Dinosaur Duck Discovered!!

[The Barbarian]

Is there a good source for the quantity of genera, species, and specimen of extinct vertebrate fossils that have been found in various families? Creationists keep talking as though it is a few here and there, and I keep reminding them that it is a lot. I would like to be more specific, particularly in the horse line, the Human line, the early tetrapods, and the mammal like reptiles.

Interstingly, there's a great source from an honest YE creationist, who has summarized the difficulty that all these transitional forms present for creationism:

Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Dr. Kurt Wise
Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Wikipedia has a nice article with lots of references:
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

Frogamanders:
'Frog-amander' Fossil Fills Evolutionary Gap

Transitions from primitive anapsids to turtles:
https://io9.gizmodo.com/this-transitional-turtle-is-the-stuff-of-creationist-1714158371

Transitional termites:
https://www.termite-control.com/ter...-facts/the-link-between-cockroaches-termites/

 

[The Barbarian]

Here's a nice reference on the therapsid reptile/mammal transition. The key element distinguishing mammals from reptiles is the single bone in the lower jaw of mammals, and the additional two bones in the middle ear. We have a very detailed sequence of transitionals, showing how two lower jaw bones slowly evolved into the middle ear.

It's not as odd as it sounds. Reptiles use their lower jaws to conduct sound to the middle ear, so this is really a refinement of the reptilian system. At one point, there is a fossil that has both the reptilian and the mammalian jaw joints (Diarthrognathus).
Transitional Fossils

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I beg to differ. Even experts can be wrong. The reliance upon an appeal to authority, even an 'educated' authority still *assumes* that the scientific majority cannot be wrong.

The fallacy is not about whether experts in the field can be wrong. Any authoritative source, reference, expert(s), etc., can be wrong. It is not fallacious to appeal to a relevant authoritative source.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is there a good source for the quantity of genera, species, and specimen of extinct vertebrate fossils that have been found in various families? Creationists keep talking as though it is a few here and there, and I keep reminding them that it is a lot. I would like to be more specific, particularly in the horse line, the Human line, the early tetrapods, and the mammal like reptiles.

I don't think it's possible to say - there are millions of fossils in the Page Museum (La Brea Tar Pits) alone, and many millions more in museums around the world. Only a small percentage of these have been studied and classified. Many new (but extinct) species have been discovered in museum collections.

 

[Michael]

The fallacy is not about whether experts in the field can be wrong.

Actually it can be, depending on the circumstances. If the sole argument is that the minority position is wrong simply because it's in the minority, then it is an appeal to authority/popularity fallacy.

It's not wrong of course to cite published peer reviewed sources when making one's scientific argument. However if the conversation goes down along the lines of "I don't actually understand the topic, but here's a paper that supports my position, and it must be right because it's the majority viewpoint", that would be a logical fallacy.

Any authoritative source, reference, expert(s), etc., can be wrong. It is not fallacious to appeal to a relevant authoritative source.

Well, you're right that it's fine (expected) to cite relevant scientific references, but dependence exclusively upon popularity/authority is a logical fallacy. It depends on the specific circumstances of the discussion.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't think it's possible to say - there are millions of fossils in the Page Museum (La Brea Tar Pits) alone, and many millions more in museums around the world. Only a small percentage of these have been studied and classified. Many new (but extinct) species have been discovered in museum collections.

Right, and that defeats Xianghua`s argument that mammals existed since the Cambrian but we just have not found one yet. One can make that argument if we had only 3 or 4 mammal fossils, but when there are thousands (millions?) of mammal fossils, then the argument that it is just luck that all mammals date long after the Cambrian is clearly bogus.

Creationists have no problem grasping the probability that the ordering of a particular protein by chance is low, but have problems understanding simple probabilities when we explain that the odds of the fossil record looking like this if all animals had existed from the beginning is low.

It is hard to get someone to understand something when their religion requires them not to understand it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Interstingly, there's a great source from an honest YE creationist, who has summarized the difficulty that all these transitional forms present for creationism:

Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Dr. Kurt Wise
Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Wikipedia has a nice article with lots of references:
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

Frogamanders:
'Frog-amander' Fossil Fills Evolutionary Gap

Transitions from primitive anapsids to turtles:
https://io9.gizmodo.com/this-transitional-turtle-is-the-stuff-of-creationist-1714158371

Transitional termites:
https://www.termite-control.com/ter...-facts/the-link-between-cockroaches-termites/

Thanks. The Wikipedia article is handy, and some of the other links such as the frogamander article are quite interesting.

I am still interested in better understanding the approximate quantities of mammal fossils, of mammal like reptile fossils, of eohippus fossils, etc.

 

[The Barbarian]

Thanks. The Wikipedia article is handy, and some of the other links such as the frogamander article are quite interesting.

I am still interested in better understanding the approximate quantities of mammal fossils, of mammal like reptile fossils, of eohippus fossils, etc.

There are likely billions of therapsid and transitional mammal fossils in the Karoo formation of South Africa:
About 265 million years ago, the Beaufort Group of rocks within the Karoo sequence was beginning to be deposited by rivers draining into the shrinking inland Ecca Sea. As these rivers filled the basin with sediment they entombed the remains of land animals that lived around them. The youngest Beaufort rocks are around 240 million years old.


Today, more than 30,000 fossils of vertebrate animals from the Beaufort reside in museum collections across the world. The Beaufort was followed by the Molteno and Elliot formations. The Elliot formation is made up of a succession of red rocks that records some of the earliest dinosaur communities.

The area plays a crucial role in revealing the distant origin of mammals, tortoises and dinosaurs. It also covers two great extinction events, the end-Permian (252 million years ago) and the end-Triassic (200 million years ago).


Because of its continuity of deposition, the Karoo provides not only a historical record of biological change over this period of Earth’s history, but also a means to test theories of evolutionary processes over long periods of time.


The 400,000 sq km area is internationally noted for its record of fossil therapsid “mammal-like” reptiles. These chart anatomical changes on the path to mammals from their early tetrapod forebears.


The Beaufort Group has also yielded the oldest recorded fossil ancestor of living turtles and tortoises – the small, lizard-like Eunotosaurus. The younger Elliot Formation preserves a record of early dinosaurs that could help palaeontologists understand the rise of the giant sauropod dinosaurs of the Jurassic Period.
Why South Africa's Karoo is a palaeontological wonderland

The reason we have such detailed information about horse evolution is simple. There were huge herds of them, and they lived where fossilization was more likely than in other environments.

The paleontological record of mammals is still being filled in. When I was an undergraduate, there were very few transitional whale fossils known. Now, there are dozens of them.

 

[Arius]

Once again I refer you to the following color gradient:

See if you can point to the pixel where green becomes blue.

If you can conceptualize how a color can turn into another color with intermediary transitions, then you should be able to apply the same conceptualization to evolutionary changes in biological organisms.

Hello pitabread (lol, I like your name by the way, plus I love pitabread)

Thank you, perfect example of what I am pointing out. There are millions of colors between the two, right? But in reality what we actually have is a bunch of greens and a bunch of blues, just as God created them.

BUT, .. we DONT see this with short and long beaked finches, one has short, the other long, there is no millions of in-betweens. And lets be logical about this, they didn't adapt, because no animal would survive the millions and billions of years if they had to their hostile environment, or adept to eating food. If we were to drop Antarctic environment on the Philippines, I doubt the Pilipino would have time do adept to their environment, especially if it take millions and billions of years, .. LOL.

Fact-
1) I can go out right now, and collect all the colors of that gradient and line them up, .. in "Living Color", not fossilized, but in the here and now.
2) Now show me the color "greenblue"? NOT greenish blue, where the green looks blueish (which I said I could do with humans right now), but which we all could agree on is truly green AND is truly blue!? (crock-a-duck, .. apeman, lizardbird, etc?)
3) I also shown that I could go out right now, and collect living humans, some with, and others without deformation (disease) and show whatever Religious doctrine I choose to make up, like let's say: "how humans, over millions and billions of Carl Sagan years turned into apes", .. and claim: "here is my proof of human to ape evolution!" (living humans lined up from human looking to ape looking)

But we all know, and can prove that these are all human, and not insult the poor guy with that disease and say that he is evolving into an ape. (even though I am sure Dawkins would love nothing more than put that guy in the zoo, just like they did with Ota Benga! Don't say; No, we would not do that, that was wrong to do, we are scientists and no longer discriminate like that" because here, Evolutionists will use any disease or deformity they can, both by digging up graves, and finding deformed sculls, and mocking those with disease:

Now once again look at where Dawkins is pointing to, including what he says (time 0:24): "We didn't evolve from chimpanzees, but (pints to a "T" in a timeline of millions and billions of years, and he deceitfully (sleight of hand) calls this animal "Common ancestor"

So what is he saying, .. that we really didn't evolve from chimpanzees (I don't know who asked that question, but I do feel that it is something he made up, to, .. as he often says "Mock and ridicule" those who oppose his Godless agenda.)

Again, I am asking a question about a (supposedly) proven scientific fact, .. Evolution, .. so why can't I get a straight answer?

Q. What is the animal Dawkins is pointing at, I'll just call it "Mr. T".
Is it an ape, .. or is it a human?

In other words, .. if we were to do a DNA, MRI, Carbon Dating, Particle Colliding, Double Slit experiment, fMRI, X-ray, Forensic, and last but not least; a Planned Parenthood analysis, .. what animal would Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Einstein, Michio Kaku, Neil Degrassee Tyson etc. say that animal is?

Or do we just accept Pastor Dawkins sleight-o-hand answer "The animal is called; a common ancestor"?
I want to see a living "Common Ancestor", we all should have at least one, unless evolution stopped, which is why we had to turn to Intelligent Design like AI, GMO, robotics, Transhumanism, Post Human 2.0, etc. and celebrate this science and technology like so:

 

[Arius]

Maybe instead of waffling on about seven points in one post, how about trying to stick to one point in one post. People will actually want to converse with you instead.
And I have to agree with Bungle_Bear. All of your posts made have the distinct hallmarks of a poe.

Hello @Warden_of_the_Storm , .. a Poe ey? In which way, so I can answer you because I don't like to be mistaken for someone I'm not.
Honesty, .. Truth, science is the foundation I build (or try anyways) my philosophy on, so since my understanding of Religion is very different than todays commonly accepted definition, you might think I'm a 'Poe' because I sound Religious (Creationist by I.D.) yet (if you read my post "Bible vs Organized Religion") it is obvious I am against Religion defining God for us, including why and how He created the Heavens and the Earth.

So let me try to clear something up, first, I am not against 'evolution', it is what God created us for, to evolve in Agape-love towards one another, to evolve in defining love, to "know/understand" what love truly means, .. which, if you have studied the Evolution Religion, and if we were totally honest about it, love (as in Agape-love) does not exist in the Evolution Story (falsely labeled "Theory")

In Evolution, Gacy, Dahmer, Hitler, etc. did nothing wrong. How could one animal who evolved without anyone's will or choice, but who IS the result of his/her environment being what he is, .. accuse another animal who over the millions and billions of years evolved into what they are!?
Evolution does NOT discriminate, it follows simple evolutionary steps, one molecule, cell whatever at a time. The result (not a plan), but the result is "Evolution".
Those that survive get to pass on their genes (or whatever bs evolutionists made up that evolution does). In other words the moto is; "evolution happens". You, me, Gacy, Dahmer, Hitler, Richard Dawkins happened, yet here is someone like Dawkins, who preaches that humans don't even have free will, .. that even their choices are the result of their environment, yet can go out in public and not only constantly ridicule and mock Bible Believing Creationists, but asks others to do the same:

Hitler actually used the Evolution story to label Jews as; "rats", .. point them out as those who never really evolved from their; "rat, infectious, devouring everything in their path" traits, which is why he truly believed they should go extinct, .. with a little help of course, so that the rest of humanity could survive. His idea was based on survival of the fittest/strongest. NOT the wisest, for he did not debate about the Germans being the wisest, and Jews being less superior, .. he chose Evolution, the "survival of the fittest".

I am NOT a part of any Organized Religion, neither am I against any Organized Religion, this includes the Evolutionists, that is not my purpose here.
You will never find my/our God the Creator of all things, who is NOT a being, but the Ground of Being in any Organized Religion. The reason I say this is because so far you are all making me out to be a "Poe", conflating me (just because I'm a Creationist) .. with the Christian Religion. Even if you don't say the word "Christian", you are using their idea of creation, their idea God and of I.D. as if that was mine.

If you guys going to label me something like a Poe, at least point out the reasons so I could defend myself!?

This is why I try to cover/hint on so many variations of beliefs in both Creation and in Evolution (which you have to admit are many in both). Which is also why I might seem to contradict my own views, because you guys think I come with a Christian perspective. Well I don't, and this includes both theist and atheist, Creationist to Evolutionist understanding of "God".

OK, so tell me, how am I a Poe?

If you mean this definition of

Poe: A person who writes a parody of a Fundamentalist that is mistaken for the real thing. Due to Poe's Law, it is almost impossible to tell if a person is a Poe unless they admit to it.
"The Bible is true because it's the inerrant word of God! I know because the Bible says so! Glory!" - Urban Dictionary

Only a heavily indoctrinated fool would say something like in the quote above.
I could also include: "We evolved from apes because we look like chimps" and to prove this, put Ota Benga in the zoo holding a baby chimp and have tens of thousands of white people come and see the "proof for Evolution" .. without any of them ever objecting. Even the Zoo keeper/manager said he seen nothing wrong with it.
Besides, in evolutionary terms, what was wrong with it? "A human ape holding an ape", .. what's wrong with that? Don't other white people and their children need to be educated about science?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hello @Warden_of_the_Storm , .. a Poe ey? In which way, so I can answer you because I don't like to be mistaken for someone I'm not.
Honesty, .. Truth, science is the foundation I build (or try anyways) my philosophy on, so since my understanding of Religion is very different than todays commonly accepted definition, you might think I'm a 'Poe' because I sound Religious (Creationist by I.D.) yet (if you read my post "Bible vs Organized Religion") it is obvious I am against Religion defining God for us, including why and how He created the Heavens and the Earth.

So let me try to clear something up, first, I am not against 'evolution', it is what God created us for, to evolve in Agape-love towards one another, to evolve in defining love, to "know/understand" what love truly means, .. which, if you have studied the Evolution Religion, and if we were totally honest about it, love (as in Agape-love) does not exist in the Evolution Story (falsely labeled "Theory")

In Evolution, Gacy, Dahmer, Hitler, etc. did nothing wrong. How could one animal who evolved without anyone's will or choice, but who IS the result of his/her environment being what he is, .. accuse another animal who over the millions and billions of years evolved into what they are!?
Evolution does NOT discriminate, it follows simple evolutionary steps, one molecule, cell whatever at a time. The result (not a plan), but the result is "Evolution".
Those that survive get to pass on their genes (or whatever bs evolutionists made up that evolution does). In other words the moto is; "evolution happens". You, me, Gacy, Dahmer, Hitler, Richard Dawkins happened, yet here is someone like Dawkins, who preaches that humans don't even have free will, .. that even their choices are the result of their environment, yet can go out in public and not only constantly ridicule and mock Bible Believing Creationists, but asks others to do the same:

Hitler actually used the Evolution story to label Jews as; "rats", .. point them out as those who never really evolved from their; "rat, infectious, devouring everything in their path" traits, which is why he truly believed they should go extinct, .. with a little help of course, so that the rest of humanity could survive. His idea was based on survival of the fittest/strongest. NOT the wisest, for he did not debate about the Germans being the wisest, and Jews being less superior, .. he chose Evolution, the "survival of the fittest".

I am NOT a part of any Organized Religion, neither am I against any Organized Religion, this includes the Evolutionists, that is not my purpose here.
You will never find my/our God the Creator of all things, who is NOT a being, but the Ground of Being in any Organized Religion. The reason I say this is because so far you are all making me out to be a "Poe", conflating me (just because I'm a Creationist) .. with the Christian Religion. Even if you don't say the word "Christian", you are using their idea of creation, their idea God and of I.D. as if that was mine.

If you guys going to label me something like a Poe, at least point out the reasons so I could defend myself!?

This is why I try to cover/hint on so many variations of beliefs in both Creation and in Evolution (which you have to admit are many in both). Which is also why I might seem to contradict my own views, because you guys think I come with a Christian perspective. Well I don't, and this includes both theist and atheist, Creationist to Evolutionist understanding of "God".

OK, so tell me, how am I a Poe?

If you mean this definition of

Poe: A person who writes a parody of a Fundamentalist that is mistaken for the real thing. Due to Poe's Law, it is almost impossible to tell if a person is a Poe unless they admit to it.
"The Bible is true because it's the inerrant word of God! I know because the Bible says so! Glory!" - Urban Dictionary

Only a heavily indoctrinated fool would say something like in the quote above.
I could also include: "We evolved from apes because we look like chimps" and to prove this, put Ota Benga in the zoo holding a baby chimp and have tens of thousands of white people come and see the "proof for Evolution" .. without any of them ever objecting. Even the Zoo keeper/manager said he seen nothing wrong with it.
Besides, in evolutionary terms, what was wrong with it? "A human ape holding an ape", .. what's wrong with that? Don't other white people and their children need to be educated about science?

Yeah, I'm actually beginning to think that you're not a poe. You're definitely something else, but the rules of the forum don't let me say it.
ETA: It's not a truly rude word, btw.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In Evolution, Gacy, Dahmer, Hitler, etc. did nothing wrong. How could one animal who evolved without anyone's will or choice, but who IS the result of his/her environment being what he is, .. accuse another animal who over the millions and billions of years evolved into what they are!?
Evolution does NOT discriminate, it follows simple evolutionary steps, one molecule, cell whatever at a time. The result (not a plan), but the result is "Evolution".
Those that survive get to pass on their genes (or whatever bs evolutionists made up that evolution does). In other words the moto is; "evolution happens". You, me, Gacy, Dahmer, Hitler, Richard Dawkins happened, yet here is someone like Dawkins, who preaches that humans don't even have free will, .. that even their choices are the result of their environment, yet can go out in public and not only constantly ridicule and mock Bible Believing Creationists, but asks others to do the same:



Hitler actually used the Evolution story to label Jews as; "rats", .. point them out as those who never really evolved from their; "rat, infectious, devouring everything in their path" traits, which is why he truly believed they should go extinct, .. with a little help of course, so that the rest of humanity could survive. His idea was based on survival of the fittest/strongest. NOT the wisest, for he did not debate about the Germans being the wisest, and Jews being less superior, .. he chose Evolution, the "survival of the fittest".

And also NO! NO! A THOUSAND TIMES, NO! I am bloody fed up with people like you trying to use racism, mass murder and the Holocaust to try and justify your contempt and hatred for evolution and science. All it does is make you look small, petty and infantile and also completely and utterly dumb.

If you had actually taken the time to actually read anything about evolution, you would see that it says nothing to encourage any of the sorts of horrible misdeeds perpetrated by humanity.

Sincerely signed, the relative of a survivor of the Armenian Genocide.

 

[Arius]

Yeah, I'm actually beginning to think that you're not a poe. You're definitely something else, but the rules of the forum don't let me say it.

"rules of the forum don't let me say it"? .Aww, .. go ahead and PM it to me then.

ETA: It's not a truly rude word, btw.

I didn't say Poe was a bad word, I even gave you the definition since Evolutionists make up their own definitions, .. like for instance the word "science", .. they mistake the fairytale 'evolution-story' to mean science, .. lol.

But I guess if one can make himself (itself in case of Evolution) believe that; lining up and looking at different fossils, and dried up sculls of long dead animals and people is witnessing "speciation", they can make themselves believe in anything.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"rules of the forum don't let me say it"? .Aww, .. go ahead and PM it to me then.

... Nah. I'm just going to leave you in suspense.

I didn't say Poe was a bad word, I even gave you the definition since Evolutionists make up their own definitions, .. like for instance the word "science", .. they mistake the fairytale 'evolution-story' to mean science, .. lol.

But I guess if one can make himself (itself in case of Evolution) believe that; lining up and looking at different fossils, and dried up sculls of long dead animals and people is witnessing "speciation", they can make themselves believe in anything.

I wasn't talking about Poe, I was talking about the word I was going to use. And as for the rest of this... I'll let Doctor Perry Cox from Scrubs say it better than I can:

 

[Arius]

And also NO! NO! A THOUSAND TIMES, NO! I am bloody fed up with people like you trying to use racism, mass murder and the Holocaust to try and justify your contempt and hatred for evolution and science.

Likewise; NO! NO! A THOUSAND TIMES, NO! I am bloody fed up with God hating, grave robbing, skull and bones worshipping Evolutionists like you trying to justify racism, mass murder and the Holocaust of Africans, Jews, and the extermination of any and all other dark skinned races, including your own kind to try and justify your contempt and hatred of God, humanity and science.
Especially 'science'!

If you had actually taken the time to actually read anything about the definition of science, you would see that it says nothing about making up fantastic long-long-time-ago stories out of some dried up pigs jawbones, and fossils to encourage all sorts of horrible misdeeds perpetrated by humanity as we can see from history!​

Science is "observing the world around us", NOT robbing graves, then making up "Once upon a time before time, millions and billions of years ago, .." stories falsely calling them "science"!
Oh yes, .. and if they don't find the missing-link-scull they're looking for, then they went and captured, then chained up some poor Aborigines, decapitate them, boil down their sculls and use them to decorate their desk with in the name of their Evolution Religion.

- A gruesome trade in ‘missing link’ specimens began with early evolutionary/racist ideas. But this trade really ‘took off’ with the advent of Darwinism.
"In a previous Creation magazine we related evidence that perhaps 10,000 dead bodies of Australia’s Aboriginal people were shipped to British museums in a frenzied attempt to prove the widespread belief that they were the ‘missing link’"
Darwin's bodysnatchers: new horrors - creation.com

(hope the music will calm your rebellious spirit)

There is abso9lutely no difference between a Satanism and an Evolutionism, they both hate God and His creation, especially man. They call man, or us humans; "animals", that we descended from some bacteria and rats, and then have the audacity to put signs on your white-supremacist business doors saying: "Absolutely no animals allowed in store!" .. yet allow all shades of skin colored animals to come in the stores!? I guess you still need us "animals" to shop your merchandise, right?

All it does is make you look small, petty and infantile and also completely and utterly dumb.

Umm, .. yes, and here is where they would have slapped me, .. I know, that's what I've been saying. thanks for proving my point.

All he needs is a Hitler mustache.

If you had actually taken the time to actually read anything about evolution, you would see that it says nothing to encourage any of the sorts of horrible misdeeds perpetrated by humanity.

Sincerely signed, the relative of a survivor of the Armenian Genocide.

Over the years I actually read all that I could stomach about your Evolution! We escaped from a Communist country, where the ONLY religion allowed was "Evolution". Just mentioning Creation by I.D. or the word "God, or Creator" could result in my parents arrest, imprisonment and even torture. For us kids, it was usually a hard slap in the face. So please, your Jedi-MK mind tricks don't work on me anymore.

Remember that God loves you, you don't have to give in to this hate-Religion that I call "BB-Evolution and Sci-Fientology"

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Likewise; NO! NO! A THOUSAND TIMES, NO! I am bloody fed up with God hating, grave robbing, skull and bones worshipping Evolutionists like you trying to justify racism, mass murder and the Holocaust of Africans, Jews, and the extermination of any and all other dark skinned races, including your own kind to try and justify your contempt and hatred of God, humanity and science.
Especially 'science'!

If you had actually taken the time to actually read anything about the definition of science, you would see that it says nothing about making up fantastic long-long-time-ago stories out of some dried up pigs jawbones, and fossils to encourage all sorts of horrible misdeeds perpetrated by humanity as we can see from history!​

Science is "observing the world around us", NOT robbing graves, then making up "Once upon a time before time, millions and billions of years ago, .." stories falsely calling them "science"!
Oh yes, .. and if they don't find the missing-link-scull they're looking for, then they went and captured, then chained up some poor Aborigines, decapitate them, boil down their sculls and use them to decorate their desk with in the name of their Evolution Religion.

- A gruesome trade in ‘missing link’ specimens began with early evolutionary/racist ideas. But this trade really ‘took off’ with the advent of Darwinism.
"In a previous Creation magazine we related evidence that perhaps 10,000 dead bodies of Australia’s Aboriginal people were shipped to British museums in a frenzied attempt to prove the widespread belief that they were the ‘missing link’"
Darwin's bodysnatchers: new horrors - creation.com

(hope the music will calm your rebellious spirit)

There is abso9lutely no difference between a Satanism and an Evolutionism, they both hate God and His creation, especially man. They call man, or us humans; "animals", that we descended from some bacteria and rats, and then have the audacity to put signs on your white-supremacist business doors saying: "Absolutely no animals allowed in store!" .. yet allow all shades of skin colored animals to come in the stores!? I guess you still need us "animals" to shop your merchandise, right?



Umm, .. yes, and here is where they would have slapped me, .. I know, that's what I've been saying. thanks for proving my point.

All he needs is a Hitler mustache.



Over the years I actually read all that I could stomach about your Evolution! We escaped from a Communist country, where the ONLY religion allowed was "Evolution". Just mentioning Creation by I.D. or the word "God, or Creator" could result in my parents arrest, imprisonment and even torture. For us kids, it was usually a hard slap in the face. So please, your Jedi-MK mind tricks don't work on me anymore.

Remember that God loves you, you don't have to give in to this hate-Religion that I call "BB-Evolution and Sci-Fientology"

I love how you double down on your idiotically ignorant views. Real hallmark of a troll.

 

[Arius]

... Nah. I'm just going to leave you in suspense.

No you won't, I know the trick to Evolution, .. so for me the 'magic' is gone.

"Yawn, .." you know what I mean?

I wasn't talking about Poe, I was talking about the word I was going to use. And as for the rest of this... I'll let Doctor Perry Cox from Scrubs say it better than I can:

Umm, you do know that he is not a real doctor right!? Just like Dawkins, he's not a real scientist either. He is a priest of the "grave robbing, Skull & Bones worshipping Evolution Religion" going around proselytizing his Luciferian Religious beliefs.

Oh come on Evolutionists, show me what species Dawkins Mr. 'T' is in this video (time 0:25) that he calls a "Common Ancestor".

Also while you're at it, can anyone show me a "Common Ancestor" species in real life (as in science) that is between Mother Evolutions; humans, .. and apes? The family walking on all fours (video in previous posts) have been tested, and turned out they were "human", so any idea where they might be? over 4 billion years of Evolution, surely there should be at least a few hundred (like in the green-blue color gradient there are millions)

Thank you.​

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No you won't, I know the trick to Evolution, .. so for me the 'magic' is gone.

"Yawn, .." you know what I mean?



Umm, you do know that he is not a real doctor right!? Just like Dawkins, he's not a real scientist either. He is a priest of the "grave robbing, Skull & Bones worshipping Evolution Religion" going around proselytizing his Luciferian Religious beliefs.

Oh come on Evolutionists, show me what species Dawkins Mr. 'T' is in this video (time 0:25) that he calls a "Common Ancestor".

Also while you're at it, can anyone show me a "Common Ancestor" species in real life (as in science) that is between Mother Evolutions; humans, .. and apes? The family walking on all fours (video in previous posts) have been tested, and turned out they were "human", so any idea where they might be? over 4 billion years of Evolution, surely there should be at least a few hundred (like in the green-blue color gradient there are millions)

Thank you.​

God lord, you're dense.

 

[Arius]

God lord, you're dense.

LOL, so anyone asking questions about this Evolution Religion are dense, idiotic, ignorant trolls who should be ridiculed, correct?

I still want the answer to my question:

Oh come on Evolutionists, show me what species is Pastor Dawkins's Mr. 'T' in this video

(time 0:25) that he calls a "Common Ancestor". What is it, human, ape, a dense troll, .. what?

Here, you guys definitely need some help. Dawkins is pointing to a specific "point" in Spacetime where a creature, or alien, or a she-male either gave birth to a white female Christian housewife and a chimp/bonobo mix, or one night this creature actually split into two, one that white suburban housewife, and the other a chimp!?

And telling me: "evolutionary speciation doesn't work like that" does not answer it. If a species of animal switched to two different species, it had to do it while it was still alive, NOT in the grave. Unless now you guys claim that buried dried up bones of one species can magically change into a completely different species?

I should start a New Thread: "Evolution Religious claims VS Science"

 

[Speedwell]

And telling me: "evolutionary speciation doesn't work like that" does not answer it. If a species of animal switched to two different species, it had to do it while it was still alive, NOT in the grave. Unless now you guys claim that buried dried up bones of one species can magically change into a completely different species?

I should start a New Thread: "Evolution Religious claims VS Science"

Wow! That's not what the theory of evolution claims at all. Are we supposed to defend that straw man? Go ahead and knock it down; we don't care.