionists claim in their textbooks. Of course,
evolutionists have their various circular and unsupported arguments or
reasons for why this is so. The important thing is to get the big
picture!
If macro-evolution (evolution across biological kinds) actually
occurred then we should find millions of indisputable transitional
forms in the fossil record instead of a few disputable transitional
forms that even evolutionists cannot all agree upon. And, again, the
point needs to be emphasized that species cannot wait millions of
years for their vital (or necessary) organs and biological systems to
evolve.
Point 5 - In fact, it is precisely because of these problems that more
and more modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as
Punctuated Equilibrium which says that plant and animal species
evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why we don't see
evidence of partially-evolved species in the fossil record. Of course,
we have to accept their word on blind faith because there is no way to
prove or disprove what they are saying. These evolutionists claim that
something like massive bombardment of radiation resulted in mega
mutations in species which produced "instantaneous" changes from one
life form to another. The nature and issue of mutations will be
discussed later and the reader will see why such an argument is not
viable.
(My comment - in all the time the human race has been on the earth, it
has not left behind one single record of a punctuated evolution of one
species to another).
The fact that animal and plant species are found fully formed and
complete in the fossil record is powerful evidence (although not
proof) for creation because it is evidence that they came into
existence as fully formed and complete which is possible only by
creation.
Evolutionists claim that the genetic and biological similarities
between species is evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only
one interpretation of the evidence. Another possibility is that the
comparative similarities are due to a common Designer who designed
similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of
life. Neither position can be scientifically proved.
Point 6 - Although Darwin was partially correct by showing that
natural selection occurs in nature, the problem is that natural
selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection can only
work with those biological variations that are possible. The evidence
from genetics supports only the possibility for horizontal evolution
(i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but not vertical
evolution (i.e. from fish to human). Unless nature has the ability to
perform genetic engineering vertical evolution will not be possible.
Point 7 - The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look
like gills are really the early stages in the formation of the face,
throat, and neck regions. The so-called "tailbone" is the early
formation of the coccyx and spinal column which, because of the rate
of growth being faster than the rest of the body at this stage,
appears to look like a tail. The coccyx has already been proven to be
useful in providing support for the pelvic muscles.
(Note - the number of times I've heard the argument used, falsely,
that we recycle our evolutionary history in the womb is legion. It
appears to be another falsehood taught in high school text books).
Point 8 - Modern science has shown that there are genetic limits to
evolution or biological change in nature. Again, all biological
variations, whether they are beneficial to survival or not, are
possible only within the genetic potential and limits of a biological
kind such as the varieties among dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.
Variations across biological kinds such as humans evolving from ape-
like creatures and apes, in turn, evolving from dog-like creatures and
so on, as Darwinian evolutionary theory teaches, are not possible
unless Nature has the capability of performing genetic engineering.
Biological variations are determined by the DNA or genetic code of
species. The DNA molecule is actually a molecular string of various
nucleic acids which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters
in a sentence. It is this sequence in DNA that tells cells in the body
how to construct various tissues and organs.
The common belief among evolutionists is that random mutations in the
genetic code over time will produce entirely new sequences for new
traits and characteristics which natural selection can then act upon
resulting in entirely new species. Evolutionists consider mutations to
be a form of natural genetic engineering.
However, the very nature of mutations precludes such a possibility.
Mutations are accidental changes in the sequential structure of the
genetic code caused by various random environmental forces such as
radiation and toxic chemicals.
Point 9 - Almost all true mutations are harmful, which is what one
would normally expect from accidents. Even if a good mutation occurred
for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the
net result over time being disastrous for the species.
Most biological variations, however, occur as a result of new
combinations of previously existing genes - not because of mutations
which are rare in nature.
Furthermore, mutations simply produce new varieties of already
existing traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may
change the gene so that another type of human hair develops, but the
mutations won't change the gene so that feathers or wings develop.
Sometimes mutations may trigger the duplication of already existing
traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, or even an entire head, even in
another area of the body!). But mutations have no ability to produce
entirely new traits or characteristics.
Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties and
races of people could come from the same human ancestors. Well, in
principle, that's no different than asking how children with different
color hair ( i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the
same parents who both have black hair.
Point 10 - Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce
descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first
parents possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men.
You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or
race of humans, but humanity's first parents did possess such genes.
All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not
all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example,
one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye
color ( i.e., brown, green, blue ) , but someone else may be carrying
only one variation of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown ). Thus,
both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their
offspring.
Point 11 - Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither
can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has
observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which
faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better
scientific support.
What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and
value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no
small issue!
Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe
operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational
to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws
of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?
Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the
universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected
natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.
There is, of course, much more to be said on this subject. Scientist,
creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer, Dr. Walt Brown covers
various scientific issues ( i.e. fossils, biological variation and
diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the
issue of vestigial organs, the age of the earth, etc. ) at greater
depth on his website at www.creationscience.com.
On his website, Dr. Brown even discusses the possibility of any
remains of life on Mars as having originated from the Earth due to
great geological disturbances in the Earth's past which easily could
have spewed thousands of tons of rock and dirt containing microbes
into space. In fact, A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12
mentions exactly this possibility.
An excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists
who are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research
(www.icr.org) in San Diego, California. Also, the reader may find
answers to many difficult questions concerning the Bible (including
questions on creation and evolution, Noah's Ark, how dinosaurs fit
into the Bible, etc.) at www.ChristianAnswers.net.
It is only fair that school students be exposed to the scientific
arguments and evidence on both sides of the creation/evolution issue.
Babu G. Ranganathan
The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced Christian writer.
Mr. Ranganathan has his B.A. with academic concentrations in Bible and
Biology from Bob Jones University. As a religion and science writer he
has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The
East. The author's articles have been published in various
publications including Russia's Pravda and South Korea's The Seoul
Times. The author's website may be accessed at: www.religionscience.com.
My comment - Note the science qualifications.
I'd also point out that scientists haven't a clue how life arose in
the first place, since all life depends on the dual, concurrent
existence of both amino acids and proteins, as proteins are made of
amino acids and amino acids need proteins to form in the first place.
That is to say nothing of the environment for both to cooperate
together in harmony to create "life".
I'll put my faith in God or a creative intelligence. How He got there
I have no idea. If we can't work out how we got here, then trying to
speculate on His genesis is a complete waste of time.
That doesn't mean creationists have all the answers. I don't accept
the Noah's ark principle. But I do believe there's a grand designer
who created the universe and all that is in it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet Another "Missing Link" Turns Up |
27 Apr 2007 10:28:58 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Apr 25, 6:45 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Apr 23, 3:48 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <1177258510.294394.272...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
Ars Technica (new face, same ars)
http://tinyurl.com/yscvhf
"New fossil unites three branches of life in the Cambrian" -
Orthrozanclus reburrus
Also in Science Daily:
http://tinyurl.com/24mrlc
Pharyngula:
http://tinyurl.com/25jrnx
Oh, my! More gaps being filled in. Where are they going to hide their
little god now?
No, no, no. That's bad. Don't you understand? Instead of only one gap,
you now have two, one on each side of the link. We are being punished just
like we were when we were kids and our parents cut our sandwich in half.
Then we had to eat two sandwiches.
You obviously had an interesting childhood!
Budikka- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I've lifted another text from the web. Helpful stuff all these people
have already donated to the argument for creationism. I've allocated
"points" to highlight relevant information.
by Babu Ranganathan
Why The Fossils Don't Support Evolution
April 13, 2007 01:00 PM EST
Millions of people are taught that the fossil record furnishes proof
of evolution. But, where are there fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs
or other creatures?
Where are there pictures of a "half-bob, half bob's parents"?
Point 1.The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-
formed species.
The pictures in the photo album show only a complete Bob.
. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a
gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists
there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions
of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-
like ancestry.
There are no pictures of a partly formed Bob to indicate that a gradual
process from his parents to him ever occurred.
<snip more crap that's even more stupid that I just don't want to even
bother reading>
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet Another "Missing Link" Turns Up |
28 Apr 2007 06:30:21 PM |
|
|
On Apr 28, 1:28 am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
bobcrow...@dodo.com.au wrote:
On Apr 25, 6:45 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Apr 23, 3:48 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <1177258510.294394.272...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
Ars Technica (new face, same ars)
http://tinyurl.com/yscvhf
"New fossil unites three branches of life in the Cambrian" -
Orthrozanclus reburrus
Also in Science Daily:
http://tinyurl.com/24mrlc
Pharyngula:
http://tinyurl.com/25jrnx
Oh, my! More gaps being filled in. Where are they going to hide their
little god now?
No, no, no. That's bad. Don't you understand? Instead of only one gap,
you now have two, one on each side of the link. We are being punished just
like we were when we were kids and our parents cut our sandwich in half.
Then we had to eat two sandwiches.
You obviously had an interesting childhood!
Budikka- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I've lifted another text from the web. Helpful stuff all these people
have already donated to the argument for creationism. I've allocated
"points" to highlight relevant information.
by Babu Ranganathan
Why The Fossils Don't Support Evolution
April 13, 2007 01:00 PM EST
Millions of people are taught that the fossil record furnishes proof
of evolution. But, where are there fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs
or other creatures?
Where are there pictures of a "half-bob, half bob's parents"?
Point 1.The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-
formed species.
The pictures in the photo album show only a complete Bob.
. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a
gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists
there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions
of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-
like ancestry.
There are no pictures of a partly formed Bob to indicate that a gradual
process from his parents to him ever occurred.
<snip more crap that's even more stupid that I just don't want to even
bother reading>- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Had someone bothered to take a series of ultrasound scans, which did
not exist in the ancient world when I was born, there could indeed
have been series of transitional photos taken of Bob from conception
to birth. I'd be surprised if such a test case has not been carried
out in more recent times.
That's more than can be said for the alleged gestation of the
evolutinary process. There are no records for that one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet Another "Missing Link" Turns Up |
03 May 2007 05:09:20 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Apr 28, 1:28 am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
bobcrow...@dodo.com.au wrote:
On Apr 25, 6:45 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Apr 23, 3:48 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <1177258510.294394.272...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
Ars Technica (new face, same ars)
http://tinyurl.com/yscvhf
"New fossil unites three branches of life in the Cambrian" -
Orthrozanclus reburrus
Also in Science Daily:
http://tinyurl.com/24mrlc
Pharyngula:
http://tinyurl.com/25jrnx
Oh, my! More gaps being filled in. Where are they going to hide their
little god now?
No, no, no. That's bad. Don't you understand? Instead of only one gap,
you now have two, one on each side of the link. We are being punished just
like we were when we were kids and our parents cut our sandwich in half.
Then we had to eat two sandwiches.
You obviously had an interesting childhood!
Budikka- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I've lifted another text from the web. Helpful stuff all these people
have already donated to the argument for creationism. I've allocated
"points" to highlight relevant information.
by Babu Ranganathan
Why The Fossils Don't Support Evolution
April 13, 2007 01:00 PM EST
Millions of people are taught that the fossil record furnishes proof
of evolution. But, where are there fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs
or other creatures?
Where are there pictures of a "half-bob, half bob's parents"?
Point 1.The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-
formed species.
The pictures in the photo album show only a complete Bob.
. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a
gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists
there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions
of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-
like ancestry.
There are no pictures of a partly formed Bob to indicate that a gradual
process from his parents to him ever occurred.
<snip more crap that's even more stupid that I just don't want to even
bother reading>- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Had someone bothered to take a series of ultrasound scans, which did
not exist in the ancient world when I was born, there could indeed
have been series of transitional photos taken of Bob from conception
to birth. I'd be surprised if such a test case has not been carried
out in more recent times.
And if "some had bothered to fossilize every animal along the way, we'd
have a perfect linage of animals from the dinosaurs to now."
The point being that we do NOT have such perfect records of photos
showing every second of your life but yet we don't doubt that you, the
adult, came from you, the kid, do we?
That's more than can be said for the alleged gestation of the
evolutinary process. There are no records for that one.
There aren't? Then what are all the fossils cluttering up the museums?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet Another "Missing Link" Turns Up |
03 May 2007 09:30:43 PM |
|
|
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
"Mike" <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in message
news:f1dmig$qej$1@news04.infoave.net...
bobcrowley@dodo.com.au wrote:
On Apr 28, 1:28 am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
bobcrow...@dodo.com.au wrote:
On Apr 25, 6:45 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Apr 23, 3:48 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <1177258510.294394.272...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
Ars Technica (new face, same ars)
http://tinyurl.com/yscvhf
"New fossil unites three branches of life in the Cambrian" -
Orthrozanclus reburrus
Also in Science Daily:
http://tinyurl.com/24mrlc
Pharyngula:
http://tinyurl.com/25jrnx
Oh, my! More gaps being filled in. Where are they going to hide
their
little god now?
No, no, no. That's bad. Don't you understand? Instead of only one
gap,
you now have two, one on each side of the link. We are being
punished just
like we were when we were kids and our parents cut our sandwich in
half.
Then we had to eat two sandwiches.
You obviously had an interesting childhood!
Budikka- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I've lifted another text from the web. Helpful stuff all these people
have already donated to the argument for creationism. I've allocated
"points" to highlight relevant information.
by Babu Ranganathan
Why The Fossils Don't Support Evolution
April 13, 2007 01:00 PM EST
Millions of people are taught that the fossil record furnishes proof
of evolution. But, where are there fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs
or other creatures?
Where are there pictures of a "half-bob, half bob's parents"?
Point 1.The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-
formed species.
The pictures in the photo album show only a complete Bob.
. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a
gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists
there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions
of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-
like ancestry.
There are no pictures of a partly formed Bob to indicate that a gradual
process from his parents to him ever occurred.
<snip more crap that's even more stupid that I just don't want to even
bother reading>- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Had someone bothered to take a series of ultrasound scans, which did
not exist in the ancient world when I was born, there could indeed
have been series of transitional photos taken of Bob from conception
to birth. I'd be surprised if such a test case has not been carried
out in more recent times.
And if "some had bothered to fossilize every animal along the way, we'd
have a perfect linage of animals from the dinosaurs to now."
The point being that we do NOT have such perfect records of photos showing
every second of your life but yet we don't doubt that you, the adult, came
from you, the kid, do we?
That's more than can be said for the alleged gestation of the
evolutinary process. There are no records for that one.
There aren't? Then what are all the fossils cluttering up the museums?
The gaps argument is a stupid one because it can
never be satisfied. No matter how many fossils are
found, it still demands more. Rather than study the
fossils we have, the fundies always scream, "More!,
more!, more!". It's pointless and dumb. It's also
another way the fundy leaders keep their sheeple
ignorant.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vlad the accountant" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet Another "Missing Link" Turns Up |
04 May 2007 02:16:13 AM |
|
|
On Apr 29, 12:30 am, wrote:
On Apr 28, 1:28 am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 25, 6:45 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Apr 23, 3:48 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <1177258510.294394.272...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
Ars Technica (new face, same ars)
http://tinyurl.com/yscvhf
"New fossil unites three branches of life in the Cambrian" -
Orthrozanclus reburrus
Also in Science Daily:
http://tinyurl.com/24mrlc
Pharyngula:
http://tinyurl.com/25jrnx
Oh, my! More gaps being filled in. Where are they going to hide their
little god now?
No, no, no. That's bad. Don't you understand? Instead of only one gap,
you now have two, one on each side of the link. We are being punished just
like we were when we were kids and our parents cut our sandwich in half.
Then we had to eat two sandwiches.
You obviously had an interesting childhood!
Budikka- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I've lifted another text from the web. Helpful stuff all these people
have already donated to the argument for creationism. I've allocated
"points" to highlight relevant information.
by Babu Ranganathan
Why The Fossils Don't Support Evolution
April 13, 2007 01:00 PM EST
Millions of people are taught that the fossil record furnishes proof
of evolution. But, where are there fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs
or other creatures?
Where are there pictures of a "half-bob, half bob's parents"?
Point 1.The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-
formed species.
The pictures in the photo album show only a complete Bob.
. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a
gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists
there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions
of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-
like ancestry.
There are no pictures of a partly formed Bob to indicate that a gradual
process from his parents to him ever occurred.
<snip more crap that's even more stupid that I just don't want to even
bother reading>- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Had someone bothered to take a series of ultrasound scans, which did
not exist in the ancient world when I was born, there could indeed
have been series of transitional photos taken of Bob from conception
to birth. I'd be surprised if such a test case has not been carried
out in more recent times.
That's more than can be said for the alleged gestation of the
evolutinary process. There are no records for that one.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I just had a quick wizz through google for diagrams of human
gestation,
These would show 1: bob as a single celled critter 2: bob as a fish
3:bob as a newt 4:bob as a early mammal etc
BUT search terms were probable off, and seeing as im doing this in
work i dont have any more time...can someone help out?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet Another "Missing Link" Turns Up |
04 May 2007 02:43:32 AM |
|
|
Duke?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet Another "Missing Link" Turns Up |
04 May 2007 08:54:01 AM |
|
|
Vlad the accountant wrote:
On Apr 29, 12:30 am, wrote:
On Apr 28, 1:28 am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
wrote:
Millions of people are taught that the fossil record furnishes proof
of evolution. But, where are there fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs
or other creatures?
Where are there pictures of a "half-bob, half bob's parents"?
Point 1.The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-
formed species.
The pictures in the photo album show only a complete Bob.
. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a
gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists
there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions
of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-
like ancestry.
There are no pictures of a partly formed Bob to indicate that a gradual
process from his parents to him ever occurred.
<snip more crap that's even more stupid that I just don't want to even
bother reading>- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Had someone bothered to take a series of ultrasound scans, which did
not exist in the ancient world when I was born, there could indeed
have been series of transitional photos taken of Bob from conception
to birth. I'd be surprised if such a test case has not been carried
out in more recent times.
That's more than can be said for the alleged gestation of the
evolutinary process. There are no records for that one.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I just had a quick wizz through google for diagrams of human
gestation,
I was wondering where that yellow puddle on www.google.com came from and
now I know<g>
These would show 1: bob as a single celled critter 2: bob as a fish
3:bob as a newt 4:bob as a early mammal etc
You must have missed the ones of 5:bob as an idiot 6:bob as a moron
7:bob as a turkey 8: bob as a clueless fool.
BUT search terms were probable off, and seeing as im doing this in
work i dont have any more time...can someone help out?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet Another "Missing Link" Turns Up |
04 May 2007 07:07:06 PM |
|
|
On May 4, 11:54 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
Vlad the accountant wrote:
On Apr 29, 12:30 am, wrote:
On Apr 28, 1:28 am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
wrote:
Millions of people are taught that the fossil record furnishes proof
of evolution. But, where are there fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs
or other creatures?
Where are there pictures of a "half-bob, half bob's parents"?
Point 1.The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-
formed species.
The pictures in the photo album show only a complete Bob.
. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a
gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists
there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions
of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-
like ancestry.
There are no pictures of a partly formed Bob to indicate that a gradual
process from his parents to him ever occurred.
<snip more crap that's even more stupid that I just don't want to even
bother reading>- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Had someone bothered to take a series of ultrasound scans, which did
not exist in the ancient world when I was born, there could indeed
have been series of transitional photos taken of Bob from conception
to birth. I'd be surprised if such a test case has not been carried
out in more recent times.
That's more than can be said for the alleged gestation of the
evolutinary process. There are no records for that one.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I just had a quick wizz through google for diagrams of human
gestation,
I was wondering where that yellow puddle onwww.google.comcame from and
now I know<g>
These would show 1: bob as a single celled critter 2: bob as a fish
3:bob as a newt 4:bob as a early mammal etc
You must have missed the ones of 5:bob as an idiot 6:bob as a moron
7:bob as a turkey 8: bob as a clueless fool.
BUT search terms were probable off, and seeing as im doing this in
work i dont have any more time...can someone help out?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I haven't seen much in the way of clues offered on this site - just
another re-hash of the lying claim that we recyle the evolutionary
process in the womb.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Exploding The Creationist Myth of the "Cambrian Explosion" |
22 Apr 2007 12:53:52 PM |
|
|
In article <1177258510.294394.272340@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
budikka1@netscape.net says...
Ars Technica (new face, same ars)
http://tinyurl.com/yscvhf
"New fossil unites three branches of life in the Cambrian" -
Orthrozanclus reburrus
The creationist myth that the so-called "Cambrian Explosion" was a
problem for evolution has continued to explode in their Genesis-
mumbling faces, as new fossils are progressively added to the gaps.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
