No Missing Links?

[RickG]

So, you still virtually accused me of being a liar and of only wanting to cause trouble.

I have done nothing of the sort. Conversely......

I'm not trying to cause trouble, I'm trying to help people quit being deceived, as I myself once was!

But that is not the impression you are giving me and other posters.

Oh, but you use the presuming omniscience logical fallacy to tell me what my motives are.

I have not commented about your motives at all.

As I correctly stated you used verbal abuse and verbal abuse, I have seen, tends to escalate.

Your opinion is noted, however, I am not alone in this thread in disagreeing with that opinion.

You also never answered my Qs.

I asked you a question first which when completely unanswered. Rather, I received a Gish Gallop rant of completely incorrect claims that the Geologic Column doesn't exist, Lylle was blind and did not have a degree in geology. And I didn't even bring up Darwin nor do I care to him with respect to the question I asked you.

So what if you have that experience?

You are the one who stated that I only have an interest in geology, even after I related to you that I was not a layman.

Fine for you but I know that doesn't change the fact that there is no ev-i-dence that ambulocetus turned into a whale (ditto all their transitions), and that such thinking is based on the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy

.

I didn't say or even imply anything about transition fossils nor did I try to present a correlation. I described what the geologic column would look like if evolution were false, and asked you to explain the geologic column without evolution. In fact I never even stated whether I supported evolution or not.

I also know there are world famous evolutionists who have said there is really no evidence for transitional forms. But I don't need their opinions. I see the data. I see no data showing how we could possibly know that amublocetus ever had a single descendant that was significantly different from itself, much less that it is related to the other so called transitional whale fossils. It's a case of the Emperor's New Clothes and I'm not falling for it, neither are more and more people.

Funny, I had to go back and check and see if I was responding to the right post and poster. I said nothing about transition fossils nor did I state my position of evolution.

I hope and pray some day you will see the truth and do what some other science trained people have done - use your training to help people see through the smoke and mirrors of evolution.

in the meantime I hope you will not post to me anymore. I don't have time for verbal abuse from people, and their friends, who take a dismissive and insulting attitude toward it.

Wow! Just wow.

 

[LoricaLady]

So you get to be as rude as you like, but the moment someone gets a little uppity with you, you're offended?

Rick was extremely polite to you. I'd even go so far as to say overly polite, because you've been consistently rude since you came in here.

RickG's quote, again: You are talking to one and you are coming across as a very disingenuous person who wants to do nothing more than to see what kind of reactions you can generate from your posts. Good day.

That's what you call "extremely polite...overly polite" huh, accusing someone, for all practical purposes, of being a liar with no agenda other than to cause trouble? And as for you, fella, I notice you never answer any of my Qs but just keep focusing on statements like "whales have fur", and personal attacks on me. Anything to change the subject.....as I predicted.

You're on ignore now, too, BYE!

 

[lasthero]

RickG's quote, again: You are talking to one and you are coming across as a very disingenuous person who wants to do nothing more than to see what kind of reactions you can generate from your posts. Good day.

That's what you call "extremely polite...overly polite" huh, accusing someone, for all practical purposes, of being a liar with no agenda other than to cause trouble? And as for you, fella, I notice you never answer any of my Qs but just keep focusing on statements like "whales have fur", and personal attacks on me. Anything to change the subject.....as I predicted.

You're on ignore now, too, BYE!

I don't know whether god exists or not, but if he does, I can only imagine he finds people like you extremely depressing.

 

[LoricaLady]

I don't know whether god exists or not, but if he does, I can only imagine he finds people like you extremely depressing.

Another evo fan giving the usual type of response, i.e. no reference whatsoever to the scientific questions asked, in fact no scientific response at all. Then there is their usual personal insult. You do add something slightly novel, though, the presumption that you can maybe guess how the Almighty feels even though you are not sure He even exists. Friend, learn to think and analyze. Look outside the matrix.

You might want to try praying sometime. Ask Him if He is real. Ask Him to reveal Himself to you if He is, to be your Father, your Friend, you helper and healer. If you really mean it, things will happen. We are told that those who seek Him with all their hearts will find Him.

Praying for you but I won't respond to more of your posts as I only debate with those who are civil and objective and that leaves out most evo. devotees.

 

[Euler]

SPLIT ROCK As I stated, verbal abuse continues and escalates, as you have demonstrated in accusing me of lying about one of your posts.

Here is your quote: Whether you call it a fish or a tetrapod is entirely subjective... that is why it is called a tranistional, or a "fishapod" by many

First, if it is "entirely subjective" what kind of science is that? 2nd you say "by many." Isn't that a tacit admission that not all scientists agree at all that Tik is a "fishapod"? 3rd, it is not at all subjective! Ichtyhologists, even some evolutionists, identify Tiktaalik as being a fish. As I stated earlier, it looks very much like other lobe finned fish living today. Convince yourself it is a "fishapod" if you want to but it's not. It's a fish. Period. A lobe finned fish. It matches the definition of "fish" that I quoted for you. It is limbless and lived in the water, for ex. It not only does not have the 4 legs of a tetrapod, it doesn't have even a hint of a single toe, for ex..

I never said, as you implied, that there are no differences from one generation to another. I asked you, and I ask you now (only rhetorically!) to tell what data there is to show that Tik ever had any descendants significantly different from itself, any data to show it is related to other whale "transitions." There is none. Of course you danced around that Q and never answered it with any data whatsoever.

If you will be honest with yourself you will admit that. You admitted we can't know for sure about ambulocetus if I remember correctly. Well, good for you. Using exactly the same reasoning skills, you should be able to figure out that we can't know anything for sure about Tik's descendants either, or about the descendants of any so called transitions. Yet, you are being told, not maybe, but as a scientific fact, that Tik turned into a tetrapod. That should bother you. If it doesn't, sorry, I tried to show you the truth, but everyone wants to shoot the messenger here.

The reason I didn't respond to your later "answers" to my Qs is because I had already told you that, due to your verbal abuse, I was putting you on ignore. Your statement quoted here is another reason to put you on ignore, as I said earlier. I still pray for you to learn to think. That's all I have to say to you.

So, by your own admission up there, you DID, in fact, misquote Split Rock in your earlier post. Those words up there ARE what he said - unlike your earlier mischaracterization.

Now, whether your misquoting was an intentional deception, or a result of laziness or error, only you would know.

But, if you're going to come into a thread, challenging the motivations and the honesty of others, you want to be scrupulous in your own behavior! Especially for one who claims some expertise in linguistics.

 

[lasthero]

Are you ignoring me or not?

Another evo fan giving the usual type of response, i.e. no reference whatsoever to the scientific questions asked, in fact no scientific response at all.

You don't care about the science, so why should I give you a scientific response?

Then there is their usual personal insult.

It wasn't personal.

You do add something slightly novel, though, the presumption that you can maybe guess how the Almighty feels even though you are not sure He even exists.

I know as much about the way he thinks as you do.

Friend, learn to think and analyze.

a) we're not friends
b) this is the rudeness we're talking about. You're being a condescending twit.

Look outside the matrix.

Ah, a Matrix fan. That explains much.

Praying for you but I won't respond to more of your posts as I only debate with those who are civil and objective

Yet you don't hold yourself to the same standard. Here's a hint:most people don't like it when you constantly insinuate that they don't think.

 

[RickG]

RickG's quote, again: You are talking to one and you are coming across as a very disingenuous person who wants to do nothing more than to see what kind of reactions you can generate from your posts. Good day.

That's what you call "extremely polite...overly polite" huh, accusing someone, for all practical purposes, of being a liar with no agenda other than to cause trouble? And as for you, fella, I notice you never answer any of my Qs but just keep focusing on statements like "whales have fur", and personal attacks on me. Anything to change the subject.....as I predicted.

You're on ignore now, too, BYE!

I know the above response was meant for "lasthero", but since it is about me I will comment.

LoricaLady, if you genuinely fell that way about my comment, then I sincerely apologize.

However, let's put my comment to you into context. I asked you a question and you went on a rant pretty much calling all geology and biology trash and even related it to Hitler. You didn't even address my question and suggested that I should talk to a qualified geologist. Thus provoking my comment, "I am one". I then proceeded to tell you exactly how I perceived your response to me.

Now, look at my question again and keep in mind that I have not yet stated whether I support the theory of evolution or not. I'll even state that transitional fossils are irrelevant to my question. And if you like, think of the geologic column as layers of dirt and rock.

"What I want to ask you is: "How do you explain the fossil record distributed throughout the geologic column (layers of dirt and rock) without evolution"?

If evolution were false that would mean that all life appeared together and would be distributed throughout the geologic column (layers of dirt and rock) together. The fact is that the fossil record is not a mixed conglomerate of all animal and plant species together."​

 

[LoricaLady]

RICKG I did not really read your post, since you are on ignore for verbal abuse, but I saw a some kind of Q as I was scrolling down the page. I gotta wonder why you would even ask a Q of someone whom you accused of being on here only for the purpose of starting trouble. If that is truly your opinion - though I believe you know better - you should follow my advice and avoid people who waste your time.

I won't read your posts and I'm not kidding.

 

[lasthero]

I'll ask for him, then.

"What I want to ask you is: "How do you explain the fossil record distributed throughout the geologic column (layers of dirt and rock) without evolution"?

If evolution were false that would mean that all life appeared together and would be distributed throughout the geologic column (layers of dirt and rock) together. The fact is that the fossil record is not a mixed conglomerate of all animal and plant species together."

 

[LoricaLady]

Are you ignoring me or not?

Yes. Spend your time on something more worthwhile than sending posts that I will simply slide on past. Byeeee.

 

[lasthero]

Yes. Spend your time on something more worthwhile than sending posts that I will simply slide on past. Byeeee.

Clearly you're not ignoring me, because you keep responding. I suspect, given by the way you quickly ignored RickG and Split Rock the moment they showed they have experience here that you don't even come close to, that this was thinly veiled attempt to lock out people you know can show you up in spectacular fashion. I often wonder about people like you, and why you come to places like this. You claim to be trying to spread the truth to ignorant evolution beleivers, but if that were the case, I'd expect you at a place like, say, the EvC forums, where scientists frequent. Forums like that, strangely, don't get many people like you. In fact, you don't see many creationists in scientific forums at all. They typically go to places like this, where there aren't any rules for debating and where they're allowed to spout whatever they want without being moderated.

And then it hits me - you avoid places like that and people like RickG because you don't really have an argument. You're just a puppet, repeating someone else's argument. You don't have the skill or know-how to actually argue a point. You just parrot.

Since you're not reading this, I suppose we'll just have to go on ignore you. Since this wasn't even your topic to begin with it - and you never addressed the OP - it won't be that hard.

 

[JacksBratt]

Lorica Lady:


Thank you so much for all the facts and questions that you have asked here. You have presented quite a task to the many regulars here.

I am not the most educated in the sciences of evolutionist camp. I do believe 100% that the Bible account is true and literal. I believe that the core of educators, scientists and any power that controls the media and tabulation of data are deathly afraid of any evidence that is found that contradicts the evolutionary farce and will stop at nothing to ensure that it never is presented in a manner which could bring questions to the validity of this world wide lie. I believe that any educated or credble person who stands up for their believe in anything other than the promoted "acceptable" view will be harassed and publicly humiliated as a deterrent to anyone who dreams of doing the same.

Thank you, again, for your stance, fortitude, information and questions, that, as of yet, have not even been attempted to be answered by anyone here.

God Bless.

 

[LoricaLady]

Lorica Lady:


Thank you so much for all the facts and questions that you have asked here. You have presented quite a task to the many regulars here.

I am not the most educated in the sciences of evolutionist camp. I do believe 100% that the Bible account is true and literal. I believe that the core of educators, scientists and any power that controls the media and tabulation of data are deathly afraid of any evidence that is found that contradicts the evolutionary farce and will stop at nothing to ensure that it never is presented in a manner which could bring questions to the validity of this world wide lie. I believe that any educated or credble person who stands up for their believe in anything other than the promoted "acceptable" view will be harassed and publicly humiliated as a deterrent to anyone who dreams of doing the same.

Thank you, again, for your stance, fortitude, information and questions, that, as of yet, have not even been attempted to be answered by anyone here.

God Bless.

Thank you. I suspect you have been, willingly, used. By the Almighty. I periodically will decide to debate evolution and am very used to the verbal abuse. It generally doesn't bother me that much. After all, we know the truth and aren't afraid of it. Heck, we even get reward in Heaven if we get attacked for defending the Word.

But still, I was feeling a little weary tonight with one assault after another, especially since this is supposedly a Christian forum. So, I admit I did pray something like, "Abba, if there is anyone out there who is seeing the truth, if it's good in your sight, please let me hear something from him or her." Not long after I saw your post.

I did pray for the other people here, too, so who know what the outcome of that might be in the future....

May you and yours be greatly blessed, greatly blessed.

 

[Euler]

Thank you. I suspect you have been, willingly, used. By the Almighty. I periodically will decide to debate evolution and am very used to the verbal abuse. It generally doesn't bother me that much. After all, we know the truth and aren't afraid of it. Heck, we even get reward in Heaven if we get attacked for defending the Word.

But still, I was feeling a little weary tonight with one assault after another, especially since this is supposedly a Christian forum. So, I admit I did pray something like, "Abba, if there is anyone out there who is seeing the truth, if it's good in your sight, please let me hear something from him or her." Not long after I saw your post.

I did pray for the other people here, too, so who know what the outcome of that might be in the future....

May you and yours be greatly blessed, greatly blessed.

Oh for Pete's sake - now it's the Martyr Complex!

 

[Euler]

Lorica Lady:


Thank you so much for all the facts and questions that you have asked here. You have presented quite a task to the many regulars here.

I am not the most educated in the sciences of evolutionist camp. I do believe 100% that the Bible account is true and literal. I believe that the core of educators, scientists and any power that controls the media and tabulation of data are deathly afraid of any evidence that is found that contradicts the evolutionary farce and will stop at nothing to ensure that it never is presented in a manner which could bring questions to the validity of this world wide lie. I believe that any educated or credble person who stands up for their believe in anything other than the promoted "acceptable" view will be harassed and publicly humiliated as a deterrent to anyone who dreams of doing the same.

Thank you, again, for your stance, fortitude, information and questions, that, as of yet, have not even been attempted to be answered by anyone here.

God Bless.

So, in one breath you admit that you know little about evolution, but in the next you're convinced that it can't be true! Excuse me while I scoff!

And for the record, her questions WERE addressed, by several people. She didn't like the answers and she ran and hid once she realized that those people were experts in their fields.

 

[lasthero]

Lorica Lady:


Thank you so much for all the facts and questions that you have asked here. You have presented quite a task to the many regulars here.

I am not the most educated in the sciences of evolutionist camp. I do believe 100% that the Bible account is true and literal. I believe that the core of educators, scientists and any power that controls the media and tabulation of data are deathly afraid of any evidence that is found that contradicts the evolutionary farce and will stop at nothing to ensure that it never is presented in a manner which could bring questions to the validity of this world wide lie. I believe that any educated or credble person who stands up for their believe in anything other than the promoted "acceptable" view will be harassed and publicly humiliated as a deterrent to anyone who dreams of doing the same.

Thank you, again, for your stance, fortitude, information and questions, that, as of yet, have not even been attempted to be answered by anyone here.

God Bless.

Okay, you seem to be implying that the educators and scientists all over the world know that evolution is a lie, and they're deliberately hiding the truth.

Excuse me for applying logic to your conspiracy theory, but what would they have to gain from this? If they know creationism is true and evolution is a lie, how does perpetuating that lie benefit them?

 

[Split Rock]

SPLIT ROCK As I stated, verbal abuse continues and escalates, as you have demonstrated in accusing me of lying about one of your posts.

Here is your quote: Whether you call it a fish or a tetrapod is entirely subjective... that is why it is called a tranistional, or a "fishapod" by many

First, if it is "entirely subjective" what kind of science is that? 2nd you say "by many." Isn't that a tacit admission that not all scientists agree at all that Tik is a "fishapod"? 3rd, it is not at all subjective! Ichtyhologists, even some evolutionists, identify Tiktaalik as being a fish. As I stated earlier, it looks very much like other lobe finned fish living today. Convince yourself it is a "fishapod" if you want to but it's not. It's a fish. Period. A lobe finned fish. It matches the definition of "fish" that I quoted for you. It is limbless and lived in the water, for ex. It not only does not have the 4 legs of a tetrapod, it doesn't have even a hint of a single toe, for ex..

Oh, and be sure to look for a toe starting to form on a fish in the countless billions of fossils to be seen out there. Now that would be real evidence of a transition, but alas, no such thing exists. Funny isn't it, how we are told evolution is the norm yet, we see all those fish out there in the ocean, in countless numbers and countless varieties and they are all, everyone of them, staying fish? Howz come we can't find even one that's turning into a tetrapod with little feetsies? (And don't tell me "walking cat fish". It is a 100% fish with 100% fins. It just uses its fins in novel ways, like a flying fish.)

I never said, as you implied, that there are no differences from one generation to another. I asked you, and I ask you now (only rhetorically!) to tell what data there is to show that Tik ever had any descendants significantly different from itself, any data to show it is related to other whale "transitions." There is none. Of course you danced around that Q and never answered it with any data whatsoever.

If you will be honest with yourself you will admit that. You admitted we can't know for sure about ambulocetus if I remember correctly. Well, good for you. Using exactly the same reasoning skills, you should be able to figure out that we can't know anything for sure about Tik's descendants either, or about the descendants of any so called transitions. Yet, you are being told, not maybe, but as a scientific fact, that Tik turned into a tetrapod. That should bother you. If it doesn't, sorry, I tried to show you the truth, but everyone wants to shoot the messenger here.

The reason I didn't respond to your later "answers" to my Qs is because I had already told you that, due to your verbal abuse, I was putting you on ignore. Your statement quoted here is another reason to put you on ignore, as I said earlier. I still pray for you to learn to think. That's all I have to say to you.

So long...and thanks for the fish stories. (You did make me laugh with that, related, line.)

If you have me on ignore, why are you responding to me? In any case, trying to have a reasonable discussion with you is clearly pointless. If some one asks you hard qustions you play the victim card and put them on Ignore. Fine, I will do the same for you. I won't be responding to any more of your insincere posts (and I actually mean that).

In my opinion, you represent everything wrong with the creationism movement in the United States.

Have a nice life

 

[Split Rock]

Lorica Lady:


Thank you so much for all the facts and questions that you have asked here. You have presented quite a task to the many regulars here.

I am not the most educated in the sciences of evolutionist camp. I do believe 100% that the Bible account is true and literal. I believe that the core of educators, scientists and any power that controls the media and tabulation of data are deathly afraid of any evidence that is found that contradicts the evolutionary farce and will stop at nothing to ensure that it never is presented in a manner which could bring questions to the validity of this world wide lie. I believe that any educated or credble person who stands up for their believe in anything other than the promoted "acceptable" view will be harassed and publicly humiliated as a deterrent to anyone who dreams of doing the same.

Thank you, again, for your stance, fortitude, information and questions, that, as of yet, have not even been attempted to be answered by anyone here.

God Bless.

I did address a number of her arguments, but you have apparently missed those posts. In particular, I showed that the majority of the geological column exists intact in North Dakota and that the geological column was established before evolution was accepted by the scientific community. She ignored me and played the victim card. Is that OK with you?

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON






MOD HAT OFF

 

[Astrophile]

My Qs were perfectly valid and like over a hundred before you, you have evaded them and changed the subject. It is perfectly valid to ask if there is any evidence that a hooved animal turned into a great whale. It is a logical fallacy to state that is true based on a minor similarity in its ear to that of whales.

You would have to ask biologists for the evidence that whales evolved from mammals with hooves, although I believe that the genetic evidence points to a relationship between whales and hoofed mammals. I am merely asking whether there is any evidence that modern whales are descended from Mesozoic or Palaeozoic whales, given that there is no fossil evidence for such ancient whales.

Yes, life comes from life. Uh, how does that show that a great whale came from ambulocetus, anymore than it would show that a shark led to a dolphin when a shark has far more "similar homology", or similar shape, to a dolphin than ambulocetus has to a whale?

First, sharks are fish; whales and ambulocetus are mammals. Second, the fact that life comes from life means that modern whales must be descended from ancestors that lived at a geological time when there is no fossil evidence of whales, or even of mammals.

Even if I were an orphan who had no known parents, one could tell they were humans because I am a human! Ambulocetus was not a whale! A whale is not of the ambulocetus kind. Yeal, life comes from life. And what we see is that lifeforms come from very, very, very similar lifeforms.

So what are whales descended from? If you went to a museum and looked at Paleocene or Eocene fossils, what animals would you select as the ancestors of whales?

As I said, there is no geologic column. As I showed in earlier quotes in purple, evolutionary scientists are admitting the so called geologic column and "transititons" are made up with subjectivity to try to stick to Darwinian ideas. Therefore your mention of different "geologic" periods is meaningless, in my opinion.

Perhaps you should read some geology books, or books on the history of geology. Just to help you, though, all of the geological periods except for the Ordovician were named before Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, the Jurassic and Tertiary periods were named before Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin were even born, and the Carboniferous, Cretaceous and Quaternary periods were named before Lyell published Principles of Geology.

There is no ev-i-dence that ambulocetus led to a whale. You can change the subject all you want. You give out faith bytes, as above, like "whales are descended from" which show you believe in evolution, but when asked to present evidence for just one li'l ol' supposed "whale transition" fossil, you change the subject.

.

A quick look at Wikipedia yields Indohyus, the pakicetids, the ambulocetids, the remingtoncetids, the protocetids, the basilosaurids, the dorudontids, and Llanocetus, Janjucetus hunderi, Aetiocetus weltoni, Ashorocetus, Morowanocetus, Mammalodon, Chonecetus, Willungacetus, Cetotheriopsis, Eomysticetus, Tohoraata, and Kentriodon. That should give you enough research material to keep you occupied.