Creationism in public schools? (2)

[SonOfTheWest]

Correction. There are a lot of transitional fossils and if we were lucky enough to have every single fossil of each organism we'd see just how flimsy the idea of "species" really is compared to the general perception of it. gradyll is just playing his usual disingenuous god of the gaps game. God is not the god of the gaps.

 

[createdtoworship]

Correction. There are a lot of transitional fossils and if we were lucky enough to have every single fossil of each organism we'd see just how flimsy the idea of "species" really is compared to the general perception of it. gradyll is just playing his usual disingenuous god of the gaps game. God is not the god of the gaps.

Yes He is a God of details thank you very much. God would have us act intelligently.

 

[metherion]

So, point blank, what would you accept as a transitional fossil? Describe it to me. I want to know exactly what characteristics a human ancestor fossil would have. For you to accept it as such, what must be present for you to accept it?

For the dinosaur-bird transition, exactly what must there be?

Plant the goals posts. Say exactly what you'd need to see brought to your attention to consider it transitional, or stop your cries of "THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS" and admit the cry should be "I WILL ACCEPT NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS ONCE THEY ARE SHOWN TO ME"... because they have been. Repeatedly. And yet you refuse to acknowledge them.

I also would like the answers to questions I’ve posed such as:

What laws of nature would prevent evolution?
(that was wasn’t to either of you two, but I’d still love an answer)

And who is ‘they’? What is the ‘need’?
(about finding of the amino acids in space by NASA and others)

Do you know how evolution is useful when related to those fields?
(anatomy, zoology, physiology)

Are Aesop’s fables wrong?

Any response to the counterpoints I posted to that list of quotes/quotemines?

Metherion

 

[createdtoworship]

So, point blank, what would you accept as a transitional fossil? Describe it to me. I want to know exactly what characteristics a human ancestor fossil would have. For you to accept it as such, what must be present for you to accept it?

For the dinosaur-bird transition, exactly what must there be?

Plant the goals posts. Say exactly what you'd need to see brought to your attention to consider it transitional, or stop your cries of "THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS" and admit the cry should be "I WILL ACCEPT NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS ONCE THEY ARE SHOWN TO ME"... because they have been. Repeatedly. And yet you refuse to acknowledge them.

I also would like the answers to questions I’ve posed such as:

What laws of nature would prevent evolution?
(that was wasn’t to either of you two, but I’d still love an answer)

And who is ‘they’? What is the ‘need’?
(about finding of the amino acids in space by NASA and others)

Do you know how evolution is useful when related to those fields?
(anatomy, zoology, physiology)

Are Aesop’s fables wrong?

Any response to the counterpoints I posted to that list of quotes/quotemines?

Metherion

an intermediate, is all that is needed. Easy. Don't worry I am sure if you find one it will be all over the news. But until then we are all still waiting.

 

[metherion]

There have been intermediates found. They have been presented in this thread. You obviously don't accept them. Detail for me what an intermediate that would you accept would have to look like.

Metherion

 

[createdtoworship]

There have been intermediates found. They have been presented in this thread. You obviously don't accept them. Detail for me what an intermediate that would you accept would have to look like.

Metherion

it would be an dinasaur that could fly like a bird.

 

[good brother]

So, point blank, what would you accept as a transitional fossil? Describe it to me. I want to know exactly what characteristics a human ancestor fossil would have. For you to accept it as such, what must be present for you to accept it?

For the dinosaur-bird transition, exactly what must there be?

Plant the goals posts. Say exactly what you'd need to see brought to your attention to consider it transitional, or stop your cries of "THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS" and admit the cry should be "I WILL ACCEPT NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS ONCE THEY ARE SHOWN TO ME"... because they have been. Repeatedly. And yet you refuse to acknowledge them.

I don't think you will settle this argument with showing us one or two different fossils. The point is that there aren't ENOUGH transition fossils to say that they are in fact transition fossils. Showing one or two or even five fossils that have been dubbed with the title of "transition fossils" does not make them transition fossils. It just makes them fossils of creatures we don't have around here anymore. If evolution was true and there were in fact "many transition forms" then the hills should be so littered with them that a child with a plastic shovel could find dozens during playtime. The diversity we have in the animal kingdom today could only come about by so many thousands of millions of billions of transition forms that when one planted a garden transition fossils would be turned up. The sad truth for evolutionists is that that is not the case at all. They (the evolutionists) find a couple that look like they could be a mix of two separate animals and "viola!" a claim of a transition fossil is made. Take for example the good ol' archeopteryx. He is a quite interesting specimen, but that doesn't mean that dinos were daddies to birdies. It simply means that there was an interesting specimen called the archeopteryx at one time. Sure he had scales and feathers and teeth, but that's no difference to today's chickens. Have you ever seen a chicken's legs? they are scaly. A duck's legs look nothing like the chicken or turkey's legs. A duck's legs are smooth. So now we have chickens and archeopteryx having two things in common- feathers and scales. Well what about the teeth? Chickens don't have teeth you say. Well, there are many birds that are born with an "egg tooth". It allows them to break out of their shells. So they don't have the same teeth structure, but none the less there is a similarity of both having teeth. So, what are the differences? Among others, the most apparent difference is one is extinct while the other thrives to a point of being used for food. So, in the end, the archeopteryx is no more a transition than a chicken.

Would anyone make the claim that beavers are turning into ducks? That is the picture one sees when one looks at the duck billed platypus. I mean, here is a fur covered aquatic animal with the front of a duck. Surely it is turning into a duck, as it has some of the features of a duck. Or perhaps it's turning into a chicken since it lays eggs. Or perhaps it's turning into a snake since it has venom. Shall I go on with how the platypus seems to be a transition form for a number of animals?

I also would like the answers to questions I’ve posed such as:

What laws of nature would prevent evolution?

The law of entropy. Things go from order to disorder when left on it's own.

And who is ‘they’? What is the ‘need’?
(about finding of the amino acids in space by NASA and others)

According to evolutionists don't want Earth to be the "special planet". If the only life exists on this little rock in the middle of nowhere it would indicate that life is extremely special and doesn't just "occur anywhere or under any circumstance." If life only exists here, then in all the vastness of space it would appear that we are very very special.

Do you know how evolution is useful when related to those fields?
(anatomy, zoology, physiology)

It is useful in leading young minds astray with hypotheses that are completely unsubstantiated for the cause of preconceived notions.

Are Aesop’s fables wrong?

What does this have to do with the price of rice in China?



In Christ, GB

 

[metherion]

it would be an dinasaur that could fly like a bird.

Pretty sure Archaeopteryx could fly AT LEAST as well as a penguin, an emu, or an ostrich. Case closed.

Flight is not the defining characteristic of bird-dom.
Care to try again?

I don't think you will settle this argument with showing us one or two different fossils. The point is that there aren't ENOUGH transition fossils to say that they are in fact transition fossils.

So how many WOULD enough be?

Showing one or two or even five fossils that have been dubbed with the title of "transition fossils" does not make them transition fossils. It just makes them fossils of creatures we don't have around here anymore.

You’re right. They are transition fossils because they have mixed features of two or more groups that are isolated today, like birds and other reptiles.

If evolution was true and there were in fact "many transition forms" then the hills should be so littered with them that a child with a plastic shovel could find dozens during playtime.

That is based on a false idea of just how often fossilization occurs. Fossilization is a VERY RARE event. You need the animal to die, not to be eaten by predators, not to be eaten by scavengers, not to have its remains destroyed by erosion or earthquakes or covered by lava, not to be destroyed by landscaping, etc. Fossils at all aren’t as common as this, so why should specifically transitional fossils be more common than ACTUAL fossils?

The diversity we have in the animal kingdom today could only come about by so many thousands of millions of billions of transition forms that when one planted a garden transition fossils would be turned up.

Again, see above.

The sad truth for evolutionists is that that is not the case at all. They (the evolutionists) find a couple that look like they could be a mix of two separate animals and "viola!" a claim of a transition fossil is made. Take for example the good ol' archeopteryx. He is a quite interesting specimen, but that doesn't mean that dinos were daddies to birdies. It simply means that there was an interesting specimen called the archeopteryx at one time. Sure he had scales and feathers and teeth, but that's no difference to today's chickens. Have you ever seen a chicken's legs? they are scaly. A duck's legs look nothing like the chicken or turkey's legs. A duck's legs are smooth. So now we have chickens and archeopteryx having two things in common- feathers and scales.

Funnily enough, the Ultimate Book of Dinosaurs is listed as a reference on wiki about the mixed reptile and bird traits of Archaeopteryx.

But for a real source, check:
All About Archaeopteryx

Things that Archaeopteryx has that dinos do not:
Big toe, wishbone, feathers.

Things it has that are different from birds:
Lacks a bill, unfused trunk vertebrae, distinctions of the pubic shaft, brain shape, site of spine attachment, lack of fusion in the tail vertebrae.

Well what about the teeth? Chickens don't have teeth you say. Well, there are many birds that are born with an "egg tooth". It allows them to break out of their shells. So they don't have the same teeth structure, but none the less there is a similarity of both having teeth.

Except sometimes you WILL find actual teeth in chickens from a mutation that reactivates the now-dormant tooth producing genes in modern birds. Take a look at this Scientific American article:
Mutant Chicken Grows Alligatorlike Teeth: Scientific American

So, what are the differences? Among others, the most apparent difference is one is extinct while the other thrives to a point of being used for food. So, in the end, the archeopteryx is no more a transition than a chicken.

No, the differences are the age in which they are found, and the lack of reptile/dinosaur features that chickens have, and the bird features that Archaeopteryx lacks.

Would anyone make the claim that beavers are turning into ducks? That is the picture one sees when one looks at the duck billed platypus. I mean, here is a fur covered aquatic animal with the front of a duck. Surely it is turning into a duck, as it has some of the features of a duck. Or perhaps it's turning into a chicken since it lays eggs. Or perhaps it's turning into a snake since it has venom. Shall I go on with how the platypus seems to be a transition form for a number of animals?

No, because it isn’t. It actually DOES have its place in the animal kingdom. Take a look at this article from the scientific journal Nature:
Genome analysis of the platypus reveals unique signatures of evolution : Article : Nature
and yes, that is the entire article, not just an abstract. It talks about just how evolution can be seen in the genome of the platypus. Looks alone aren’t enough.

The law of entropy. Things go from order to disorder when left on it's own.

Unless there is energy being put into the system. The surface of the earth is not a closed system. We have meteors hitting the earth, we have the sun shining, we have rain and wind currents, deep sea thermal vents, volcanoes, lightning, and so on. There is plenty of energy coming in for chemicals to use to assemble. It is not ‘left on its own.’

According to evolutionists don't want Earth to be the "special planet". If the only life exists on this little rock in the middle of nowhere it would indicate that life is extremely special and doesn't just "occur anywhere or under any circumstance." If life only exists here, then in all the vastness of space it would appear that we are very very special.

So it’s a conspiracy?

Who are the evolutionists that don’t want the earth to be ‘special’? How is the earth less special if it isn’t the only planet in all the cosmos to have life? And why does how ‘special’ it seems matter?

It is useful in leading young minds astray with hypotheses that are completely unsubstantiated for the cause of preconceived notions.

Nope, wrong.
In zoology, the science or branch of biology dealing with animals, evolution is extremely important. It helps detail the origin, pressures, change, extinction of, adaptions of, and methods of adaption of all animals. To start with.

In anatomy, evolution can be used detail the changes across lineages that lad to certain features found today, and explaining vestigial organs. To start with.

In physiology, evolution can be used to explain things like the arrival of structures that have no benefit to the plant or animal in question but are important for symbiosis, how functional characteristics change with regard to pressures across generations, biomechanics, and evolutionary medicine. To start with.

I haven’t listed all the applications in any of those three fields, nor in any others.

Would you like to know of more?

What does this have to do with the price of rice in China?

Earlier you stated something along the lines of ‘Evolutionists have a vested interest in proving evolution right because that will prove the Bible wrong from the get-go, and if the Bible is wrong from the get-go, there is no reason to believe in Jesus.’ Paraphrased, of course. So, are Aesop’s fables wrong?
If they ARE wrong, then so must all the parables, and tales, and visions, and so on because they aren’t literally true. If they are NOT wrong, then your statement is wrong because Genesis isn’t wrong even if it isn’t literally true.

Metherion

 

[createdtoworship]

Pretty sure Archaeopteryx could fly AT LEAST as well as a penguin, an emu, or an ostrich. Case closed.

Flight is not the defining characteristic of bird-dom.
Care to try again?


So how many WOULD enough be?


You’re right. They are transition fossils because they have mixed features of two or more groups that are isolated today, like birds and other reptiles.


That is based on a false idea of just how often fossilization occurs. Fossilization is a VERY RARE event. You need the animal to die, not to be eaten by predators, not to be eaten by scavengers, not to have its remains destroyed by erosion or earthquakes or covered by lava, not to be destroyed by landscaping, etc. Fossils at all aren’t as common as this, so why should specifically transitional fossils be more common than ACTUAL fossils?


Again, see above.


Funnily enough, the Ultimate Book of Dinosaurs is listed as a reference on wiki about the mixed reptile and bird traits of Archaeopteryx.

But for a real source, check:
All About Archaeopteryx

Things that Archaeopteryx has that dinos do not:
Big toe, wishbone, feathers.

Things it has that are different from birds:
Lacks a bill, unfused trunk vertebrae, distinctions of the pubic shaft, brain shape, site of spine attachment, lack of fusion in the tail vertebrae.



Except sometimes you WILL find actual teeth in chickens from a mutation that reactivates the now-dormant tooth producing genes in modern birds. Take a look at this Scientific American article:
Mutant Chicken Grows Alligatorlike Teeth: Scientific American



No, the differences are the age in which they are found, and the lack of reptile/dinosaur features that chickens have, and the bird features that Archaeopteryx lacks.



No, because it isn’t. It actually DOES have its place in the animal kingdom. Take a look at this article from the scientific journal Nature:
Genome analysis of the platypus reveals unique signatures of evolution : Article : Nature
and yes, that is the entire article, not just an abstract. It talks about just how evolution can be seen in the genome of the platypus. Looks alone aren’t enough.


Unless there is energy being put into the system. The surface of the earth is not a closed system. We have meteors hitting the earth, we have the sun shining, we have rain and wind currents, deep sea thermal vents, volcanoes, lightning, and so on. There is plenty of energy coming in for chemicals to use to assemble. It is not ‘left on its own.’


So it’s a conspiracy?

Who are the evolutionists that don’t want the earth to be ‘special’? How is the earth less special if it isn’t the only planet in all the cosmos to have life? And why does how ‘special’ it seems matter?


Nope, wrong.
In zoology, the science or branch of biology dealing with animals, evolution is extremely important. It helps detail the origin, pressures, change, extinction of, adaptions of, and methods of adaption of all animals. To start with.

In anatomy, evolution can be used detail the changes across lineages that lad to certain features found today, and explaining vestigial organs. To start with.

In physiology, evolution can be used to explain things like the arrival of structures that have no benefit to the plant or animal in question but are important for symbiosis, how functional characteristics change with regard to pressures across generations, biomechanics, and evolutionary medicine. To start with.

I haven’t listed all the applications in any of those three fields, nor in any others.

Would you like to know of more?


Earlier you stated something along the lines of ‘Evolutionists have a vested interest in proving evolution right because that will prove the Bible wrong from the get-go, and if the Bible is wrong from the get-go, there is no reason to believe in Jesus.’ Paraphrased, of course. So, are Aesop’s fables wrong?
If they ARE wrong, then so must all the parables, and tales, and visions, and so on because they aren’t literally true. If they are NOT wrong, then your statement is wrong because Genesis isn’t wrong even if it isn’t literally true.

Metherion

only problem is Archaeopteryx IS a bird at least as far as modern science is concerned, so the case is not closed. Even it's name means ("original bird" or "first bird"). The fact that it is a bird is disclosed here: P.J. Currie et al., eds., Feathered Dragons: Studies on the Transition from Dinosaurs to Birds, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 2004. Even wikipedia notices the bird likeness in the ear: "The structure more closely resembles that of modern birds than the inner ear of non-avian reptiles."

as for the rest of your examples Like the chicken with alligator teeth, does that mean the alligator evolved into a chicken or the chicken the alligator?

 

[good brother]

So how many WOULD enough be?

A lot more than just a scant few fossils that aren't even at a halfway point in the supposed evolution between two creatures.

You’re right. They are transition fossils because they have mixed features of two or more groups that are isolated today, like birds and other reptiles.

Kinda like the platypus. Oh wait, you said that one doesn't count. It's a pick and choose kind of thing. I see.

That is based on a false idea of just how often fossilization occurs. Fossilization is a VERY RARE event. You need the animal to die, not to be eaten by predators, not to be eaten by scavengers, not to have its remains destroyed by erosion or earthquakes or covered by lava, not to be destroyed by landscaping, etc. Fossils at all aren’t as common as this, so why should specifically transitional fossils be more common than ACTUAL fossils?

But for as old as the Earth is supposed to be and all the cataclysmic events that have plagued the Earth in it's 3.7 billion year history, you would think there might be more than one extinct bird that represents the entire transformation from dinosaurs to birds. But then, what do I know?

Funnily enough, the Ultimate Book of Dinosaurs is listed as a reference on wiki about the mixed reptile and bird traits of Archaeopteryx.

Is "funnily" a transition word between funny and family? Anyway, I don't remember using it as any kind of source in my previous post in which you seem to reference. Did you have a point with saying that?

But for a real source, check:
All About Archaeopteryx

Are we to believe that even though there aren't but a few "transition fossils" because fossilization is a rare occurrence, yet miraculously there are seven fossils of the archeopteryx (with fossilization of the soft tissue of feathers)? Seems like fossilization happens to "catch" that bird rather easily. Why didn't it catch all those other "yet undiscovered" transition fossils?

Things that Archaeopteryx has that dinos do not:
Big toe, wishbone, feathers.

Sounds like they share a lot in common with chickens.

Things it has that are different from birds:
Lacks a bill, unfused trunk vertebrae, distinctions of the pubic shaft, brain shape, site of spine attachment, lack of fusion in the tail vertebrae.

Is a penguin any less "birdy" because it doesn't fly, but swims instead?

Except sometimes you WILL find actual teeth in chickens from a mutation that reactivates the now-dormant tooth producing genes in modern birds. Take a look at this Scientific American article:
Mutant Chicken Grows Alligatorlike Teeth: Scientific American

Sounds like Archeopteryx has more in common with chickens than I had thought. Thanks.

No, the differences are the age in which they are found, and the lack of reptile/dinosaur features that chickens have, and the bird features that Archaeopteryx lacks.



No, because it isn’t. It actually DOES have its place in the animal kingdom. Take a look at this article from the scientific journal Nature:
Genome analysis of the platypus reveals unique signatures of evolution : Article : Nature
and yes, that is the entire article, not just an abstract. It talks about just how evolution can be seen in the genome of the platypus. Looks alone aren’t enough.

So, in the boldened section you use the features that the archeopteryx had or didn't have to show how it's related to dinosaurs then just below it you say "Looks alone aren't enough." Are features used to compare and contrast or are they not?

Unless there is energy being put into the system. The surface of the earth is not a closed system. We have meteors hitting the earth

I have yet to see a meteorite organize the area it impacted.

we have the sun shining

And it has to be just the right amount. Too little and people suffer from a lack of vitamin D, too much of it and our skin is fried and we get cancer! Another great energy source you've listed!

we have rain

I lived along the Mississippi River in Iowa in 1993 and I have seen the destruction rain can do. Do you honestly expect us to believe that it is an organizer?

and wind currents

Those winds sure don't organize anything I have ever seen. Wind can even screw up a pile of leaves. Wind has taken how many stages and turned them into nothing but a pile of debris. How did that organize anything? And since we are talking about wind as an energy source, I suppose that tornadoes are like super organizers. Tell that to the people in Joplin, MO.

deep sea thermal vents

Save for a few extremophiles which are already in existence, how many things can survive in the vicinity of them?

volcanoes

Why don't you ask how much of a help Mt St Helens was to those who lived nearby it in 1980? I hear it took everything that was chaotic and organized it.

lightning

The trees that I have seen struck by lightning seem to be a whole lot less organized after the strike than they were before lightning struck it. And BTW, I thought you said that lightning was off the proverbial table just a couple pages ago. You dismissed lightning electrocuting a mud puddle yet now you use it as a source of energy. Which is it?

There is plenty of energy coming in for chemicals to use to assemble. It is not ‘left on its own.’

You're right, there is a lot of energies out there. The bad thing was that every one of those you listed brings about more chaos than it does organization.




In Christ, GB

 

[OllieFranz]

What laws of nature would prevent evolution?

The law of entropy. Things go from order to disorder when left on it's own.

You are showing your ignorance and contempt for science there. If the second law of thermodynamics worked the way you say it does, and evolution is a violation, then life itself is in violation. It makes use of incoming energy from the sun to organize and reproduce itself, in apparent defiance to entropy.

If entropy prevents evolution, it prevents life. Each life must be a special miracle of God in defiance of nature. Science has no natural laws to use to model God's creation. Man cannot learn from nature, and Paul was lying when he wrote in Romans 1:19-20:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Are really trying to call Paul a liar, or will you admit you don't understand the second law of thermodynamics?

 

[good brother]

You are showing your ignorance and contempt for science there. If the second law of thermodynamics worked the way you say it does, and evolution is a violation, then life itself is in violation.​

Life is not in violation. Life is subject to the law of entropy. Name one person who survived life. I bet your body is just like mine in that not everything works just like it did when you or I were younger. We ARE breaking down.

Are really trying to call Paul a liar, or will you admit you don't understand the second law of thermodynamics?

Paul is no liar and I understand the second law. Perhaps you want to take another gander at your own understanding.

In Christ, GB

Oh, and BTW, each life IS a special miracle of God's handiwork.​

 

[OllieFranz]

Life is not in violation. Life is subject to the law of entropy. Name one person who survived life. I bet your body is just like mine in that not everything works just like it did when you or I were younger. We ARE breaking down.

Have you never had a cut heal? Have your children never grown taller? Using your "understanding" of enropy, these are impossible actions. Just the fact that you digest (break down) your food and then use it to build new tissues -- skin, muscles, etc. violates entropy as you define it. You can' have your cake and eat it too. If you want to claim that evolution violates the second law, then for exactly the same reason, life cannot exist, nature is chaos, and Paul is a liar.

Paul is no liar and I understand the second law. Perhaps you want to take another gander at your own understanding.

In Christ, GB

Oh, and BTW, each life IS a special miracle of God's handiwork.

I agree, but not a miracle in the sense of a supernatural suspension of God's ordained natural order. Again, you stumble on Romans 1:19

 

[metherion]

only problem is Archaeopteryx IS a bird at least as far as modern science is concerned, so the case is not closed. Even it's name means ("original bird" or "first bird"). The fact that it is a bird is disclosed here: P.J. Currie et al., eds., Feathered Dragons: Studies on the Transition from Dinosaurs to Birds, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 2004. Even wikipedia notices the bird likeness in the ear: "The structure more closely resembles that of modern birds than the inner ear of non-avian reptiles."

CC214.1.1: Archaeopteryx a bird?

It has a ton of non avian features despite being an avian. It is a transitional form.

Also, any response about how not all birds can fly, so therefore insisting that a transitional be shown to have flown in not valid?

as for the rest of your examples Like the chicken with alligator teeth, does that mean the alligator evolved into a chicken or the chicken the alligator?

Alligator-LIKE teeth. And what it means is that when the DNA genes were deactivated and stopped being selected for, they were coding for teeth that resembled those of modern alligators... reptile teeth.

A lot more than just a scant few fossils that aren't even at a halfway point in the supposed evolution between two creatures.

Each fossil is a fully formed feature in and of itself.

Also, just how few do you think there are? 2? Ten? 20? You keep reiterating that there aren’t many, so how many do you think there are?

Kinda like the platypus. Oh wait, you said that one doesn't count. It's a pick and choose kind of thing. I see.

Did you read the article I dug up and linked? There is fossil AND genetic information about the platypus.

And one thing I didn’t say in your original post is that no extant species is evolving into a different extant species. Ducks and platypodes are not evolving into each other, nor are beavers.

If you can’t even be bothered to read and discuss what I bring up, why are you even here talking?

But for as old as the Earth is supposed to be and all the cataclysmic events that have plagued the Earth in it's 3.7 billion year history, you would think there might be more than one extinct bird that represents the entire transformation from dinosaurs to birds. But then, what do I know?

You know how to ignore that list of 6 that I posted for you earlier. And that isn’t anywhere near all that have been discovered. And that’s only fossils, not even TOUCHING genetic data.

Is "funnily" a transition word between funny and family? Anyway, I don't remember using it as any kind of source in my previous post in which you seem to reference. Did you have a point with saying that?

I found it humorous that the book you own that we were talking about on an unrelated topic would pop up here. That’s all. No real point, just wanted to point out something I thought amusing.

Are we to believe that even though there aren't but a few "transition fossils" because fossilization is a rare occurrence, yet miraculously there are seven fossils of the archeopteryx (with fossilization of the soft tissue of feathers)? Seems like fossilization happens to "catch" that bird rather easily. Why didn't it catch all those other "yet undiscovered" transition fossils?

Because of the area where it lived. They were found in lithographic limestone, in Germany.

Also, we have 11 individuals, from mainly one area, out of an entire species. How many chickens are there today? What fraction of that is 11 chickens? Well, chickens are farmed and disposed of, that’s kind of a bad comparison. How many crows are out there today? What fraction of that is 11 crows?

Sounds like they share a lot in common with chickens.

Nobody says they didn’t.

Is a penguin any less "birdy" because it doesn't fly, but swims instead?

Where is flight on that list?

So, in the boldened section you use the features that the archeopteryx had or didn't have to show how it's related to dinosaurs then just below it you say "Looks alone aren't enough." Are features used to compare and contrast or are they not?

No matter how much a platypus bill LOOKS like a duck bill, it is not. It is an entirely different structure. So how it outwardly looks is not what it used to compare and contrast. What is used is things like bone structures, where muscles are anchored, where joints connect, and so on. For instance, here is a picture of a platypus bill from the Nation Museum of Australia:

Not so much like a duck bill now, is it?

I have yet to see a meteorite organize the area it impacted.

Missing the point. Meteorites can heat the air around where they fly until the crash, and contain compounds from space, or mix up dust clouds from one area to another.

And it has to be just the right amount. Too little and people suffer from a lack of vitamin D, too much of it and our skin is fried and we get cancer! Another great energy source you've listed!

And how many chemical reactions are catalyzed by light? A lot. And how many times have you seen a tree sunburned? A fish? A housefly? A flower? A bacterium? If what you say here is right, then hey, let’s just run every sick person’s blood through a tube that goes into sunlight, it’ll kill all the germs!

Also, solar power, photosynthesis, the wind currents from cooling and warming, just regular warming of the land... yeah. It IS a great source of energy.

I lived along the Mississippi River in Iowa in 1993 and I have seen the destruction rain can do. Do you honestly expect us to believe that it is an organizer?

Aqueous chemical reactions, moving of organic chemicals from one place to another, mixing up of the dirt, yeah. Maybe not in the way you think organization, but it does impart usable energy.

Those winds sure don't organize anything I have ever seen. Wind can even screw up a pile of leaves. Wind has taken how many stages and turned them into nothing but a pile of debris. How did that organize anything? And since we are talking about wind as an energy source, I suppose that tornadoes are like super organizers. Tell that to the people in Joplin, MO.

Really? And how many birds use wind to travel? How many jets use the jetstream? How many seeds and insects travel on it? What about wind power? What about wind moving things like clouds that have the rain that can help mix up things to promote more reactions?

Save for a few extremophiles which are already in existence, how many things can survive in the vicinity of them?

So things DO live in there and use it as an energy source. Thanks for proving my point.

Why don't you ask how much of a help Mt St Helens was to those who lived nearby it in 1980? I hear it took everything that was chaotic and organized it.

Volcanoes provide huge clouds of dust which can contain chemicals and contribute to cooling of nearby areas.

The trees that I have seen struck by lightning seem to be a whole lot less organized after the strike than they were before lightning struck it. And BTW, I thought you said that lightning was off the proverbial table just a couple pages ago. You dismissed lightning electrocuting a mud puddle yet now you use it as a source of energy. Which is it?

Lightning is a source of energy. Go to the beach after a lightning storm. Glass is sure more organized than a pile of loose sand, isn’t it?

Also, see the Urey-Miller experiment.

Furthermore, I never said lightning was off the table. I said lightning striking a mud puddle is not what is claimed. A mud puddle is not a complicated chemical soup containing large number of organic chemicals. It is mud. There is a difference.

Also, this is just more Hoyle’s fallacy type stuff. SERIOUSLY? Humans get sunburns, so nothing can every utilize the sun for energy. Tornadoes destroy things, so wind can never be harnessed by ANYTHING to be used constructively. Lightning destroys trees, so it can’t impart usable energy. This is just laughable.

I understand the second law. Perhaps you want to take another gander at your own understanding.


If you are trying to use it this way, then no. You don’t.

Metherion

 

[darwinian12345]

Simple answer to all of this, creationism and for that matter religion has no basis in solid facts. Carbon dating can prove how old something is, and therefor that debunks creationism, so that means the facts should be taught in schools, and the fact is, evolution is why you and I are here today.

 

[Incariol]

Simple answer to all of this, creationism and for that matter religion has no basis in solid facts. Carbon dating can prove how old something is, and therefor that debunks creationism, so that means the facts should be taught in schools, and the fact is, evolution is why you and I are here today.

Yes, but lots of creationists like to pretend there is a problem with radiometric dating.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Metherion,
Then it would be intelligent design if God has created the laws that create the species.

Actually, the idea behind ID is that it is impossible for natural laws alone to cause the diversity of evolution, so an intelligent agent is needed to come in and interfere, via miracles or the like.

Yep, and for us thats God. So it would be intelligent design if God created the laws, yes?
Absolutely, but so is evolution apart from God. That is the point, the fossil and dating evidence just shows the progressive complexity of life forms, that it is intelligent design or evolution by whatever other factor is philosophy.

Not quite. Evolution without God is a philosophy, but just evolution in and of itself is not. Science does not say evolution happened with or without God, it just states that it happens. The philosophy is saying it happened with God/without God/needed miracles/etc.

Yes I agree. Many times we hear the philosophy presented as the science itself.

New kingdoms are not expected to just pop up.

I never expected they would, but I asked about the evolutionary evidence of Kingdoms not species.

And what about the rise of new species?

The rise of new species doesn’t demonstrate the rise of new Kingdoms, that is still the assumption being challenged.

What laws of nature would prevent evolution?

Now you are asking me a question in response to my question. My response is what evolution?
No, but if Tikaalic didint evolve we have no trasitional fossil evidence for evolution.

Wrong, there are plenty plenty more.

Like?

And since tiktaalik had to come from SOMETHING it must have evolved,

or it must have been created.

even if it went extinct instead of leading to modern land animals. It would just mean there is also ANOTHER undiscovered transition waiting to be found.

Or not as the case may be.

Wrong.

Sorry, yes you can claim it as I can claim they weren’t steps in the process.

If I say that last Monday, I went to the store, then to the barbershop, then home, then to pick up my kids, then to my 3rd shift job, and then later realize I misremembered and I actually went to the barber, then the store, then home, then to get the kids, then to work, it doesn’t mean I never went to the store OR the barbershop, I just got the order mixed up. (note, this didn't actually happen, I just made up events for the purposes of illustration.)

But that is what is being challenged from the evidence.

 

[good brother]

Each fossil is a fully formed feature in and of itself. Also, just how few do you think there are? 2? Ten? 20? You keep reiterating that there aren’t many, so how many do you think there are?

Not near enough to substantiate the claims made by evolutionists. Even if there were one hundred supposed transition forms demonstrating the T Rex to Tweety evolution, that would mean that there would only be one fossil every 600,000 years if we just went back to the very tail end of the dinosaur reign. But we don't have one hundred. We don't have ten transitional fossils. We also know that the good ol' archeopteryx existed as far back as 150,000,000 years ago. So now we have a problem. Because archeopteryx has more features in common with birds than that of dinosaurs, we must push the dates back farther from 60,000,000 to 150,000,000 and earlier. If true birds had already evolved by 150,000,000 years ago, then their evolution must be before that time. We could go back a maximum of 100,000,000 more years to the beginning of the Triassic at 248,000,000ya. So now we have to have birds evolving in a time before the supposed birdlike dinosaurs even existed according to evolution. Birds apparently had to evolve from these early dinos, long before any of the feathered dinosaurs would appear ( in the lower Cretacious period some 150 million years later). And though there were raptors (Eoraptor), these raptors share similarities with modern lizards- not modern birds. Where are we then? The archeopteryx had to have evolved in a time before it's supposed feathered dinosaur ancestors even appeared on the scene. Yeah, that works great for you.

And one thing I didn’t say in your original post is that no extant species is evolving into a different extant species. Ducks and platypodes are not evolving into each other, nor are beavers.

How do you know that no living species is evolving into another living species? Perhaps those evolving into another are doing so because the defense mechanism in the other is better than that of their current one? And I thought evolution is always happening and that is was happening at such a slow rate of time that "we" couldn't see it. I guess that's more of the pick and choose philosophy of evolution.

You know how to ignore that list of 6 that I posted for you earlier. And that isn’t anywhere near all that have been discovered. And that’s only fossils, not even TOUCHING genetic data.

Could you please list those six fossils again and the times that each were have supposed to live? Thank you very much.

Where is flight on that list?

Flight doesn't need to be on the list to be a bird. There are many birds that are flightless or near flightless but yet they are birds.

No matter how much a platypus bill LOOKS like a duck bill, it is not. It is an entirely different structure. So how it outwardly looks is not what it used to compare and contrast. What is used is things like bone structures, where muscles are anchored, where joints connect, and so on. For instance, here is a picture of a platypus bill from the Nation Museum of Australia:

Not so much like a duck bill now, is it?

I don't know, it shares a lot of the features of a duck (as offered above), yet not all. I think that is proof positive that the platypus is turning into a duck.

And how many chemical reactions are catalyzed by light? A lot. And how many times have you seen a tree sunburned? A fish? A housefly? A flower? A bacterium?

And all of those are set up with designs to utilize that light. Not one of those decided one day to just use the sunlight for an energy source. And yes, I have seen sunburnt plants. My hoya plant will burn up if it's exposed to direct sunlight. My grass has burnt up because of all the sunshine and not enough rain. My beans didn't get enough sunlight while my corn got too much. Shall I go on?

Aqueous chemical reactions, moving of organic chemicals from one place to another, mixing up of the dirt, yeah. Maybe not in the way you think organization, but it does impart usable energy.

So, in it's disorganizing, it's organizing?

Really? And how many birds use wind to travel? How many jets use the jetstream? How many seeds and insects travel on it?

Once again you have listed things and animals that already have designs in place to utilize the wind. Not one of these decided one day to just start using the wind. I mean, what if I used a slingshot to chuck woodchucks into the air? (would this make them airchucks?) Would they all of a sudden use the wind? Maybe til they went splat. Birds are already designed to use air and wind. You have presented a non-argument.

So things DO live in there and use it as an energy source. Thanks for proving my point.

Again, a non argument. Yes, extremophiles live there because they are designed to live there. We as humans are the most adaptable creatures on the planet, yet if we were to put a colony of humans down along those hot vents they would explode from the great pressures before they had a chance to aclimate to hundreds of degrees living.

Volcanoes provide huge clouds of dust which can contain chemicals and contribute to cooling of nearby areas.

I thought one popular opinion was that a volcanic eruption caused the extinction of the dinosaurs when it made huge clouds that blocked out the sun and cooled the earth? Does the volcano give life giving energy or does it take it away?

Lightning is a source of energy. Go to the beach after a lightning storm. Glass is sure more organized than a pile of loose sand, isn’t it?

Glass isn't living. Remember, it can't make it's own stained glass window?

Also, see the Urey-Miller experiment.

That experiment was flawed from the beginning. They controlled everything. The fact that there were two intelligent beings controlling the types and amounts of chemicals in the experiment and they controlled the energies put into it is more of a case for God creating everything than it is for evolution.

Furthermore, I never said lightning was off the table. I said lightning striking a mud puddle is not what is claimed. A mud puddle is not a complicated chemical soup containing large number of organic chemicals. It is mud. There is a difference.

I understand. If we describe the mud puddle as a chemical beaker of life giving goodies it sounds more believeable than just a mud puddle with a mixed up conglomeration of dirt.

Your arguments fail under scrutiny.

In Christ, GB

 

[metherion]

Then it would be intelligent design if God has created the laws that create the species.
...
Yep, and for us thats God. So it would be intelligent design if God created the laws, yes?

From intelligentdesign.org:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

So, if God designed the natural laws, including those that gave rise to natural selection, that is not intelligent design, because ID specifically states that such things are not sufficient.

Absolutely, but so is evolution apart from God.

No, because evolution itself is a process, not an intelligent agency.

That is the point, the fossil and dating evidence just shows the progressive complexity of life forms, that it is intelligent design or evolution by whatever other factor is philosophy.

Actually, the progressive complexity contraindicates ID because if ID were the case, new things would just pop up, with no precursors, or progress up to it, or whatever.

Yes I agree. Many times we hear the philosophy presented as the science itself.

No. The science is that X happened. The philosophy is that X happened with/without God. The philosophy is not taught in science classes, even if it is spread by the likes of Dawkins and AIG and such.

I never expected they would, but I asked about the evolutionary evidence of Kingdoms not species.

Then tell us what would satisfy you so it can be presented.

The rise of new species doesn’t demonstrate the rise of new Kingdoms, that is still the assumption being challenged.

So, again, what would satisfy you? Fossilized life that doesn’t fit into any kingdoms present prior to life that does, as evidence of differentiation? Or what?

Now you are asking me a question in response to my question. My response is what evolution?
No, but if Tikaalic didint evolve we have no trasitional fossil evidence for evolution.

The scientific theory of evolution. If it is claimed that a law prevents it, the law preventing it must be prevented. 
And tiktaalik is not the only transitional, ever. Try doing a google search for it, or looking on talk.origins (and then going to the sources it lists if you don’t like compliations.) Go to ACTUAL sources, not just AIG or ICR or other dishonest creationist organizations.

or it must have been created.

When? By what or whom? What evidence would show that?

But that is what is being challenged from the evidence.

What evidence challenges that NONE of it happened? Religious texts aren’t evidence, by the way.

Not near enough to substantiate the claims made by evolutionists. Even if there were one hundred supposed transition forms demonstrating the T Rex to Tweety evolution, that would mean that there would only be one fossil every 600,000 years if we just went back to the very tail end of the dinosaur reign. But we don't have one hundred. We don't have ten transitional fossils. We also know that the good ol' archeopteryx existed as far back as 150,000,000 years ago. So now we have a problem. Because archeopteryx has more features in common with birds than that of dinosaurs, we must push the dates back farther from 60,000,000 to 150,000,000 and earlier. If true birds had already evolved by 150,000,000 years ago, then their evolution must be before that time. We could go back a maximum of 100,000,000 more years to the beginning of the Triassic at 248,000,000ya. So now we have to have birds evolving in a time before the supposed birdlike dinosaurs even existed according to evolution. Birds apparently had to evolve from these early dinos, long before any of the feathered dinosaurs would appear ( in the lower Cretacious period some 150 million years later). And though there were raptors (Eoraptor), these raptors share similarities with modern lizards- not modern birds. Where are we then? The archeopteryx had to have evolved in a time before it's supposed feathered dinosaur ancestors even appeared on the scene. Yeah, that works great for you.

SO, no matter what, you have made up your mind that there will never be enough, and your preconceived notion that you will refuse to change is that there aren’t any, and will never be enough. Is that right?

How do you know that no living species is evolving into another living species? Perhaps those evolving into another are doing so because the defense mechanism in the other is better than that of their current one? And I thought evolution is always happening and that is was happening at such a slow rate of time that "we" couldn't see it. I guess that's more of the pick and choose philosophy of evolution.

New species are evolving, today, yes. Current species are evolving into new species, not other existing ones. Fruit bats are not turning into vampire bats, or Canada geese evolving into grey geese, and so on. Yes, evolution is always happening. The moment of speciation is difficult to pinpoint but I KNOW the 29+ evidences of macroevolution link has been posted before in this thread that shows 29+ observed instances of speciation is around. The evolution that is ‘too slow to observe’ is in species with very long generations (like whales), very large populations with a lot of gene flow (like humans), and at higher levels (like family). No pick and choose about it.

Could you please list those six fossils again and the times that each were have supposed to live? Thank you very much.

Genus: Pedopenna, 168-140 million years ago
Genus: Anchiornis,~155 MYA
Genus: Scansoriopteryx, 164-158 MYA
Genus: Archaopteryx, 150-145 MYA
Genus: Confuciusornis, 120MYA
Genus: Eoalulavis, 115 MYA
Genus: Ichtyornis, 93-75 MYA
Heck, I’ll even toss in a few primitive birds for you:
Genus: Waimanu, 60-58 MYA, earliest known penguin
Genus: Colymboides, ~37 MYA? (couldn’t find much on the date), loon
Genus:Mopsitta, 55-48 MYA, psittacine
Genus: Primapus, 50 MYA, apodiform (the order than includes the hummingbird family

Hope that helps.

Flight doesn't need to be on the list to be a bird. There are many birds that are flightless or near flightless but yet they are birds.

Exactly. And flight wasn’t on the list of features archaeopteryx has different from birds. So I was asking why you brought it up.

I don't know, it shares a lot of the features of a duck (as offered above), yet not all. I think that is proof positive that the platypus is turning into a duck.

But, again, it is the differences. What it is made of, how much of it is bone, the openings in it, sensory organs it contains, et cetera. So, no, it isn’t.

And all of those are set up with designs to utilize that light. Not one of those decided one day to just use the sunlight for an energy source. And yes, I have seen sunburnt plants. My hoya plant will burn up if it's exposed to direct sunlight. My grass has burnt up because of all the sunshine and not enough rain. My beans didn't get enough sunlight while my corn got too much. Shall I go on?

Ah, so the goalposts get moved. Yes, sunlight can provide energy to reactions, but they’re all DESIGNED, so it doesn’t count. There are a lot of chemical reactions, such as bromination of alkanes, that rely on light to get the started. Hoya plants don’t prefer direct sunlight, but do need light, yes, that is true. But what kind of plant are they? They’re climbers, right? So it would make sense they’d get used to shade and not direct sunlight from the trees and such they are growing on.

And your grass got burnt because of too much sun AND NO RAIN. So, the sun can’t provide energy because a combined drought killed your grass? Really?

So, in it's disorganizing, it's organizing?

It is providing usable energy. Kind of the opposite of entropy. I’ll get back to this.

Once again you have listed things and animals that already have designs in place to utilize the wind. Not one of these decided one day to just start using the wind. I mean, what if I used a slingshot to chuck woodchucks into the air? (would this make them airchucks?) Would they all of a sudden use the wind? Maybe til they went splat. Birds are already designed to use air and wind. You have presented a non-argument.

So, again, the goalposts get moved. Yes, there are things designed to use the wind, SO IT DOESN”T COUNT.

Again, a non argument. Yes, extremophiles live there because they are designed to live there. We as humans are the most adaptable creatures on the planet, yet if we were to put a colony of humans down along those hot vents they would explode from the great pressures before they had a chance to aclimate to hundreds of degrees living.

Same thing. OH, things are designed to be there, SO IT DOESN”T COUNT. Moving the goalposts AGAIN.

I thought one popular opinion was that a volcanic eruption caused the extinction of the dinosaurs when it made huge clouds that blocked out the sun and cooled the earth? Does the volcano give life giving energy or does it take it away?

Misunderstanding entropy again. I’ll come to that later, as I said earlier. And just because it CAN interfere with existing life doesn’t mean it can’t provide anything. Wind can interfere with life but you already acknowledge various animals and plants use it. Same with water/floods, and sunlight, and so on.

Glass isn't living. Remember, it can't make it's own stained glass window?

Yet glass is more organized than sand. So you just toss out a red herring and MOVE THE GOALPOSTS AGAIN. Not only does it need to produce more order, it needs to instantly produce life now? Really?

That experiment was flawed from the beginning. They controlled everything. The fact that there were two intelligent beings controlling the types and amounts of chemicals in the experiment and they controlled the energies put into it is more of a case for God creating everything than it is for evolution.

So did it or did it not show that amino acids can form without life?

And no, it isn’t a case for creating. Two people tried to figure out what the environment was like before life, recreated it, and simulated a natural event. What you are saying is a gross misunderstanding of... well... everything.

I understand. If we describe the mud puddle as a chemical beaker of life giving goodies it sounds more believeable than just a mud puddle with a mixed up conglomeration of dirt.

How about because JUST DIRT doesn’t have all the building blocks for life? So the JUST DIRT in a muddle puddle wouldn’t work? And since it wouldn’t have been JUST DIRT, your argument falls flat on its face.

Now, I said I’d explain about entropy again, and I will. The second law of thermodynamics refers to a specific TYPE of disorder: entropy, which is defined as the amount of usable energy in a system. The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, entropy will stay constant or increase. We’ve both already established that the surface of the earth is NOT a closed system, so the SLoT does not apply to reactions on the surface of the earth, as energy can come in to them from elsewhere.

According to NASA's Cosmicopia -- Ask Us -- Sun , question number 15, the sun fuses about 600 million tons of hydrogen per second. That entropy gain is FAR FAR FAR more than any entropy loss caused by the ordering of life on earth.

The wind and the rain provide kinetic energy to what they blow and fall on, which can be usable. Lightning provides a sudden burst of energy which can cause reactions (chemical or physical) that increase entropy. Sand glass on a beach is much less disordered than free sand, despite your blatant goal-post moving. Meteors give heat energy into the air and bring in new compounds that can react from space. Volcanoes and deep sea vents add matter and heat energy from inside the earth, while light adds photons and heat energy from outside the earth.

The SLoT argument is bunk. You’ve used it wrong, you’ve moved the goalposts when presented with evidence, you haven’t even argued using the right definition of disorder. It is your argument that have failed under scrutiny.

And by the way... how does any of this help put creationism in classrooms? You see, science is not a winner take all match, like a Olympic hockey game (I specifically use this because in case of a tie they go to shootout, if I remember rightly, specifically so there can be no tie). If evolution is shot down, creationism will NOT automatically go into the science textbooks. You have provided zero positive evidence for creationism. All you have done is attempt to show negative evidence for evolution. Show your positive evidence for creationism, instead of trying to argue your failed negative points.

Metherion

 

[good brother]

The fact that any of this is being taught at the primary school level is the problem, they should be teaching reading, writing, math and science and not all these other alternative classes.

Amen.