Discussion:
Evolution Fraud is a faith
Add Reply
A***@yahoo.com
2017-10-07 17:49:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Tim
2017-10-07 17:59:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Extinction without fossilization events.
A***@yahoo.com
2017-10-07 18:03:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Extinction without fossilization events.
You mean, no have fossils so must believe. OK.
Tim
2017-10-07 18:07:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Extinction without fossilization events.
You mean, no have fossils so must believe. OK.
Sure. It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god did it, but my god, not the other gods.
A***@yahoo.com
2017-10-07 18:14:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Extinction without fossilization events.
You mean, no have fossils so must believe. OK.
Sure. It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god did it, but my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
Kevrob
2017-10-07 18:19:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
Ass7 have beige box. Type words. No make sense.

Kevin R
TheRealMccoy
2017-10-07 18:22:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by A***@yahoo.com
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
Ass7 have beige box. Type words. No make sense.
Kevin R
you bwoken engwish?
Smiler
2017-10-08 18:33:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by TheRealMccoy
Post by Kevrob
Post by A***@yahoo.com
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus
have great flood.
Ass7 have beige box. Type words. No make sense.
Kevin R
you bwoken engwish?
you bwoken bwain.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
A***@yahoo.com
2017-10-07 18:32:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by A***@yahoo.com
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
Ass7 have beige box. Type words. No make sense.
Kevin R
Just trying to talk on your level.
TheRealMccoy
2017-10-07 18:35:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by A***@yahoo.com
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
Ass7 have beige box. Type words. No make sense.
Kevin R
Just trying to talk on your level.
chinese maybe slightly smarter, but he no chinese person.
A***@yahoo.com
2017-10-07 19:01:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by TheRealMccoy
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by A***@yahoo.com
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
Ass7 have beige box. Type words. No make sense.
Kevin R
Just trying to talk on your level.
chinese maybe slightly smarter, but he no chinese person.
Correct. Evolutionese is not difficult to master.
TheRealMccoy
2017-10-07 19:05:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by TheRealMccoy
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by A***@yahoo.com
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
Ass7 have beige box. Type words. No make sense.
Kevin R
Just trying to talk on your level.
chinese maybe slightly smarter, but he no chinese person.
Correct. Evolutionese is not difficult to master.
word learning mostly
a322x1n
2017-10-07 21:28:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by TheRealMccoy
Post by A***@yahoo.com
On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 2:14:32 PM UTC-4,
Post by A***@yahoo.com
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments
thus have great flood.
Ass7 have beige box. Type words. No make sense.
Kevin R
Just trying to talk on your level.
chinese maybe slightly smarter, but he no chinese person.
Correct. Evolutionese is not difficult to master.
Master this:

<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-to-c
reationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>
Yap Honghor
2017-10-10 01:55:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by TheRealMccoy
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by A***@yahoo.com
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
Ass7 have beige box. Type words. No make sense.
Kevin R
Just trying to talk on your level.
chinese maybe slightly smarter, but he no chinese person.
Correct. Evolutionese is not difficult to master.
But your ookeenese is beyond us....
A***@yahoo.com
2017-10-10 04:46:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by TheRealMccoy
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by A***@yahoo.com
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
Ass7 have beige box. Type words. No make sense.
Kevin R
Just trying to talk on your level.
chinese maybe slightly smarter, but he no chinese person.
Correct. Evolutionese is not difficult to master.
But your ookeenese is beyond us....
Your eekanese is beyond us.
Yap Honghor
2017-10-10 06:54:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by TheRealMccoy
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by A***@yahoo.com
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
Ass7 have beige box. Type words. No make sense.
Kevin R
Just trying to talk on your level.
chinese maybe slightly smarter, but he no chinese person.
Correct. Evolutionese is not difficult to master.
But your ookeenese is beyond us....
Your eekanese is beyond us.
OK, since you prefer to yik yik, you are certainly a donkey.
A***@yahoo.com
2017-10-10 04:57:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by TheRealMccoy
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by A***@yahoo.com
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
Ass7 have beige box. Type words. No make sense.
Kevin R
Just trying to talk on your level.
chinese maybe slightly smarter, but he no chinese person.
Correct. Evolutionese is not difficult to master.
But your ookeenese is beyond us....
But your eekanese is beyond us.
Yap Honghor
2017-10-10 01:52:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Extinction without fossilization events.
You mean, no have fossils so must believe. OK.
Sure. It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god did it, but my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
A flood here today, a flood there tomorrow...they all added up to a great flood????

And flood has anything to do with fossils???
Andrew
2017-10-10 04:45:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
And flood has anything to do with fossils???
Yes, because when plants and animals die
they naturally return to the biosphere.

They do not turn into fossils unless they
were victims of a massive catastrophe.

Whereupon they were buried quickly
before normal decomposition could
occur.

Therefore worldwide fossils are
evidence of a worldwide event.

It happened folks.

For sure.

Yes.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-10 04:57:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
.> > And flood has anything to do with fossils???
.> Yes, because when plants and animals die
.> they naturally return to the biosphere.
.> They do not turn into fossils unless they
.> were victims of a massive catastrophe.

Or a quite localized massive catastrophe.

To take just one -- repeating -- example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channeled_Scablands
Post by Andrew
Whereupon they were buried quickly
before normal decomposition could
occur.
.> Therefore worldwide fossils are
.> evidence of a worldwide event.

Or many many local events.

Or even normal seafloor burial, such as
the rich fossil strata of the late Ordovician
Cincinnatian series, where I grew up.


aa
Post by Andrew
It happened folks.
For sure.
Yes.
Yap Honghor
2017-10-10 06:53:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Yap Honghor
And flood has anything to do with fossils???
Yes, because when plants and animals die
they naturally return to the biosphere.
They do not turn into fossils unless they
were victims of a massive catastrophe.
Whereupon they were buried quickly
before normal decomposition could
occur.
Therefore worldwide fossils are
evidence of a worldwide event.
It happened folks.
For sure.
Yes.
In that case, there should be no gaps in the evolution.....
Great, finally Andrew help to kick the theist doubt about evolution and the evolution will be displacing theism totally!!!!!!!!!!
Andrew
2017-10-10 09:56:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Andrew
Post by Yap Honghor
And flood has anything to do with fossils???
Yes, because when plants and animals die
they naturally return to the biosphere.
They do not turn into fossils unless they
were victims of a massive catastrophe.
Whereupon they were buried quickly
before normal decomposition could
occur.
Therefore worldwide fossils are
evidence of a worldwide event.
It happened folks.
For sure.
Yes.
In that case, there should be no gaps in the evolution.....
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as
the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our
text- books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the
rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
~ Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist
Post by Yap Honghor
Great, finally Andrew help to kick the theist doubt about evolution and
the evolution will be displacing theism totally!!!!!!!!!!
Funny.
Malte Runz
2017-10-10 10:11:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:45:38 -0400, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by Yap Honghor
And flood has anything to do with fossils???
Yes, because when plants and animals die
they naturally return to the biosphere.
They do not turn into fossils unless they
were victims of a massive catastrophe.
I see. A local mudflow will not bury a mouse and cause it to fosslize.
Couldn't happen. Only the Flood could do that?
Post by Andrew
Whereupon they were buried quickly
before normal decomposition could
occur.
Therefore worldwide fossils are
evidence of a worldwide event.
So, let me get it straight. You're saying that all the fossils we find
today, were formed as a direct result of the Flood?

(snip)
--
Malte Runz
Andrew
2017-10-10 10:39:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by Yap Honghor
And flood has anything to do with fossils???
Yes, because when plants and animals die
they naturally return to the biosphere.
They do not turn into fossils unless they
were victims of a massive catastrophe.
I see. A local mudflow will not bury a mouse and cause it to fosslize.
Couldn't happen. Only the Flood could do that?
No.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Whereupon they were buried quickly
before normal decomposition could
occur.
Therefore worldwide fossils are
evidence of a worldwide event.
So, let me get it straight. You're saying that all the fossils we find
today, were formed as a direct result of the Flood?
No.
Malte Runz
2017-10-10 11:08:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:39:21 -0400, "Andrew"
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by Yap Honghor
And flood has anything to do with fossils???
Yes, because when plants and animals die
they naturally return to the biosphere.
They do not turn into fossils unless they
were victims of a massive catastrophe.
I see. A local mudflow will not bury a mouse and cause it to fosslize.
Couldn't happen. Only the Flood could do that?
No.
You're saying a local event can cause fossilization of plants and
animals?
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Whereupon they were buried quickly
before normal decomposition could
occur.
Therefore worldwide fossils are
evidence of a worldwide event.
Or many separate, smaller local events, according to your own
statement, "no", above.
Post by Malte Runz
So, let me get it straight. You're saying that all the fossils we find
today, were formed as a direct result of the Flood?
No.
Then why are you saying that the fossil record is evidence of the
Flood, if the plants and animals could have been fossilized through a
non-Flood event?
--
Malte Runz
Davej
2017-10-10 12:35:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
[...]
Therefore worldwide fossils are
evidence of a worldwide event.
It happened folks.
Genesis 6:19
And of 1% of living kinds of all flesh, two of these sort shalt
thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they
shall be male and female, but 99% of kinds shall perish forever.
Malte Runz
2017-10-10 20:43:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by Andrew
[...]
Therefore worldwide fossils are
evidence of a worldwide event.
It happened folks.
Genesis 6:19
And of 1% of living kinds of all flesh, two of these sort shalt
thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they
shall be male and female, but 99% of kinds shall perish forever.
Tha' don't sound like Jimmy da King!
--
Malte Runz
Tim
2017-10-10 08:18:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Extinction without fossilization events.
You mean, no have fossils so must believe. OK.
Sure. It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god did it, but my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
You have no evidence of a global flood. Fossil dating proves some of the animals and plants are hundreds of millions of years older than others. We know that most of our oil came from extinction events in The Jurassic and the Cretaceous. They too are millions of years apart.

You're hooked on faith, but that won't do.
A***@yahoo.com
2017-10-11 04:20:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Extinction without fossilization events.
You mean, no have fossils so must believe. OK.
Sure. It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god did it, but my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
You have no evidence of a global flood. Fossil dating proves some of the animals and plants are hundreds of millions of years older than others. We know that most of our oil came from extinction events in The Jurassic and the Cretaceous. They too are millions of years apart.
You're hooked on faith, but that won't do.
Not at all .There's no dating system that claims to measure millions of years but cannot measure within thousands of years that can be tested. And that's what you've got. You may as well fess up and quit messing around.
a322x1n
2017-10-11 05:06:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by Tim
wro
Post by A***@yahoo.com
On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 2:03:23 PM UTC-4,
Post by A***@yahoo.com
On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-4,
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Extinction without fossilization events.
You mean, no have fossils so must believe. OK.
Sure. It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god did
it,
but my god, not the other gods.
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments
thus ha
ve great flood.
Post by Tim
You have no evidence of a global flood. Fossil dating proves some of
the
animals and plants are hundreds of millions of years older than
others. We know that most of our oil came from extinction events in
The Jurassic and the Cretaceous. They too are millions of years apart.
Post by Tim
You're hooked on faith, but that won't do.
Not at all .There's no dating system that claims to measure millions
of years but cannot measure within thousands of years that can be
tested. And that's what you've got. You may as well fess up and quit
messing around.
Still refusing to face the facts, still making up new lies and
disinformation to explain away the previous lies, Astroid 86?
Try the truth for a change:

<http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2014/12/19/intelligent-design-stil
l-dead/>

<http://tinyurl.com/kwyrtku>

<https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/08/07/a-n-wilson-stale-unor
iginal-banal-cliche-ridden-hack/>

<http://tinyurl.com/ybu9u4et>

<http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2014/08/ken-hams-10-facts-tha
t-prove-creationism-debunked/>

<http://tinyurl.com/hor4bam>

Modern Christian: Someone who can take time
out from blasting evolution as "perpetrated fraud"
and "junk science" to demand the latest medical
advances from evolutionary biology be used on them
when THEY get sick.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-t
o-creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

<https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm>

<http://tinyurl.com/kzzmt4g>

<http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling
-amateur-cambrian-follies/>

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=stephen+myers>

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

<http://donaldprothero.com/quotes.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=Lee+Strobel%27s>

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/>

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication>

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

<https://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/dawkins-ber
linski/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/06/22-answe
rs-creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate>

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

<http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/dumb-things-creationists-
say/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/unintelligent-design.html?_
r=0>

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

<http://www.eoht.info/page/Creationism+scientists+ranked+by+idiocy>

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

<https://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/18-creationist-arguments-debun
ked>

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Creationism>

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/28/creation-origin-life-fu
ture-adam-rutherford-review>

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

<http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/06/07/what-do-physicists-t
hink-of-michio-kaku/>

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

<http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16>

<http://tinyurl.com/3p4e7mx>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin>

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel>

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/7vw8ozk>

<http://www.famousscientists.org/charles-darwin/>

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

<http://darwin-online.org.uk/biography.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/5p6znj>

"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould>

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

<http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-human-evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=macarthur>

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

<http://www.annualreviews.org/journal/ecolsys>

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

<http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/home>

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falldidit#Falldidit>

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-11 16:31:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Extinction without fossilization events.
You mean, no have fossils so must believe. OK.
Sure. It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god did it, but my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
You have no evidence of a global flood. Fossil dating proves some of the animals and plants are hundreds of millions of years older than others. We know that most of our oil came from extinction events in The Jurassic and the Cretaceous. They too are millions of years apart.
You're hooked on faith, but that won't do.
Not at all .There's no dating system that claims to measure millions of years but cannot measure within thousands of years that can be tested. And that's what you've got. You may as well fess up and quit messing around.
"There's no dating system that claims to measure millions of years but cannot measure within thousands of years that can be tested"....

Not sure I followed that. Are you saying that a technique which measures a large time
span isn't trustworthy unless it can also measure an infinitesimal fraction of that same span?

Like saying a yardstick is not to be trusted unless you can accurately measure a flea's eye with it?


Aa
Davej
2017-10-11 16:49:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god
did it, but my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of
sediments thus have great flood.
We know that 99% of known species are extinct. Do you
believe they all drowned in the flood?
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-11 17:11:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god
did it, but my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of
sediments thus have great flood.
.> We know that 99% of known species are extinct. Do you
.> believe they all drowned in the flood?

Oh, Astie doesn't believe that 99 percent bit either.

That's the problem when you just flat out deny some established
scientific theory. It snowballs. You start out simply denying one point,
but then you have to deny another one, and explain away some
third aspect, and then a fourth one rears its ugly head, and...

It's like a committing a lie which then forces you to make up more
stuff, and then cover that with yet further lies...


AA
Malte Runz
2017-10-11 20:26:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:11:04 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god
did it, but my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of
sediments thus have great flood.
.> We know that 99% of known species are extinct. Do you
.> believe they all drowned in the flood?
Oh, Astie doesn't believe that 99 percent bit either.
That's the problem when you just flat out deny some established
scientific theory. It snowballs. You start out simply denying one point,
but then you have to deny another one, and explain away some
third aspect, and then a fourth one rears its ugly head, and...
It's like a committing a lie which then forces you to make up more
stuff, and then cover that with yet further lies...
And like all other Ponzi Schemes it's going to hit him hard when there
are not more lies to tell.
--
Malte Runz
Don Martin
2017-10-11 22:23:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god
did it, but my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of
sediments thus have great flood.
We know that 99% of known species are extinct. Do you
believe they all drowned in the flood?
Well, according to report, it _was_ a pretty big flood.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Smiler
2017-10-12 02:21:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Martin
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god did it, but
my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
We know that 99% of known species are extinct. Do you believe they all
drowned in the flood?
Well, according to report, it _was_ a pretty big flood.
That left no trace of it ever happening.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Andrew
2017-10-12 08:13:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god did it, but
my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus
have great flood.
We know that 99% of known species are extinct. Do you believe they all
drowned in the flood?
Well, according to report, it _was_ a pretty big flood.
That left no trace of it ever happening.
Except milt-trillions of plants and animals buried suddenly
in sedimentary rock, all over the world. Even in polar areas.
Malte Runz
2017-10-12 10:12:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 04:13:16 -0400, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god did it, but
my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus
have great flood.
We know that 99% of known species are extinct. Do you believe they all
drowned in the flood?
Well, according to report, it _was_ a pretty big flood.
That left no trace of it ever happening.
Except milt-trillions of plants and animals buried suddenly
in sedimentary rock, all over the world. Even in polar areas.
They could also have been buried in small scale, local events. You
just agreed that it happens:

***
Post by Andrew
I see. A local mudflow will not bury a mouse and cause it to fosslize.
Couldn't happen. Only the Flood could do that?
No.
***

That's you saying 'no, not only the Flood could be the source, small
scale events can do it too '. Are you changing your mind again?

Why don't you go on record, and stick to it. Can small local events,
like mudflows, bury an animal and cause it to fossilize. Yes or no?
--
Malte Runz
Andrew
2017-10-12 12:12:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god did it, but
my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus
have great flood.
We know that 99% of known species are extinct. Do you believe they all
drowned in the flood?
Well, according to report, it _was_ a pretty big flood.
That left no trace of it ever happening.
Except milt-trillions of plants and animals buried suddenly
in sedimentary rock, all over the world. Even in polar areas.
They could also have been buried in small scale, local events. You
***
Post by Andrew
I see. A local mudflow will not bury a mouse and cause it to fosslize.
Couldn't happen. Only the Flood could do that?
No.
***
That's you saying 'no, not only the Flood could be the source, small
scale events can do it too '. Are you changing your mind again?
Why don't you go on record, and stick to it. Can small local events,
like mudflows, bury an animal and cause it to fossilize. Yes or no?
There is a difference between a little mouse buried in a local mud
flow, as in your example, and multi-zillions of fossils worldwide.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-12 15:42:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Martin
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god did it, but
my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus
have great flood.
We know that 99% of known species are extinct. Do you believe they all
drowned in the flood?
Well, according to report, it _was_ a pretty big flood.
.>. > That left no trace of it ever happening.
.> Except milt-trillions of plants and animals buried suddenly
.> in sedimentary rock, all over the world. Even in polar areas.

Suddenly? What is your evidence for "suddenly"?

Dozens or even hundreds of strata, many of them smooth
and undisturbed and of different mineral species, hardly
point to a sudden cataclysm.


aa
Andrew
2017-10-12 08:13:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Martin
Post by Davej
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god
did it, but my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of
sediments thus have great flood.
We know that 99% of known species are extinct. Do you
believe they all drowned in the flood?
Well, according to report, it _was_ a pretty big flood.
Indeed. Here's what happened.

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second
month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day
all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and
the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was
on the earth forty days and forty nights.

"Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters
increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above
the earth. The waters prevailed and greatly increased on
the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the
waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the
earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were
covered.

"And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and
cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on
the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the
breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land,
died.

"So He destroyed all living things which were on the
face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing
and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.

"Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark
remained alive. And the waters prevailed on the earth
one hundred and fifty days." ~ From Genesis 7


Note it says: "All the high hills under the whole
heaven--> were covered."
Davej
2017-10-12 08:49:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Don Martin
Post by Davej
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god
did it, but my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of
sediments thus have great flood.
We know that 99% of known species are extinct. Do you
believe they all drowned in the flood?
Well, according to report, it _was_ a pretty big flood.
Indeed. Here's what happened.
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second
month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day
all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and
the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was
on the earth forty days and forty nights.
Strange how all that extra water disappeared.
Strange how dinosaurs are never found buried with mastodons.
Strange how the Bible never mentions that Noah only saved 1% of kinds.
Andrew
2017-10-12 09:18:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by Andrew
Post by Don Martin
Post by Davej
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god
did it, but my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of
sediments thus have great flood.
We know that 99% of known species are extinct. Do you
believe they all drowned in the flood?
Well, according to report, it _was_ a pretty big flood.
Indeed. Here's what happened.
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second
month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day
all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and
the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was
on the earth forty days and forty nights.
Strange how all that extra water disappeared.
Lots of water in the oceans.
Post by Davej
Strange how dinosaurs are never found buried with mastodons.
Segregation.
Post by Davej
Strange how the Bible never mentions that Noah only saved 1% of kinds.
Evolution after the Event.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-12 16:00:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Don Martin
Post by Davej
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god
did it, but my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of
sediments thus have great flood.
We know that 99% of known species are extinct. Do you
believe they all drowned in the flood?
Well, according to report, it _was_ a pretty big flood.
Indeed. Here's what happened.
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second
month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day
all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and
the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was
on the earth forty days and forty nights.
.> > Strange how all that extra water disappeared.
.> Lots of water in the oceans.

Quick! Look around! Is it covering the Earth?


.> > Strange how dinosaurs are never found buried with mastodons.
.> Segregation.

Funny how trilobites all over the world somehow magically
got "segregated" to the lowest layers, while so many other species
of marine arthropods got segregated to other, quite distant, layers.

Funny how large Mesozoic marine animals with worldwide distribution --
ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, nothosaurs, placodonts, and mosasaurs --
aren't found mixed in with whales and other cetaceans.

You really must explain this "segregation" of yours in some detail for us.

,> > Strange how the Bible never mentions that Noah only saved 1% of kinds.
,> Evolution after the Event.

Un huh -- from a handful of "kinds", all the millions of species in this world
evolved in just four thousand short years.

If any evolutionary biologist ever suggested evolutionary rates
a fraction of that fast, he'd be laughed out of the field.

And rightfully so.


AA

!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-10-12 09:52:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Note it says: "All the high hills under the whole heaven--> were covered."
Can you give url of geology book from any top 50 universities that says the earth
was completely covered with water, based on science?
--
There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.
Extortion (Believe or Burn) is *THE* foundation of Christianity.
Sycophant: a compulsive ass-kisser of un-evidenced dictator god.
Andrew
2017-10-12 12:12:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Note it says: "All the high hills under the whole heaven--> were covered."
Can you give url of geology book from any top 50 universities that
says the earth was completely covered with water, based on science?
Marine fossils on high mountains.. https://tinyurl.com/yctxlblh


Malte Runz
2017-10-12 10:14:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Don Martin
Post by Davej
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god
did it, but my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of
sediments thus have great flood.
We know that 99% of known species are extinct. Do you
believe they all drowned in the flood?
Well, according to report, it _was_ a pretty big flood.
Indeed. Here's what happened.
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, ...
Do you even hear yourself talking?

(snip rest of fantasy)

PS: Don't forget to answer my question about mudflows and whether or
not they can bury animals and cause them top fossilize.
--
Malte Runz
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-12 15:51:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Don Martin
Post by Davej
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god
did it, but my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of
sediments thus have great flood.
We know that 99% of known species are extinct. Do you
believe they all drowned in the flood?
Well, according to report, it _was_ a pretty big flood.
Indeed. Here's what happened.
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second
month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day
all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and
the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was
on the earth forty days and forty nights.
"Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters
increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above
the earth. The waters prevailed and greatly increased on
the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the
waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the
earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were
covered.
"And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and
cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on
the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the
breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land,
died.
"So He destroyed all living things which were on the
face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing
and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.
"Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark
remained alive. And the waters prevailed on the earth
one hundred and fifty days." ~ From Genesis 7
Note it says: "All the high hills under the whole
heaven--> were covered."
An interesting story. Nothing since the story of the Garden
of Eden, earlier in that same book, so vividly illuminates the
capricious, inconstant, and brutally genocidal nature of
the God you shill for here.

First this supposedly omniscient God "repents Himself" over the
way His creation turned out. Apparently He was caught totally
off guard by the way things turned out. Didn't have an inkling.
Totally surprised how people turned out the way he designed them.

And so, in a towering snit, He decides to slaughter all
but eight people on the entire planet. Men, women, and children.
Toddlers. Babes in arms. Babes at the breast. Unborns in the womb.

And of course the animals. From Eden to Job, your monstrous God
takes it out on the animals, although not a single one of them had
anything to do with the supposed "incorrigible wickedness" of
all those soon-to-be drowned babies and others.

If I were pushing this God of yours, this would be the last story
I'd want to tell the unsuspecting.


AtlAxo
Tim
2017-10-11 20:31:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Extinction without fossilization events.
You mean, no have fossils so must believe. OK.
Sure. It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god did it, but my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
You have no evidence of a global flood. Fossil dating proves some of the animals and plants are hundreds of millions of years older than others. We know that most of our oil came from extinction events in The Jurassic and the Cretaceous. They too are millions of years apart.
You're hooked on faith, but that won't do.
Not at all .There's no dating system that claims to measure millions of years but cannot measure within thousands of years that can be tested. And that's what you've got. You may as well fess up and quit messing around.
There are many different methods of dating. You're wrong.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-11 20:52:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Extinction without fossilization events.
You mean, no have fossils so must believe. OK.
Sure. It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god did it, but my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
You have no evidence of a global flood. Fossil dating proves some of the animals and plants are hundreds of millions of years older than others. We know that most of our oil came from extinction events in The Jurassic and the Cretaceous. They too are millions of years apart.
You're hooked on faith, but that won't do.
Not at all .There's no dating system that claims to measure millions of years but cannot measure within thousands of years that can be tested. And that's what you've got. You may as well fess up and quit messing around.
There are many different methods of dating. You're wrong.
I've offered a couple of times to discuss various methods with him, any time range
he likes. And no radioactive decay, which is one he doesn't believe in, but other, independent,
non-decay techniques.

He's never responded.


Atl
Tim
2017-10-11 21:01:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Extinction without fossilization events.
You mean, no have fossils so must believe. OK.
Sure. It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god did it, but my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
You have no evidence of a global flood. Fossil dating proves some of the animals and plants are hundreds of millions of years older than others. We know that most of our oil came from extinction events in The Jurassic and the Cretaceous. They too are millions of years apart.
You're hooked on faith, but that won't do.
Not at all .There's no dating system that claims to measure millions of years but cannot measure within thousands of years that can be tested. And that's what you've got. You may as well fess up and quit messing around.
There are many different methods of dating. You're wrong.
I've offered a couple of times to discuss various methods with him, any time range
he likes. And no radioactive decay, which is one he doesn't believe in, but other, independent,
non-decay techniques.
He's never responded.
He's a dishonest fake Christian. He once claimed that radiometric dating is wrong because older rocks are compressed and therefore contain more of the radioactive isotopes being measured. I pointed out that this is not the case. He ran around in circles for a while, then claimed he made a mistake. You can call him out on his lies, but you have a better chance of your stove saying it lied than hearing it from assroid 7's mouth.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Atl
A***@yahoo.com
2017-10-12 03:20:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Extinction without fossilization events.
You mean, no have fossils so must believe. OK.
Sure. It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god did it, but my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
You have no evidence of a global flood. Fossil dating proves some of the animals and plants are hundreds of millions of years older than others. We know that most of our oil came from extinction events in The Jurassic and the Cretaceous. They too are millions of years apart.
You're hooked on faith, but that won't do.
Not at all .There's no dating system that claims to measure millions of years but cannot measure within thousands of years that can be tested. And that's what you've got. You may as well fess up and quit messing around.
There are many different methods of dating. You're wrong.
I've offered a couple of times to discuss various methods with him, any time range
he likes. And no radioactive decay, which is one he doesn't believe in, but other, independent,
non-decay techniques.
He's never responded.
He's a dishonest fake Christian. He once claimed that radiometric dating is wrong because older rocks are compressed and therefore contain more of the radioactive isotopes being measured. I pointed out that this is not the case. He ran around in circles for a while, then claimed he made a mistake. You can call him out on his lies, but you have a better chance of your stove saying it lied than hearing it from assroid 7's mouth.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Atl
How do you propose to test your dating methods? You can't. The time period you claim to date has no written records to test with. Quit proclaiming your fake dating methods as truth.
Tim
2017-10-12 09:55:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Extinction without fossilization events.
You mean, no have fossils so must believe. OK.
Sure. It's saner than: have no fossils therefore believe god did it, but my god, not the other gods.
No. Have tons of fossils and fossil fuels and tons of sediments thus have great flood.
You have no evidence of a global flood. Fossil dating proves some of the animals and plants are hundreds of millions of years older than others. We know that most of our oil came from extinction events in The Jurassic and the Cretaceous. They too are millions of years apart.
You're hooked on faith, but that won't do.
Not at all .There's no dating system that claims to measure millions of years but cannot measure within thousands of years that can be tested. And that's what you've got. You may as well fess up and quit messing around.
There are many different methods of dating. You're wrong.
I've offered a couple of times to discuss various methods with him, any time range
he likes. And no radioactive decay, which is one he doesn't believe in, but other, independent,
non-decay techniques.
He's never responded.
He's a dishonest fake Christian. He once claimed that radiometric dating is wrong because older rocks are compressed and therefore contain more of the radioactive isotopes being measured. I pointed out that this is not the case. He ran around in circles for a while, then claimed he made a mistake. You can call him out on his lies, but you have a better chance of your stove saying it lied than hearing it from assroid 7's mouth.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Atl
How do you propose to test your dating methods?
Against the standard model of physics using known decay rates of radioactive isotopes.
Post by A***@yahoo.com
You can't.
I just did.
Post by A***@yahoo.com
The time period you claim to date has no written records to test with.
So what? Radioactive decay rates are known.
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Quit proclaiming your fake dating methods as truth.
Prove that they are fake. Last time round you withdrew your lies about compressed rocks. So what are you going to lie about this time?
Cloud Hobbit
2017-10-12 04:44:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.actionbioscience.org

The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them: They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world. Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds — have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous.
Some skeptics believe that all fossils are the same age.
Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noah’s flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow ‘drowned’ by the flood.
Rejecting fossil data cannot be supported by proof.
The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.
Fossils occur in sequences

Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution. Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages. The first work was done in England and France.

Fossil hunting began by accident in England around 1800.
Around 1800, William Smith in England, who was a canal surveyor, noticed that he could map out great tracts of rocks on the basis of their contained fossils. The sequences he saw in one part of the country could be correlated (matched) precisely with the sequences in another. He, and others at the time, had discovered the first principles of stratigraphy — that older rocks lie below younger rocks and that fossils occur in a particular, predictable order.
Stratigraphy, the study of rock layers, led to paleontology, the study of fossils.
Then, geologists began to build up the stratigraphic column, the familiar listing of divisions of geological time — Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, and so on. Each time unit was characterized by particular fossils. The scheme worked all round the world, without fail.

From the 1830s onwards, geologists noted how fossils became more complex through time. The oldest rocks contained no fossils, then came simple sea creatures, then more complex ones like fishes, then came life on land, then reptiles, then mammals, and finally humans. Clearly, there was some kind of ‘progress’ going on.

All became clear, of course, in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his “On the origin of species”. The ‘progress’ shown by the fossils was a documentation of the grand pattern of evolution through long spans of time.

Accuracy of the fossils

Fossils prove that humans did not exist alongside dinosaurs.
Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great ‘tree of life’. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.

, mathematics, and other computations to date fossils.
Paleontologists now apply sophisticated mathematical techniques to assess the relative quality of particular fossil successions, as well as the entire fossil record. These demonstrate that, of course, we do not know everything (and clearly never will), but we know enough. Today, innovative techniques provide further confirmation and understanding of the history of life. Biologists actually have at their disposal several independent ways of looking at the history of life - not only from the order of fossils in the rocks, but also through phylogenetic trees.

Phylogenetic trees are the family trees of particular groups of plants or animals, showing how all the species relate to each other.

Phylogenetic trees are drawn up mathematically, using lists of morphological (external form) or molecular (gene sequence) characters.

Modern phylogenetic trees have no input from stratigraphy, so they can be used in a broad way to make comparisons between tree shape and stratigraphy.

The majority of test cases show good agreement, so the fossil record tells the same story as the molecules enclosed in living organisms.

Accuracy of dating

Dating in geology may be relative or absolute. Relative dating is done by observing fossils, as described above, and recording which fossil is younger, which is older. The discovery of means for absolute dating in the early 1900s was a huge advance. The methods are all based on radioactive decay:

Fossils may be dated by calculating the rate of decay of certain elements.
Certain naturally occurring elements are radioactive, and they decay, or break down, at predictable rates.
Chemists measure the half-life of such elements, i.e., the time it takes for half of the radioactive parent element to break down to the stable daughter element. Sometimes, one isotope, or naturally occurring form, of an element decays into another, more stable form of the same element.
By comparing the proportions of parent to daughter element in a rock sample, and knowing the half-life, the age can be calculated.
Older fossils cannot be dated by carbon-14 methods and require radiometric dating.
Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating:

The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.
Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.
Scientists can check their accuracy by using different isotopes.
The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock’s age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.

There is only a 1% chance of error with current dating technology.
Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so.

Conclusion: The strict rules of the scientific method ensure the accuracy of fossil dating.
Conclusion

The fossil record is fundamental to an understanding of evolution. Fossils document the order of appearance of groups and they tell us about some of the amazing plants and animals that died out long ago. Fossils can also show us how major crises, such as mass extinctions, happened, and how life recovered after them. If the fossils, or the dating of the fossils, could be shown to be inaccurate, all such information would have to be rejected as unsafe. Geologists and paleontologists are highly self-critical, and they have worried for decades about these issues. Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating, so we can read the history of life from the rocks with confidence.

IOW you know nothing.
Andrew
2017-10-12 08:13:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Cloud Hobbit" wrote in message news:cb13d680-1270-4e70-9e56-***@googlegroups.com...
http://www.actionbioscience.org
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The fossil record is fundamental to an understanding of
evolution.
The fossil record is worldwide evidence of the great Flood.

Plants and animals do not naturally turn into fossils when
they die. No, evidence says there was a great worldwide
cataclysm as we find recorded in the book of Genesis.

Folks, we need to go with the evidence. Right? Yes.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed
the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating, so we
can read the history of life from the rocks with confidence.
No, because the methods used to date *rocks* are dependent
upon multiple *assumptions*. Now if you are unbiased and
are not afraid of the truth, then why not test carbon-14 since
radiocarbon -is- found in many fossils?

"Fossils and other carbonaceous materials found
throughout Phanerozoic strata contain measurable
amounts of radiocarbon that is most probably
endogenous." https://tinyurl.com/ycpaek4q

Problem here is that the dates from such testing interfere
with the fantasized ~story~ that they try to tell you. But I
submit to you that truth is to be preferred rather than a
story built on half truths and dependent on assumptions.
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-10-12 09:43:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Now if you are unbiased and are not afraid
of the truth, then why not test carbon-14 since
Carbon 14 dating is easy to understand so you should try reading wikipedia.
--
There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.
Extortion (Believe or Burn) is *THE* foundation of Christianity.
Sycophant: a compulsive ass-kisser of un-evidenced dictator god.
Andrew
2017-10-12 12:12:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Now if you are unbiased and are not afraid
of the truth, then why not test carbon-14 since
Carbon 14 dating is easy to understand
And tells us that many fossils are
~not~multi-millions of years old.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
so you should try reading wikipedia.
Look it up.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-12 15:38:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
http://www.actionbioscience.org
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The fossil record is fundamental to an understanding of
evolution.
The fossil record is worldwide evidence of the great Flood.
Plants and animals do not naturally turn into fossils when
they die. No, evidence says there was a great worldwide
cataclysm as we find recorded in the book of Genesis.
Folks, we need to go with the evidence. Right? Yes.
.> > Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed
.> > the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating, so we
.> > can read the history of life from the rocks with confidence.
.> No, because the methods used to date *rocks* are dependent
.> upon multiple *assumptions*.

Oh noes! Not --> assumptions !!!!

Because of course believing that ancient tribal myths are
actual scientific history involves no assumptions whatsoever.

You know, I've got a site here that discusses dating techniques.
It covers a range of methods from ages greater than 10,000
years to ages greater than one billion years.

Thirty seven different, separate, and independent techniques.

Of which exactly one depends on rates of radioactive decay.

None of the others depend in any way on rates of nuclear decay.

And none of them depend on any of the others.

Care to have a discussion about these rather varied and interesting approaches?

I've certainly offered to discuss it with Asteroid here. And that more than once.
He apparently had more pressing matters at hand.

How about you?


Atlatl Axolotl


.> Now if you are unbiased and
Post by Cloud Hobbit
are not afraid of the truth, then why not test carbon-14 since
radiocarbon -is- found in many fossils?
"Fossils and other carbonaceous materials found
throughout Phanerozoic strata contain measurable
amounts of radiocarbon that is most probably
endogenous." https://tinyurl.com/ycpaek4q
Problem here is that the dates from such testing interfere
with the fantasized ~story~ that they try to tell you. But I
submit to you that truth is to be preferred rather than a
story built on half truths and dependent on assumptions.
hypatiab7
2017-10-10 07:07:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Extinction without fossilization events.
You mean, no have fossils so must believe. OK.
If you have several fossils from before and after a space without a fossil, you can pretty much guess what happened in between. There are millions of fossils.
You just refuse to see them, so they don't exist for you. You're afraid such
knowledge will shatter your faith.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-07 18:11:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html


"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
forthcoming than one would expect, not less.":
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php

And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.

And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.




aa
A***@yahoo.com
2017-10-07 18:17:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-07 18:35:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.

AA
TheRealMccoy
2017-10-07 18:36:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
he talk about satoshi birthday, dummy
A***@yahoo.com
2017-10-07 19:51:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
I was thinking of this quote:
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
forthcoming than one would expect, not less.":
TheRealMccoy
2017-10-07 19:52:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
there seems to be tons and tons of fossils on alleged human origins ...

but no holy grail period anywhere ...
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-07 19:55:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
Apparently you have looked into this. Good! Perhaps I can learn something
here. So please list which of Cuffey's examples have been debunked:











a2
A***@yahoo.com
2017-10-07 20:01:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
Apparently you have looked into this. Good! Perhaps I can learn something
a2
In 1974 what was there?


Austraolopithecus is debatable. So is Ramapithecus. So is Java Man, Or Peking Man. So is Neanderthal and Cromagnon.
TheRealMccoy
2017-10-07 20:03:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
Apparently you have looked into this. Good! Perhaps I can learn something
a2
In 1974 what was there?
Austraolopithecus is debatable. So is Ramapithecus. So is Java Man, Or Peking Man. So is Neanderthal and Cromagnon.
allow me to insert something, it appears cro magnon is indeed early man before the massive quick brain boost that became US.
Smiler
2017-10-08 18:38:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by TheRealMccoy
Post by A***@yahoo.com
On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 12:51:09 PM UTC-7,
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 11:17:32 AM UTC-7,
Post by A***@yahoo.com
On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 10:49:50 AM UTC-7,
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if
you're referring to transitional fossils, you mean that
nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed
references for at least 139 fine-grained species to species
transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words
and values from the real world, it can be seen that the
fossils have been rather more forthcoming than one would
--
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-
turtle-pappochelys/
Post by TheRealMccoy
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
Post by TheRealMccoy
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-
evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
Post by TheRealMccoy
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none
of this wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that
seems to distress you inordinately, for reasons I have
trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on
a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were
since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed
references for at least 139 fine-grained species to species
transitional sequences. According to an expectation derived from
Darwin's own words and values from the real world, it can be seen
that the fossils have been rather more forthcoming than one would
Apparently you have looked into this. Good! Perhaps I can learn
something here. So please list which of Cuffey's examples have been
a2
In 1974 what was there?
Austraolopithecus is debatable. So is Ramapithecus. So is Java Man, Or
Peking Man. So is Neanderthal and Cromagnon.
allow me to insert something, it appears cro magnon is indeed early man
before the massive quick brain boost that became US.
You appear to have missed out on that 'brain boost', Yost.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-07 20:41:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
Apparently you have looked into this. Good! Perhaps I can learn something
a2
.> In 1974 what was there?

You tell me -- I wasn't the one who claims "many of these were since debunked".



.> Austraolopithecus is debatable. So is Ramapithecus. So is Java Man, Or Peking Man. So is Neanderthal and Cromagnon.

Java man and Peking Man are _Homo erectus_. I have no idea why you
think A. afarensis is "debatable".

And both by fossil finds and by DNA analysis, neither Neanderthal
nor Cro-Magnon are debatable.

Particularly given that both you and I are marginally later members of the latter.
I am in no way "debatable". My mirror says otherwise.

Oh, and for the N+1th time: human evolution is a tiny piece of
the field of evolution. I find it bizarre that you are so obsessed with it.

aa
TheRealMccoy
2017-10-07 20:42:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
And both by fossil finds and by DNA analysis, neither Neanderthal
nor Cro-Magnon are debatable.
Neanderthal certainly is ...
A***@yahoo.com
2017-10-07 20:51:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
Apparently you have looked into this. Good! Perhaps I can learn something
a2
.> In 1974 what was there?
You tell me -- I wasn't the one who claims "many of these were since debunked".
.> Austraolopithecus is debatable. So is Ramapithecus. So is Java Man, Or Peking Man. So is Neanderthal and Cromagnon.
Java man and Peking Man are _Homo erectus_. I have no idea why you
think A. afarensis is "debatable".
And both by fossil finds and by DNA analysis, neither Neanderthal
nor Cro-Magnon are debatable.
What I wrote is that they are debatable. The interpretation of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon do not support evolution.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Particularly given that both you and I are marginally later members of the latter.
I am in no way "debatable". My mirror says otherwise.
Oh, and for the N+1th time: human evolution is a tiny piece of
the field of evolution. I find it bizarre that you are so obsessed with it.
aa
TheRealMccoy
2017-10-07 20:52:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
Apparently you have looked into this. Good! Perhaps I can learn something
a2
.> In 1974 what was there?
You tell me -- I wasn't the one who claims "many of these were since debunked".
.> Austraolopithecus is debatable. So is Ramapithecus. So is Java Man, Or Peking Man. So is Neanderthal and Cromagnon.
Java man and Peking Man are _Homo erectus_. I have no idea why you
think A. afarensis is "debatable".
And both by fossil finds and by DNA analysis, neither Neanderthal
nor Cro-Magnon are debatable.
What I wrote is that they are debatable. The interpretation of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon do not support evolution.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Particularly given that both you and I are marginally later members of the latter.
I am in no way "debatable". My mirror says otherwise.
Oh, and for the N+1th time: human evolution is a tiny piece of
the field of evolution. I find it bizarre that you are so obsessed with it.
aa
Cro magnon certainly doesnt, as the brain development does not match their theory they spout down kids throats in school period of how they say it occurs with their alleged postulated mechanism ...
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-07 21:31:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by TheRealMccoy
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
Apparently you have looked into this. Good! Perhaps I can learn something
a2
.> In 1974 what was there?
You tell me -- I wasn't the one who claims "many of these were since debunked".
.> Austraolopithecus is debatable. So is Ramapithecus. So is Java Man, Or Peking Man. So is Neanderthal and Cromagnon.
Java man and Peking Man are _Homo erectus_. I have no idea why you
think A. afarensis is "debatable".
And both by fossil finds and by DNA analysis, neither Neanderthal
nor Cro-Magnon are debatable.
What I wrote is that they are debatable. The interpretation of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon do not support evolution.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Particularly given that both you and I are marginally later members of the latter.
I am in no way "debatable". My mirror says otherwise.
Oh, and for the N+1th time: human evolution is a tiny piece of
the field of evolution. I find it bizarre that you are so obsessed with it.
aa
.> Cro magnon certainly doesnt, as the brain development

What, that their cranial capacity was slightly larger than ours?

What about it?


aa
Post by TheRealMccoy
does not match their theory they spout down kids throats in school period of how they say it occurs with their alleged postulated mechanism ...
TheRealMccoy
2017-10-08 18:53:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
Apparently you have looked into this. Good! Perhaps I can learn something
a2
.> In 1974 what was there?
You tell me -- I wasn't the one who claims "many of these were since debunked".
.> Austraolopithecus is debatable. So is Ramapithecus. So is Java Man, Or Peking Man. So is Neanderthal and Cromagnon.
Java man and Peking Man are _Homo erectus_. I have no idea why you
think A. afarensis is "debatable".
And both by fossil finds and by DNA analysis, neither Neanderthal
nor Cro-Magnon are debatable.
What I wrote is that they are debatable. The interpretation of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon do not support evolution.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Particularly given that both you and I are marginally later members of the latter.
I am in no way "debatable". My mirror says otherwise.
Oh, and for the N+1th time: human evolution is a tiny piece of
the field of evolution. I find it bizarre that you are so obsessed with it.
aa
.> Cro magnon certainly doesnt, as the brain development
What, that their cranial capacity
No, moron, the brain development that became us, oh wait, maybe that didn't happen for you ...
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-07 21:30:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
Apparently you have looked into this. Good! Perhaps I can learn something
a2
.> In 1974 what was there?
You tell me -- I wasn't the one who claims "many of these were since debunked".
.> Austraolopithecus is debatable. So is Ramapithecus. So is Java Man, Or Peking Man. So is Neanderthal and Cromagnon.
Java man and Peking Man are _Homo erectus_. I have no idea why you
think A. afarensis is "debatable".
.> > And both by fossil finds and by DNA analysis, neither Neanderthal
.> > nor Cro-Magnon are debatable.
.> What I wrote is that they are debatable. The interpretation of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon do not support evolution.


You have their DNA. So do I.
You really could benefit from reading Carroll's
"The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution".
As has been true since Darwin's time, and as he himself points out, of all
the evidence for evolution, fossil evidence is the least. You yourself have
living evidence of the reality of Neanderthals.

But in any event, do tell me what this "interpretation" you refer to is, exactly,
and what is wrong with it.


aa
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Particularly given that both you and I are marginally later members of the latter.
I am in no way "debatable". My mirror says otherwise.
Oh, and for the N+1th time: human evolution is a tiny piece of
the field of evolution. I find it bizarre that you are so obsessed with it.
aa
Malte Runz
2017-10-08 12:55:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
(snip)
.> Austraolopithecus is debatable. ...
Then debate it! What is your problem with australopithicus? What is
the "fraud"?
... So is Ramapithecus. ...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ramapithecus
***
Ramapithecus, fossil primate dating from the Middle and Late Miocene
epochs (about 16.6 million to 5.3 million years ago). For a time in
the 1960s and ’70s, Ramapithecus was thought to be a distinct genus
that was the first direct ancestor of modern humans (Homo sapiens)
before it became regarded as that of the orangutan ancestor
Sivapithecus.
***

Is it a problem that 'they' adjusted their conclusion? Is Ramapithecus
therefore a "fraud"?
... So is Java Man, Or Peking Man. So is Neanderthal ...
Called it!
... and Cromagnon.
Cro-magnon (not a scientific term, mind you) is regarded as the
earliest form of Homo sapiens, and lived only a few thousand
generations ago. They were us. Who else do you think is responsible
for the presence of small amount of Neanderthal DNA we, especially
those of European descent, carry? Somebody had to fuck'em. You could
put a Cro-magnon in a suit, give him a clean shave, and you wouldn't
be able to tell him apart from the rest of us.
Java man and Peking Man are _Homo erectus_. I have no idea why you
think A. afarensis is "debatable".
And both by fossil finds and by DNA analysis, neither Neanderthal
nor Cro-Magnon are debatable.
What I wrote is that they are debatable. The interpretation ...
Whose interpretation? Yours, where you assume that God exists and
created all life forms, more or less like they are now, or the
scientific interpretation, that considers the fossil record, DNA and
pretty much everything else?
... of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon do not support evolution.
What are you talking about?
Particularly given that both you and I are marginally later members of the latter.
I am in no way "debatable". My mirror says otherwise.
Oh, and for the N+1th time: human evolution is a tiny piece of
the field of evolution. I find it bizarre that you are so obsessed with it.
Because everything was created for Homo sapiens sapiens. We are the
most important entities, apart from God, in the entire Universe.
--
Malte Runz
Christopher A. Lee
2017-10-08 15:45:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 14:55:54 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
.> Austraolopithecus is debatable. ...
Then debate it! What is your problem with australopithicus? What is
the "fraud"?
... So is Ramapithecus. ...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ramapithecus
***
Ramapithecus, fossil primate dating from the Middle and Late Miocene
epochs (about 16.6 million to 5.3 million years ago). For a time in
the 1960s and ’70s, Ramapithecus was thought to be a distinct genus
that was the first direct ancestor of modern humans (Homo sapiens)
before it became regarded as that of the orangutan ancestor
Sivapithecus.
***
Is it a problem that 'they' adjusted their conclusion? Is Ramapithecus
therefore a "fraud"?
... So is Java Man, Or Peking Man. So is Neanderthal ...
Called it!
... and Cromagnon.
Cro-magnon (not a scientific term, mind you) is regarded as the
earliest form of Homo sapiens, and lived only a few thousand
generations ago. They were us. Who else do you think is responsible
for the presence of small amount of Neanderthal DNA we, especially
those of European descent, carry? Somebody had to fuck'em. You could
put a Cro-magnon in a suit, give him a clean shave, and you wouldn't
be able to tell him apart from the rest of us.
Apart from not wearing jeans and a T-shirt or sweatshirt.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-10-08 01:08:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
Apparently you have looked into this. Good! Perhaps I can learn something
a2
.> In 1974 what was there?
You tell me -- I wasn't the one who claims "many of these were since debunked".
.> Austraolopithecus is debatable. So is Ramapithecus. So is Java Man, Or Peking Man. So is Neanderthal and Cromagnon.
Java man and Peking Man are _Homo erectus_. I have no idea why you
think A. afarensis is "debatable".
And both by fossil finds and by DNA analysis, neither Neanderthal
nor Cro-Magnon are debatable.
Particularly given that both you and I are marginally later members of the latter.
I am in no way "debatable". My mirror says otherwise.
Oh, and for the N+1th time: human evolution is a tiny piece of
the field of evolution. I find it bizarre that you are so obsessed with it.
Because if it's real, then he, as a human, is not super-special.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-08 03:23:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
Apparently you have looked into this. Good! Perhaps I can learn something
a2
.> In 1974 what was there?
You tell me -- I wasn't the one who claims "many of these were since debunked".
.> Austraolopithecus is debatable. So is Ramapithecus. So is Java Man, Or Peking Man. So is Neanderthal and Cromagnon.
Java man and Peking Man are _Homo erectus_. I have no idea why you
think A. afarensis is "debatable".
And both by fossil finds and by DNA analysis, neither Neanderthal
nor Cro-Magnon are debatable.
Particularly given that both you and I are marginally later members of the latter.
I am in no way "debatable". My mirror says otherwise.
.> > Oh, and for the N+1th time: human evolution is a tiny piece of
.> > the field of evolution. I find it bizarre that you are so obsessed with it.
.> Because if it's real, then he, as a human, is not super-special.

Astie might well consider what Francis Collins, head of the
Human Genome Project, had to say about that.


As someone who's had the privilege of leading the
human genome project, I've had the opportunity to
study our own DNA instruction book at a level of
detail that was never really possible before. It's
also now been possible to compare our DNA with that
of many other species. The evidence supporting the
idea that all living things are descended from a
common ancestor is truly overwhelming.

I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a
Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does
not serve faith well to try to deny that.

But I have no difficulty putting that together with
what I believe as a Christian because I believe
that God had a plan to create creatures with whom
he could have fellowship, in whom he could inspire
[the] moral law, in whom he could infuse the soul,
and who he would give free will as a gift for us to
make decisions about our own behavior, a gift which
we oftentimes utilize to do the wrong thing.

I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to
achieve that goal. And while that may seem to us
who are limited by this axis of time as a very
long, drawn- out process, it wasn't long and drawn-
out to God. And it wasn't random to God.

[He] had the plan all along of how that would turn
out. There was no ambiguity about that.



A2
A***@yahoo.com
2017-10-08 03:28:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
Apparently you have looked into this. Good! Perhaps I can learn something
a2
.> In 1974 what was there?
You tell me -- I wasn't the one who claims "many of these were since debunked".
.> Austraolopithecus is debatable. So is Ramapithecus. So is Java Man, Or Peking Man. So is Neanderthal and Cromagnon.
Java man and Peking Man are _Homo erectus_. I have no idea why you
think A. afarensis is "debatable".
And both by fossil finds and by DNA analysis, neither Neanderthal
nor Cro-Magnon are debatable.
Particularly given that both you and I are marginally later members of the latter.
I am in no way "debatable". My mirror says otherwise.
.> > Oh, and for the N+1th time: human evolution is a tiny piece of
.> > the field of evolution. I find it bizarre that you are so obsessed with it.
.> Because if it's real, then he, as a human, is not super-special.
Astie might well consider what Francis Collins, head of the
Human Genome Project, had to say about that.
As someone who's had the privilege of leading the
human genome project, I've had the opportunity to
study our own DNA instruction book at a level of
detail that was never really possible before. It's
also now been possible to compare our DNA with that
of many other species. The evidence supporting the
idea that all living things are descended from a
common ancestor is truly overwhelming.
I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a
Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does
not serve faith well to try to deny that.
But I have no difficulty putting that together with
what I believe as a Christian because I believe
that God had a plan to create creatures with whom
he could have fellowship, in whom he could inspire
[the] moral law, in whom he could infuse the soul,
and who he would give free will as a gift for us to
make decisions about our own behavior, a gift which
we oftentimes utilize to do the wrong thing.
I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to
achieve that goal. And while that may seem to us
who are limited by this axis of time as a very
long, drawn- out process, it wasn't long and drawn-
out to God. And it wasn't random to God.
[He] had the plan all along of how that would turn
out. There was no ambiguity about that.
A2
It doesn't matter what he says. The fact is, the way the Genome Project operated was to just ignore the dissimilarities between man and chimp and then come up with the percentage that agrees. That's fraud no matter even if the word "Christian" is attached to it.
Malte Runz
2017-10-08 13:07:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
Apparently you have looked into this. Good! Perhaps I can learn something
a2
.> In 1974 what was there?
You tell me -- I wasn't the one who claims "many of these were since debunked".
.> Austraolopithecus is debatable. So is Ramapithecus. So is Java Man, Or Peking Man. So is Neanderthal and Cromagnon.
Java man and Peking Man are _Homo erectus_. I have no idea why you
think A. afarensis is "debatable".
And both by fossil finds and by DNA analysis, neither Neanderthal
nor Cro-Magnon are debatable.
Particularly given that both you and I are marginally later members of the latter.
I am in no way "debatable". My mirror says otherwise.
.> > Oh, and for the N+1th time: human evolution is a tiny piece of
.> > the field of evolution. I find it bizarre that you are so obsessed with it.
.> Because if it's real, then he, as a human, is not super-special.
Astie might well consider what Francis Collins, head of the
Human Genome Project, had to say about that.
As someone who's had the privilege of leading the
human genome project, I've had the opportunity to
study our own DNA instruction book at a level of
detail that was never really possible before. It's
also now been possible to compare our DNA with that
of many other species. The evidence supporting the
idea that all living things are descended from a
common ancestor is truly overwhelming.
I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a
Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does
not serve faith well to try to deny that.
But I have no difficulty putting that together with
what I believe as a Christian because I believe
that God had a plan to create creatures with whom
he could have fellowship, in whom he could inspire
[the] moral law, in whom he could infuse the soul,
and who he would give free will as a gift for us to
make decisions about our own behavior, a gift which
we oftentimes utilize to do the wrong thing.
I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to
achieve that goal. And while that may seem to us
who are limited by this axis of time as a very
long, drawn- out process, it wasn't long and drawn-
out to God. And it wasn't random to God.
[He] had the plan all along of how that would turn
out. There was no ambiguity about that.
A2
It doesn't matter what he says. The fact is, the way the Genome Project operated was to just ignore the dissimilarities between man and chimp and then come up with the percentage that agrees. That's fraud no matter even if the word "Christian" is attached to it.
Yeah... the Genome Project is but a conspiracy against God, and all
the scientists are in on it.
--
Malte Runz
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-08 18:50:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
Apparently you have looked into this. Good! Perhaps I can learn something
a2
.> In 1974 what was there?
You tell me -- I wasn't the one who claims "many of these were since debunked".
.> Austraolopithecus is debatable. So is Ramapithecus. So is Java Man, Or Peking Man. So is Neanderthal and Cromagnon.
Java man and Peking Man are _Homo erectus_. I have no idea why you
think A. afarensis is "debatable".
And both by fossil finds and by DNA analysis, neither Neanderthal
nor Cro-Magnon are debatable.
Particularly given that both you and I are marginally later members of the latter.
I am in no way "debatable". My mirror says otherwise.
.> > Oh, and for the N+1th time: human evolution is a tiny piece of
.> > the field of evolution. I find it bizarre that you are so obsessed with it.
.> Because if it's real, then he, as a human, is not super-special.
Astie might well consider what Francis Collins, head of the
Human Genome Project, had to say about that.
As someone who's had the privilege of leading the
human genome project, I've had the opportunity to
study our own DNA instruction book at a level of
detail that was never really possible before. It's
also now been possible to compare our DNA with that
of many other species. The evidence supporting the
idea that all living things are descended from a
common ancestor is truly overwhelming.
I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a
Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does
not serve faith well to try to deny that.
But I have no difficulty putting that together with
what I believe as a Christian because I believe
that God had a plan to create creatures with whom
he could have fellowship, in whom he could inspire
[the] moral law, in whom he could infuse the soul,
and who he would give free will as a gift for us to
make decisions about our own behavior, a gift which
we oftentimes utilize to do the wrong thing.
I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to
achieve that goal. And while that may seem to us
who are limited by this axis of time as a very
long, drawn- out process, it wasn't long and drawn-
out to God. And it wasn't random to God.
[He] had the plan all along of how that would turn
out. There was no ambiguity about that.
A2
.> >It doesn't matter what he says. The fact is, the way the Genome Project operated was to just ignore the dissimilarities between man and chimp and then come up with the percentage that agrees. That's fraud no matter even if the word "Christian" is attached to it.
.> Yeah... the Genome Project is but a conspiracy against God, and all
.> the scientists are in on it.

And of course then there was Craig Venter, who sequenced the
genome completely independently of, and in competition with,
the Human Genome Project.

I guess ol' Astie's just going to need a bigger conspiracy theory.


a2
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-08 18:46:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
Apparently you have looked into this. Good! Perhaps I can learn something
a2
.> In 1974 what was there?
You tell me -- I wasn't the one who claims "many of these were since debunked".
.> Austraolopithecus is debatable. So is Ramapithecus. So is Java Man, Or Peking Man. So is Neanderthal and Cromagnon.
Java man and Peking Man are _Homo erectus_. I have no idea why you
think A. afarensis is "debatable".
And both by fossil finds and by DNA analysis, neither Neanderthal
nor Cro-Magnon are debatable.
Particularly given that both you and I are marginally later members of the latter.
I am in no way "debatable". My mirror says otherwise.
.> > Oh, and for the N+1th time: human evolution is a tiny piece of
.> > the field of evolution. I find it bizarre that you are so obsessed with it.
.> Because if it's real, then he, as a human, is not super-special.
Astie might well consider what Francis Collins, head of the
Human Genome Project, had to say about that.
As someone who's had the privilege of leading the
human genome project, I've had the opportunity to
study our own DNA instruction book at a level of
detail that was never really possible before. It's
also now been possible to compare our DNA with that
of many other species. The evidence supporting the
idea that all living things are descended from a
common ancestor is truly overwhelming.
I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a
Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does
not serve faith well to try to deny that.
But I have no difficulty putting that together with
what I believe as a Christian because I believe
that God had a plan to create creatures with whom
he could have fellowship, in whom he could inspire
[the] moral law, in whom he could infuse the soul,
and who he would give free will as a gift for us to
make decisions about our own behavior, a gift which
we oftentimes utilize to do the wrong thing.
I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to
achieve that goal. And while that may seem to us
who are limited by this axis of time as a very
long, drawn- out process, it wasn't long and drawn-
out to God. And it wasn't random to God.
[He] had the plan all along of how that would turn
out. There was no ambiguity about that.
A2
.> It doesn't matter what he says. The fact is, the way the Genome Project operated was to just ignore the dissimilarities between man and chimp and then come up with the percentage that agrees. That's fraud no matter even if the word "Christian" is attached to it.

Oh really. Do let us see some documentation for that, please:









aa
Yap Honghor
2017-10-10 01:57:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
Apparently you have looked into this. Good! Perhaps I can learn something
a2
In 1974 what was there?
Austraolopithecus is debatable. So is Ramapithecus. So is Java Man, Or Peking Man. So is Neanderthal and Cromagnon.
Sine we all know human reproduces, may be your great great ancestor was from one of those man???
A***@yahoo.com
2017-10-10 04:47:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
aa
Yes, we've seen plenty of evolution charts. I wouldn't rely on a 1974 chart, however. Especially since many of those were since debunked.
Funny, not a one of the articles I offered to you had a thing to
do with 1974 charts.
AA
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
Apparently you have looked into this. Good! Perhaps I can learn something
a2
In 1974 what was there?
Austraolopithecus is debatable. So is Ramapithecus. So is Java Man, Or Peking Man. So is Neanderthal and Cromagnon.
Sine we all know human reproduces, may be your great great ancestor was from one of those man???
Why do you say that? Do you believe you came from a monkey?
TheRealMccoy
2017-10-07 19:00:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Yes
Glog, when we going cut the shit get back to our old names and finish robert off already?
Jeanne Douglas
2017-10-07 23:48:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
"Missing links" is an editorial cartoon term. However, if you're referring
to transitional fossils, you mean that nobody has explained them to you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references
for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences.
According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values
from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/25/a-transitional-turtle-pappochelys/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Pakicetids.2C_Ambulocetus
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Finding-examples-of-evolutionary-transitions-3242576.php
And so on and so on, as many as you'd care to read and discuss.
Really.
And as always: evolution is not all about us. In fact, none of this
wonderful world is about us. It just is. And that seems to distress
you inordinately, for reasons I have trouble understanding.
Basically, every fossil that wasn't the last species before extinction IS a transitional fossil.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
John Locke
2017-10-07 19:00:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
...yes they have. Here's some reading material for you.

There is no "missing link" in evolution:
https://futurism.com/there-is-no-missing-link-in-evolution/

"When people claim that evolution is wrong because we “haven’t found
the missing link,” know that they understand little to nothing about
evolution."

...that certainly applies to you.
TheRealMccoy
2017-10-07 18:59:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Locke
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
...yes they have. Here's some reading material for you.
https://futurism.com/there-is-no-missing-link-in-evolution/
"When people claim that evolution is wrong because we “haven’t found
the missing link,” know that they understand little to nothing about
evolution."
...that certainly applies to you.
okay robert golaszewski
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-07 19:14:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Locke
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
...yes they have. Here's some reading material for you.
https://futurism.com/there-is-no-missing-link-in-evolution/
.> "When people claim that evolution is wrong because we “haven’t found
.> the missing link,” know that they understand little to nothing about
.> evolution."
.> ...that certainly applies to you.

I do try to have reasonable discussions, evidence based discussions
of this sort of thing with Astie.

And then I remember I'm talking to someone whose understanding
of evolution dictates that it should result in flower pot holes in people's heads.

Reminding myself of that is a bit like awakening from a fever dream.

AA
TheRealMccoy
2017-10-07 19:16:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
I do try to have reasonable discussions
You define those as those with your sockpuppets?
Syd M.
2017-10-07 20:36:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Just because you refuse to accept the answers don't mean they haven't been explained.

PDW
A***@yahoo.com
2017-10-07 20:38:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Syd M.
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Just because you refuse to accept the answers don't mean they haven't been explained.
PDW
Your evolution doubts are overcoming you.
TheRealMccoy
2017-10-07 20:38:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Syd M.
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Just because you refuse to accept the answers
That is it did not happen as you say?
a322x1n
2017-10-07 21:23:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Yes, they have, follow these links:

<http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2014/12/19/intelligent-design-stil
l-dead/>

<http://tinyurl.com/kwyrtku>

<https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/08/07/a-n-wilson-stale-unor
iginal-banal-cliche-ridden-hack/>

<http://tinyurl.com/ybu9u4et>

<http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2014/08/ken-hams-10-facts-tha
t-prove-creationism-debunked/>

<http://tinyurl.com/hor4bam>

Modern Christian: Someone who can take time
out from blasting evolution as "perpetrated fraud"
and "junk science" to demand the latest medical
advances from evolutionary biology be used on them
when THEY get sick.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-t
o-creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

<https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm>

<http://tinyurl.com/kzzmt4g>

<http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling
-amateur-cambrian-follies/>

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=stephen+myers>

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

<http://donaldprothero.com/quotes.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=Lee+Strobel%27s>

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>



<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/>

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication>

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

<https://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/dawkins-ber
linski/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/06/22-answe
rs-creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate>

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

<http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/dumb-things-creationists-
say/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/unintelligent-design.html?_
r=0>

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

<http://www.eoht.info/page/Creationism+scientists+ranked+by+idiocy>

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

<https://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/18-creationist-arguments-debun
ked>

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Creationism>

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/28/creation-origin-life-fu
ture-adam-rutherford-review>

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

<http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/06/07/what-do-physicists-t
hink-of-michio-kaku/>

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

<http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16>

<http://tinyurl.com/3p4e7mx>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin>

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel>

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/7vw8ozk>

<http://www.famousscientists.org/charles-darwin/>

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

<http://darwin-online.org.uk/biography.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/5p6znj>

"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould>

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

<http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-human-evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=macarthur>

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

<http://www.annualreviews.org/journal/ecolsys>

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

<http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/home>

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>



<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falldidit#Falldidit>

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
Davej
2017-10-07 23:52:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Says the guy who happily believes that Noah only saved
1% of the animals but nobody noticed.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-10-08 00:16:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
That you consider evolution to be a fraud is something you do on faith.
Scientists almost unanimously disagree. Those that do not agree that evolution is cornerstone of biology do so for religious reasons and not b ased on the evidence.
Yap Honghor
2017-10-10 01:28:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Nobody has explained the missing links.
Yet, stop crying, try to dirty your hands to dig for more links...
TheRealMccoy
2017-10-10 01:29:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Look up
Loading...