Are there transitional fossils?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Now that is correct...you as well as they DO NOT KNOW. So why teach it as a fact and fail those who disagree or immediately dismiss alternative explanations. What? Because they have no proof? But you have none either, so what makes your unfounded assumption any more valuable than any one else's unfounded assumption? At least what we can demonstrate here is what is demonstrable (a fact), your assumption is not (a fiction)...

No, that's not what I said. I said that I do not know. I said it clearly when I said that I PERSONALLY DO NOT KNOW. Is your reading comprehension really that poor?

 

[pshun2404]

No, we wouldn't get that because A) it would not be an intellectually honest admission of what the facts show us. In fact, it would outright lying. And B), letting students "make up their own minds" is the same phrase used by proponents of Young Earth Creationism who want their pseudo-scientific, non-religious and idolatrous views be put on the same level as all other mainstream knowledge.

But the facts show us tetrapods existed BEFORE Tilt, and that birds existed BEFORE Archae...shouldn't we teach the facts MINUS the hypothesis based story?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But the facts show us tetrapods existed BEFORE Tilt, and that birds existed BEFORE Archae...shouldn't we teach the facts MINUS the hypothesis based story?

No, that isn't what is shown. We see that fishapods exist before Tiktaalik (get the spelling right) then followed by Tetrapods and the birds came AFTER Archaeosaurs.
Your way of thinking isn't even looking at the facts. Your entire way of thinking is having the explanation before the hypothesis and way before we have the facts.

 

[pshun2404]

But they do they want it to be true? That's what I'm asking.
And your knowledge of the history of evolution is just absolutely laughable. You talk of a bias for accepting evolution, but I can clearly see your own bias coming through.

I believe in a creator, but I also believe in evolution (for example, I believe in Darwin's four postulates) and I see no conflict whatsoever. Now granted there are extremists in each camp who insist it MUST be an either/or and never the twain shall meet but I am not in one of those camps so please stop saying

a) I do not believe in evolution, or implying
b) I am biased against evolution

Neither if these things is true, you are attaching a narrative rather than dealing with the issues I have presented. Skip what you or I may or may not believe about a creator and look at what we have pointed out.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I believe in a creator, but I also believe in evolution (for example, I believe in Darwin's four postulates) and I see no conflict whatsoever. Now granted there are extremists in each camp who insist it MUST be an either/or and never the twain shall meet but I am not in one of those camps so please stop saying

a) I do not believe in evolution, or implying
b) I am biased against evolution

Neither if these things is true, you are attaching a narrative rather than dealing with the issues I have presented. Skip what you or I may or may not believe about a creator and look at what we have pointed out.

Speaking of skipping things you didn't answer my question about why you think that the global scientists desperately want evolution and their 'hypothesis', as you label it, to be true. Care to actually answer it, honestly?

 

[pshun2404]

No, that isn't what is shown. We see that fishapods exist before Tiktaalik (get the spelling right) then followed by Tetrapods and the birds came AFTER Archaeosaurs.
Your way of thinking isn't even looking at the facts. Your entire way of thinking is having the explanation before the hypothesis and way before we have the facts.

That is NOT what we have found...your so called "fishpods" have always existed and still do (and they are still fish) and "what we have" is evidence that shows tetrapods and fishpods (sorry, I'm laughing) existed simultaneously BEFORE Tiktaalik....BEFORE = BEFORE!

The effect cannot precede the cause (period)! To say otherwise is simply a logical absurdity.

And no! Your assessment of my thinking is also incorrect. You said "Your way of thinking isn't even looking at the facts. Your entire way of thinking is having the explanation before the hypothesis and way before we have the facts."

When my way of thinking is ONLY looking at the facts. My explanation is the facts...BEFORE////BEFORE////

The effect cannot precede the cause (period)! To say otherwise is simply a logical absurdity.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That is NOT what we have found...your so called "fishpods" have always existed and still do (and they are still fish) and "what we have" is evidence that shows tetrapods and fishpods (sorry, I'm laughing) existed simultaneously BEFORE Tiktaalik....BEFORE = BEFORE!

The effect cannot precede the cause (period)! To say otherwise is simply a logical absurdity.

Do you even actually know what a fishapod is? Hint: IT'S NOT AN ACTUAL FISH! Modern fish are COMPLETELY different to the fish that existed in the Devonian, Cambrian and pre-Cambrian Earth.

 

[pshun2404]

Speaking of skipping things you didn't answer my question about why you think that the global scientists desperately want evolution and their 'hypothesis', as you label it, to be true. Care to actually answer it, honestly?

That was not what you asked. However, I cannot speak to motive. I believe that they believe what they have been taught as the correct explanation (indoctrination not education is responsible for this) and then intepret all they find through this assumption, They are taught the hypothesis is true by the previously indoctrinated who must teach a scripted curriculum (no variance from the program allowed). Evolution is true to a great extent (speciation does produce variety for example) but NO FACTS show fish become amphibians which become reptiles and so on....not one!

 

[Jimmy D]

Because they want it to be true and interpret the actual data through the hypothesis, instead of letting the actual data SHAPE the hypothesis (which is what good science does).

I'm not sure that you're really in a position to tell the scientific community - "You're doing it wrong!"

Then some make idiot assumptions like this quote from doubtingmerle..."I find it hard to believe a designer kept putting more and more advanced animals out there, popping them into existence out of nothing, until finally it created the zebra" as if that's what educated people who believe in a creator (like Francis Collins for example) actually believe. He really is so clueless.

Doubtingmerle is not making assumptions, you didn't post the whole quote which made sense in context. We are all aware that Francis Collins accepts the Theory of Evolution and common descent, maybe you should contact him and tell him he's "interpreting his data through the hypothesis" and needs to do "good science".

 

[pshun2404]

Do you even actually know what a fishapod is? Hint: IT'S NOT AN ACTUAL FISH! Modern fish are COMPLETELY different to the fish that existed in the Devonian, Cambrian and pre-Cambrian Earth.

Of course I know what they are (but google the term....lol)...for me the closest present FISH that one could use to support your hypothesis is the Australian climbing perch. They use their "pods" to cross over land from one watering hole to the next...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That was not what you asked. However, I cannot speak to motive. I believe that they believe what they have been taught as the correct explanation (indoctrination not education is responsible for this) and then intepret all they find through this assumption, They are taught the hypothesis is true by the previously indoctrinated who must teach a scripted curriculum (no variance from the program allowed). Evolution is true to a great extent (speciation does produce variety for example) but NO FACTS show fish become amphibians which become reptiles and so on....not one!

Yes, it is what I asked. #879
Why do you say that they and everyone else is being indoctrinated? To what end? Your entire argument just smacks of creationist anti-Bible conspiracy talk.
And just because you refuse to accept the facts does not mean you are right. The fossil evidence that we find clearly show a transitional from fish-like animals to amphibian-like animals to reptile-like animals.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Of course I know what they are (but google the term....lol)...for me the closest present FISH that one could use to support your hypothesis is the Australian climbing perch. They use their "pods" to cross over land from one watering hole to the next...

No, you obviously don't know what the term is. The closest living example of a tetrapodomorph would not be a climbing perch, since that's still a fish. The closest living example would be the lungfish. You know, the animal that can actually exist in both land and water but still be considered an actual fish.

 

[pshun2404]

I'm not sure that you're really in a position to tell the scientific community - "You're doing it wrong!"

Doubtingmerle is not making assumptions, you didn't post the whole quote which made sense in context. We are all aware that Francis Collins accepts the Theory of Evolution and common descent, maybe you should contact him and tell him he's "interpreting his data through the hypothesis" and needs to do "good science".

They are not "doing it wrong" and I never said that. And no I will not tell him anything he is entitled to his opinion as well. I also accept the theory of evolution but will only go so far as the evidence takes us. When more is provided I will change my assessment to adapt to the truth whatever that may turn out to be. Most "scientists" do the same thing, that's why "scientific fact" has changed so much over the last two centuries.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They are not "doing it wrong" and I never said that. And no I will not tell him anything he is entitled to his opinion as well. I also accept the theory of evolution but will only go so far as the evidence takes us. When more is provided I will change my assessment to adapt to the truth whatever that may turn out to be. Most "scientists" do the same thing, that's why "scientific fact" has changed so much over the last two centuries.

You are basically saying that they are doing it wrong though. Every time your criticize and say that they are starting with the hypothesis and not the facts, you are saying that they are doing it wrong.

 

[pshun2404]

Yes, it is what I asked. #879
Why do you say that they and everyone else is being indoctrinated? To what end? Your entire argument just smacks of creationist anti-Bible conspiracy talk.
And just because you refuse to accept the facts does not mean you are right. The fossil evidence that we find clearly show a transitional from fish-like animals to amphibian-like animals to reptile-like animals.

First off go back and read 879 carefully you do not ask that. Just look at the data (something earlier does not come after the latter it comes before). And I do accept the FACTS and the facts (at this time) are that tets pre-exist Tik and birds pre-exist Archae and so Tk and Archae are not their granddaddies.

like...like...like...not is is is...nothing real here just conjecture.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

First off go back and read 879 carefully you do not ask that. Just look at the data (something earlier does not come after the latter it comes before). And I do accept the FACTS and the facts (at this time) are that tets pre-exist Tik and birds pre-exist Archae and so Tk and Archae are not their granddaddies.

like...like...like...not is is is...nothing real here just conjecture.

So the reason that you say that you are right is because of a grammar mistake? Really?! Since you're being so ridiculous about this, I'll ask this properly: But WHY they do they want it to be true? That's what I'm asking.
Hint for the future: if you spot a grammar mistake, do the decent thing and point it out. Or at least make a guess on what the question is. You know, like a normal person does.

And you are falling in to the same pattern as justatruthseeker: you keeping saying that you are right because you keep saying that you are right.

 

[Jimmy D]

I believe that they believe what they have been taught as the correct explanation

Is it possible that they have been taught the correct explanation? Do you not think that over the course of the tens of thousands of hours of research and observation one of them might have realized something was amiss?

Francis Collins "Whoa, hold on there Craig, a bloke on the internet seems pretty sure we're interpreting our work through an assumption"

Craig Venter "What? Oh man, do I have to give back my Kistler Prize?!"

 

[Jimmy D]

They are not "doing it wrong" and I never said that. And no I will not tell him anything he is entitled to his opinion as well. I also accept the theory of evolution but will only go so far as the evidence takes us. When more is provided I will change my assessment to adapt to the truth whatever that may turn out to be. Most "scientists" do the same thing, that's why "scientific fact" has changed so much over the last two centuries.

No, you just implied it.....

Because they want it to be true and interpret the actual data through the hypothesis, instead of letting the actual data SHAPE the hypothesis (which is what good science does).

 

[pshun2404]

You are basically saying that they are doing it wrong though. Every time your criticize and say that they are starting with the hypothesis and not the facts, you are saying that they are doing it wrong.

They are DOING science correctly (applying the method can getting to evidence), but they are ALSO interpreting what they find and in this case (the one we are discussing) through the pre-supposition. Is there some kind of logic block that does not enable you to process this distinction? And I am not trying to insult you...

but what part of something that would be an effect cannot precede it's own alleged cause can you not grasp? I ask this because we do see that when de-programming victims of cults, or in those suffering from Stockholm syndrome. There mind causes them to default to another string of information from which they again default to yet another and so on until they return to the originally unresolved issue.

So now your turn. Please explain how an effect (in this case the alleged result of an alleged transitional form) can precede the cause (in this case Tiktaalik tyoe of creature) OF THE EFFECT?

Give me your logic for this.

 

[xianghua]

I don't know, and for the sake of being actually intellectual, do not take that as an admission that the theory of evolution is wrong because it most certainly is not. It's just an admission that I personally do not know.

but you said that "out of order fossil" like a bird before an avian dino will disprove evolution. so now you are claiming that you actually dont know? its a self contradiction.