transitional species
- Thread starter GBTWC
- Start date
Doveaman
Re-Created, Not Evolved.
What demonstration? All you are doing is pointing your finger at similar characteristics and crying “TRANSITIONAL”. A demonstration is when you can actually observe the transition taking place in real time. You can’t.
In other words, you make up fairytale stories to try to explain the features. Got it.
Or you just dig up a fossil and then try to figure out which gap it best fits into until you find a better fit.
Creationism doesn’t need to make up fairytales to try to explain old bones. We already know where they came from.
Would you prefer me to accept your new age creation myth?
Upvote
0
Hmmmm. Maybe we need to define the term "transitional"?
https://www.google.com/search?q=hor...Q&biw=1280&bih=738&sei=MSMcUIuHA4z0iwKOpICABg
https://www.google.com/search?q=hor...pw.r_qf.&fp=49dfd2cff0989f24&biw=1280&bih=738
Upvote
0
I am pointing a finger and demonstrating that the platypus shares features from two divergent taxa. In the case of the platypus you have leathery eggs from reptiles and fur from mammals. The platypus has a mixture of characteristics from reptiles and mammals which makes the platypus transitional by definition.
No, a demonstration is pointing to the transitional features in a transitional.
No, I construct hypotheses and test them using the features found in species. This method is called the scientific method. You should look into it.
We look to see what features the fossil shares with other species.
Creationism is incapable of predicting what mixtures of characteristics we should and should not see in species. It is an untestable religious belief. This is in stark contrast to the theory of evolution which does make predictions and is testable. That is the difference.
It isn't a myth. It is a testable scientific theory.
Upvote
0
"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group."
Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The same applies to living species.
Upvote
0
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
You don't "know" where fossils come from or anything else if you are relying on your personal interpretation of scripture to tell you. You believe. If your interpretation of scripture is wrong, then so is your beliefs concerning fossils. See my sig.
Upvote
0
They can not teach creationism in public school because of what they call the separation of church and state. Actually they can teach creationism if they want. It is not on the states lesson plan and it is not required so they can not give tests on it. Each teacher is given extra time to teach on things that are not on the state approved lesson plan.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,352
- 10,607
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Indeed - the Duck Billed Platypus being a good example of characteristics between mammals and aquatic fowl -- a transition that never happened in nature - but could be turned into an interesting "story".
Othaniel Marsh "Came up" with his fraudulent horse "Series" still on display at the Smithsonian and preserved in children's text books for decades after its discovery as a fraud is a great example of simply "making stuff up" because of what one finds "in the dirt" regardless of the order in which it is found.
But as Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and Meyers point out - once you start believing those stories - the Bible as-is is no longer compatible with your belief system .
in Christ,
Bob
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,058
- 16,810
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Oooops. It's you that have told an interesting story.
The platypus (that's the proper name - duck billed in an incorrect appellation) posesses no aquatic fowl features. The bill is an extended jaw with a leathery covering that's more like a pair of lips than a birds bill. The eggs they lay are soft and reptilian, not hard and avian. The feet are webbed, as are several dog breeds, the forelimbs of Pinnipeds, etc.
Upvote
0
wow, some creationist wrote a book and made a bunch of claims. so where is ANY creationists published article in a reputable science journal? Off the top of my head there are several hundred thousand published articles concerning evolution over the last 10 years, and NONE on creationism. where is the creationist getting a nobel prize for their work on biology? hmmmmmmm.
solid theory packed with evidence there boys, lol.
oh wait, there was one article that mentioned creation published, that then got the editor of that journal fired because the article was so flawed and should never have been published.
the 'evidence' is overwhelming.
oh, and 'creation scientist' is a misnomer. creation isn't even science, because there is no evidence, so there is therefore technically no such thing as a creation scientist.
every species that lives now or has ever lived is a transitional form. you don't understand evolution.
next.
solid theory packed with evidence there boys, lol.
oh wait, there was one article that mentioned creation published, that then got the editor of that journal fired because the article was so flawed and should never have been published.
the 'evidence' is overwhelming.
oh, and 'creation scientist' is a misnomer. creation isn't even science, because there is no evidence, so there is therefore technically no such thing as a creation scientist.
every species that lives now or has ever lived is a transitional form. you don't understand evolution.
next.
Upvote
0
A transitional species is a species that lies between two other species in an evolutionary change. For example, if Species A lived a long time ago, it could have evolved to become species B before finally becoming Species C that is alive today. In this case, species B is the transitional species.
So a transitional species is one that forms an in-between stage between what came before it and what came after it.
In that sense, there are no transitional species alive today, because there is nothing that has come after anything alive today. The species that come after the ones alive today will be in the future, after all, and hence they don't exist yet.
However, if we could time travel into the future, say to one million AD, we'd see a whole lot of new species that we don't see in the present day. And every species from 2012 will be a transitional species between those of one million AD and one million BC. Of course, some lineages of species will become extinct, and they won't have any descendants in one million AD.
Upvote
0
50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God
50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God
Actually Creationist Francis Collins is pretty much out front right now.
Upvote
0
Irrelevant. How many of them base their research on creationist ideas instead of biology and get useful results? And how many of them work in fields where it makes a difference? For example, what difference does it make in medicine if the universe is 6000 years or 14 billion years old? And who cares if a writer is a creationist. Just because he's good at writing doesn't mean he is qualified to make statements about the formation of the universe.
(By the way, the last section about "Nobelists, Philosophers, and Scientists on Jesus" has the names but seems to be lacking the quotes or even links to the quotes.)
And many of these people are people who lived in an age where creationism was pretty much the only option. It's no wonder they thought God created the universe, they just didn't have any alternative explanation. Today, we have a great deal more information about it, and you'll find that there are far fewer religious people in the sciences, particularly in those fields that contradict creationist ideas.
And the list is wrong. Einstein was NOT a believer in God. He made it clear that he believed in Spinoza's god, which is the underlying order of the universe, not some intelligent entity that consciously created the universe and was interested in the actions of humans. I can't say the same for the rest of them, but I doubt all of them are creationists who reject science. How many of them used creationism as a basis for their work? I'll take a stab in the dark and say none.
I challenge you to show me a single creationist who rejects the scientific explanations for why things are the way they are and instead bases their research on the Bible and creationist ideas and STILL gets useful results.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
It is not irrelevant at all. Science would still be in the dark ages if it were not for Christians.
Upvote
0
Yes it is irrelevant because none of the scientific advances that got us out of the dark ages were based on Christian dogma.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
