Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical
- Thread starter sparow
- Start date
- Status
They sure look real to me:
Are you saying that these fossils are just a figment of my imagination?
Then show how they are wrong. Tell me what features a real transitional fossil would have, and show that these fossils lack those features. Explain to me how these are not transitional fossils.
Upvote
0
IM sorry but I have seen their fallacy. I have seen how they use flawed techniques which give them flawed data. I cannot blindly accept that man evolved into his present form, as they claim.
Upvote
0
They sure look real to me:
Are you saying that these fossils are just a figment of my imagination?
.
You keep misinterpreting my words. How rational are you? You know I never claimed that those skulls were fake, I only claimed that they are not missing links. Seriously, please get real.
Upvote
0
"They are not reality, but merely the speculations of fallible men."--Poster0
You are saying that the fossils are not real. Perhaps you should pick your words more carefully so there is no misunderstanding.
Moving forward, you keep saying that they are not transitional, yet you don't give us any clue as to how you determined that. What criteria are you using? What features are these fossils missing that a real transitional fossil would have?
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
We don't blindly accept it. We examine the evidence ourselves. If it is wrong, then show us.
Upvote
0
You seem to be arguing just to argue. I'm sure you understood me the first time when I said they are a collection of skulls. Surely I was not suggesting the were not real skulls. You believe whatever you're told. You actually believe that these people are giving you evidence rather than speculation. Man, you haven't seen the real world yet.
Upvote
0
We have creationists come in here all of the time and try to claim that they are fake fossils. I am just making sure that you aren't one of them.
Why aren't those fossils evidence? Explain it to me.
Upvote
0
The evidence is clearly marked by mans own fallacy. These folks have been wrong so many times about so many things. They are speculating, nothing more. They don't actually know what those skulls came from, but they are merely speculating. Its not proof, its speculation, Can you try to understand that concept?
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
Apparently, I am so blinded that I see brow ridges and a forward jutting jaw on Australopithecines when no such thing exists. I just blindly accept that those fossils have those features because scientists say so. Who knew?
[/sarcasm]
Upvote
0
I don't expect you to blindly accept anything, that's what religions encourage. In science, scientists often make mistakes, but science is self correcting, so flawed techniques are qdiscovered and the data they produced discounted. What flawed techniques that produced flawed data haven't been discovered by science? Also, you should submit a paper to a scientific journal on these flawed techniques, you will be published. That would be very cool.
Upvote
0
Those skulls came from organisms who lived in the past. That's all we need to know in order to use them to test the theory of evolution.
You do know that transitional is not the same word as ancestral, right?
Upvote
0
For clarification:
"A source of confusion is the notion that a transitional form between two different taxonomic groups must be a direct ancestor of one or both groups. The difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that one of the goals of evolutionary taxonomy is to identify taxa that were ancestors of other taxa. However, it is almost impossible to be sure that any form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other. In fact, because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process producing a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other. Cladistics deemphasizes the concept of one taxonomic group being an ancestor of another, and instead emphasizes the identification of sister taxa that share a more recent common ancestor with one another than they do with other groups."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Transitional_versus_ancestral
"A source of confusion is the notion that a transitional form between two different taxonomic groups must be a direct ancestor of one or both groups. The difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that one of the goals of evolutionary taxonomy is to identify taxa that were ancestors of other taxa. However, it is almost impossible to be sure that any form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other. In fact, because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process producing a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other. Cladistics deemphasizes the concept of one taxonomic group being an ancestor of another, and instead emphasizes the identification of sister taxa that share a more recent common ancestor with one another than they do with other groups."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Transitional_versus_ancestral
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
- Status
Similar threads
