• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Evolutionist Caught Lying for Their Religion- Fossils

Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟109,603.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟201,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Where are the missing fossils between these Cetaceans
6 September 2018 Heissonear: Once again a stupid demand for arbitrary fossils and lies about the fossil record.
This is the inane creationist tactic of asking for fossils in-between the fossils that we have which is then repeated when those fossils are found and repeated again and again and again.

We have fossils that already establish the evolution of cetaceans. Any more discoveries will be icing on the cake.

A "guess without sequences of fossils between them" lie when he has a diagram of the sequence of fossils worked out from the evidence.
Cetaceans have distinctive features, e.g. the involucrum. Any fossil with those features is a cetacean. The dating of the fossils gives their sequence. The sequence is confirmed by the changes in the fossils, e.g. the nostrils moving up the snout to the top of the head, limbs becoming smaller, etc.
 
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

Could we have a link for the source of your illustration please?
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It appears some try to discredit others to undermine what they present.
It appears that a select handful of creationists embellish their educational background to make people think they understand more than they do.
Where are the missing fossils between these Cetaceans

This is a spectacularly naive and simple-minded "argument" - the Gish gap gambit.

This is why I know you are ignorant of genetics and development, for you seem to believe that changes in genomes (the basis for the raw material of evolution) must produce minute changes that have to add on top of each all the time.
Coupled with your already-admitted ignorance of paleontology, and we have a recipe for self-parody on your part.

I have mentioned this before and you dutifully ignored it - a single point mutation in a gene for a fibroblast growth factor receptor produces an achondroplastic phenotype. This results in things like disproportionate limb growth, reduction in interphalangeal joints, etc.

If your grade-school level notions had merit, then it would be impossible for a 'normal' phenotype parent to give birth to an achondroplastic child with such pronounced morphological differences from the parent.
yet, there they are - no "intermediates" at all.

Learn some biology BEFORE you pontificate using your Abeka homeschool texts as your sole source of knowledge.
This macro-assemblages list is a guess without sequences of fossils between them.
Lie.
You know, Paleontology Without Conjectur

Show us the skeletons of each of your ancestors back to Adam, or creation will be proven false, just conjecture.
 
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The quote-bombing plagiarist is back with a sad Gish Gallop on creationist website compilations that he has never seen the primary sources of.

Such sad dishonesty is a blemish on the religion, it seems to me.

And of course, never any evidence FOR the bible tales.

You should have read this cautionary tale - it is why I do not believe or trust you to be honest on any topic:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/on-the-dangers-of-arguing-via-quote-yec-style.8077057/
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married


If you want to see how he fared when he regurgi-trolled his plagiarized quotes on another forum, and not waste time producing lengthy replies, just go here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...eation-vs-evolution-the-fossil-record.538071/

Sad that he is still using documented liar Randy Guliazza as a source.
 
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Lol.

Was it a creationist that faked piltdown man?
No, but it wasn't a creationist that figured out it was fake.
Was it a creationist that faked Nebraska man?
No, but it is creationists that lie about it - it wasn't 'faked' , it was a mistake. You know - like quoting a paper on hybridization that explains that alleles arise via mutation to argue that alleles do not arise via mutation. Or was that just ignorance and malice?
Was it a creationist that drew flippers, flukes and blow holes where none existed?
No, it is creationists that do not understand anatomy.
No, it was creationists that objected and so were accused of lying, even if in the end it was the evolutionists that were found to be the liars......

On the contrary - the creationists are shown to be liars over and over. Even on this forum, not to mention the professional liars like Randy Guliazza or Duane Gish or Jeff Tomkins.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I am guessing you are referring to Archaeopteryx. So if you think it is a missing link argue it.
Do you consider your cousins 'missing links' between you and your great grandparents?

Archie had both bird and reptile features. Isn't that enough?
Respond to what I have said.

What, exactly, have YOU actually ever said here or on the other forums that you spam-troll your same lists of dubious plagiarized quotes that was not merely at best a paraphrase of some quotes you lifted from other creationist sources?

Surely you are not still going to pretend that you have gleaned your quotes via reading the original sources - we all know that is a lie.
Show us why it proves evolution.

Nobody has said that it "proves evolution" that I am aware of. Archie is but one of thousands of fossils that, in their totality, point inexorably to long-term evolutionary processes and not god magic.
Instead of just more baseless claims support your posts.
Wow...

You lack of introspection, humility, and integrity is thunderous.
 
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
My apologies...I was confusing Piltdown and Nebraska.

Piltdown was indeed thought to be authentic for some time. But that is the beauty of peer review...liars get caught.
Funny that it was not creationists that caught it...
How is this a bad thing?
And, as you probably know, there were many that doubted Piltdown's authenticity from the get-go. A fellow named Olson or something like that comes to mind - it has been some time since I read about it. I think it is in one of Gould's books.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I love when science proves evolutionist wrong in their attempts to mislead the public, nothing to object to at all from me.
Do you love it when, for example, Jeff Tomkin's lies (or incompetence) is exposed? Most creationists do not - they ignore the facts in order to prop up their ancient middle eastern myths.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Agreed on all counts.
 
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Wow - you've been copy-pasting this exact post (or large chunks of it - or plagiarizing it)since 2011.

We can add 'lazy' to the negative attributes of creationists, now.
 
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟201,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Once again, after you on another post presented which fossils prove evolution, see attached of said fossils. They do not show detailed morphological proof of evolution.



What you presented, as showing in the illustration of Cetaceans, is a macro-assemblages. That is not proof of evolution. You think we need to make a conclusion on insufficient data. Missing fossils between the shown fossils.

That is called conjecture.

Evolution is based on conjecture.

You have yet to show the inbetween lifeforms that morphologically details on of the above lifeforms changing through step by step morphological feature into another creature.

Where are the inbetween fossils?

You have yet to proof evolution by the creatures of the past.

No hand waving. Let us all see the fossils that prove evolution occurred.

How many times now have I requested this? And the best you can do is macro-assemblages. And the need for conjecture.
 
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟201,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
.....................This is a spectacularly naive and simple-minded "argument" - the Gish gap gambit.......................
I asked a simple question for you to prove evolution by the fossil record.

You keep dodging your opportunity to answer.

That is because the fossil record does not prove evolution.

And you have no data to prove evolution every happened.

All you present are possibilities, speculations, and conjecture-based claims.

Evolution has hit a scientific wall of evidence, and all we see arround us are pieces of conjecture.

Evolution by science lacks proof. It has been built on conjecture.

I faced up. Now, how about you?
 
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0