Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: TurkishPress.com

When South Florida atheists held their first meeting, they were just five friends, having a beer at a bar.

Comments (Page 3,142)

Showing posts 62,821 - 62,840 of70,904
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65504
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Jesus waved around his magical fish billions of years ago and made the universe right?
Google up evolution human tailbone before you humiliate yourself further.
You're welcome half wit.
<quoted text>
“Known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog on the Continent’ and ‘the Huxley of Germany,’ Ernst Heinrick Philipp August Haeckel is notorious as the scientist who perpetrated fraud upon fraud to promote the theory of evolution. He was the first person to draw an evolutionary ‘family tree’ for mankind. His frauds included descriptions and detailed pictures of protoplasmic organisms called Monera that never existed, a non-existent “speechless ape-man,” and illustrations and descriptions of a non-existent “fish stage” and "embryonic tails" in human embryos. Ernst Haeckel later partially confessed." -[Russell Grigg,“Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for Evolution and Apostle of Deceipt,” Creation: Ex Nihilo, Vol. 18, No. 2 (March-May 1996), pp. 33-36

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65505
Dec 4, 2012
 
Yawn. And?
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
“Known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog on the Continent’ and ‘the Huxley of Germany,’ Ernst Heinrick Philipp August Haeckel is notorious as the scientist who perpetrated fraud upon fraud to promote the theory of evolution. He was the first person to draw an evolutionary ‘family tree’ for mankind. His frauds included descriptions and detailed pictures of protoplasmic organisms called Monera that never existed, a non-existent “speechless ape-man,” and illustrations and descriptions of a non-existent “fish stage” and "embryonic tails" in human embryos. Ernst Haeckel later partially confessed." -[Russell Grigg,“Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for Evolution and Apostle of Deceipt,” Creation: Ex Nihilo, Vol. 18, No. 2 (March-May 1996), pp. 33-36
postscript

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65506
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good example!
1.The modern Coelacanth is not the same as any fossil species. The species have changed over time.
2. The modern Coelacanth lives in deep sea areas which are unlikely to produce fossils that we can collect.
3. The theory of evolution does not *require* species to change over time. The change that species undergo is driven by changes in the environment. if the environment is stable, the species tend to be stable also.
<quoted text>
We do have transitional forms from fish to amphibian. A good example is acanthostega.
There are always two sides to a coin:

The conclusion that the Acanthostega is a transitional form is based the "assumption" of macroevolution, and not on observational evidence of the bones in fins or fish actually changing into tetrapod limb bones.

Dr. Colin Patterson, an eminent palaeontologist explains why have these fossils fail to qualify as missing links....

"As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."

In other words, fossils such as Acanthostega are regarded by some evolutionary enthusiasts as "missing links" not because they actually are, but because they are believed to be. If belief is all it takes to make a truth in your world, you should have no problem accepting the "belief" that the universe was created by a god.

TalkOrigins? You're kidding, right? That website is known as "the uneducated atheist's Bible." It's not only woefully out-of-date but seriously misleading.
postscript

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65507
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Jesus waved around his magical fish billions of years ago and made the universe right?
Google up evolution human tailbone before you humiliate yourself further.
You're welcome half wit.
<quoted text>
I'll take this as a yes. Your parents do have tails. LOL!

On the one hand, you condemn the Christian version of creation as a lie and on the other, you support your conclusion with myths about embryonic tails and life springing from dead matter and worse, you expect to appear credible! You are not just confused - you're deluded.
Thinking

Pewsey, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65508
Dec 4, 2012
 
We can see those "embryonic tails". They're fact.
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll take this as a yes. Your parents do have tails. LOL!
On the one hand, you condemn the Christian version of creation as a lie and on the other, you support your conclusion with myths about embryonic tails and life springing from dead matter and worse, you expect to appear credible! You are not just confused - you're deluded.
Thinking

Pewsey, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65509
Dec 4, 2012
 
You lack any edge.
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
There are always two sides to a coin:

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65510
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Thinking wrote:
We can see those "embryonic tails". They're fact.
<quoted text>
Yes, but what you see is not what you suppose.
postscript

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65511
Dec 4, 2012
 
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but what you see is not what you suppose.
As in the theory of vestigial organs, which includes things that look like tails, egg yolk sacs and the suggestion of fish gills. This supposed evidence of man’s evolution from animals is utterly false and for a very logical reason. One cannot identify organs totally lacking in function.

In the journal Evolutionary Theory, the evolutionist biologist S.R. Scadding states:

"Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution."

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65512
Dec 4, 2012
 
Isn't it sad how hard they work to remain enslaved to the superstitious beliefs of ancient Palestinians?
Thinking wrote:
We can see those "embryonic tails". They're fact.
<quoted text>

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65513
Dec 4, 2012
 
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
There are always two sides to a coin:
The conclusion that the Acanthostega is a transitional form is based the "assumption" of macroevolution, and not on observational evidence of the bones in fins or fish actually changing into tetrapod limb bones.
...
Do you really think evolution happens within an individual animal such that it could be "observed" actually changing? That's insane and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

But we don't even need to look at Acanthostega to consider "transitional" animals. ALL animals are always under environmental pressure to change and are ALWAYS "transitional". Even the one that don't appear to change much ove rdeep time are still by definition "transitional".

The insistence on "transitional fossils" is nothing more than a strawman fallacy created by creationists.

The very idea of "species" is a human categorization to make study of biology easier -- we made the word up. Animals themselves could care less how we try to divide them into discrete categories.

Look at the platypus or the walking catfish or countless other animals that don't fit neatly into our taxonomic ranking system.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65514
Dec 4, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think evolution happens within an individual animal such that it could be "observed" actually changing? That's insane and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
But we don't even need to look at Acanthostega to consider "transitional" animals. ALL animals are always under environmental pressure to change and are ALWAYS "transitional". Even the one that don't appear to change much ove rdeep time are still by definition "transitional".
The insistence on "transitional fossils" is nothing more than a strawman fallacy created by creationists.
The very idea of "species" is a human categorization to make study of biology easier -- we made the word up. Animals themselves could care less how we try to divide them into discrete categories.
Look at the platypus or the walking catfish or countless other animals that don't fit neatly into our taxonomic ranking system.
OK, I accept that you make things up.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65515
Dec 4, 2012
 
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
There are always two sides to a coin:
The conclusion that the Acanthostega is a transitional form is based the "assumption" of macroevolution, and not on observational evidence of the bones in fins or fish actually changing into tetrapod limb bones.
Incorrect. The features of the acanthostega identify it as transitional. Perhaps you don't know what it means to be transitional?
Dr. Colin Patterson, an eminent palaeontologist explains why have these fossils fail to qualify as missing links....
"As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
In other words, fossils such as Acanthostega are regarded by some evolutionary enthusiasts as "missing links" not because they actually are, but because they are believed to be. If belief is all it takes to make a truth in your world, you should have no problem accepting the "belief" that the universe was created by a god.
A misunderstanding of Patterson's point. We never *know* exact ancestry from the fossil record. We do not know if one particular species is ancestral to another, later species. The information we have is simply not detailed enough for that determination. BUT, we can and do have enough data to say which *families* are ancestral to which later families. To be transitional means to be related to the actual ancestors closely enough that the family ancestry is established.
TalkOrigins? You're kidding, right? That website is known as "the uneducated atheist's Bible." It's not only woefully out-of-date but seriously misleading.
I didn't mention talk.origins at all. While it is a source of a lot of good information, it *is* out of date in many ways. The subsequent research, though, has only verified evolution, not shown it wrong.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65516
Dec 4, 2012
 
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
As in the theory of vestigial organs, which includes things that look like tails, egg yolk sacs and the suggestion of fish gills. This supposed evidence of man’s evolution from animals is utterly false and for a very logical reason. One cannot identify organs totally lacking in function.
In the journal Evolutionary Theory, the evolutionist biologist S.R. Scadding states:
"Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution."
Again, a misunderstanding of Scadding's point. Vestigial organs do not give any *special* evidence of evolution above and beyond the fact that they are homologous organs. But homology itself *does* give evidence for ancestry and hence, of evolution.

From the same paper of Scadding:

"Vestigial organs represent simply a special case of homologous organs.... While homologies between animal species suggest a common origin, the argument ... asserts that vestigial organs provide special additional evidence for evolution."

"Naylor states that ... "[vestigial organs] would still provide powerful evidence for the theory of evolution." I agree with this, but I suggest that this evidence is due to the homologies these organs illustrate and not to their vestigiality."

Perhaps you should attempt to actually understand what an author is claiming before making the assertion that they agree with your argument.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65517
Dec 4, 2012
 
postscript wrote:
Common ancestry? You mean like the fish Coelacanth for example, supposedly extinct 70 million years ago and presented by evolutionists as a "transitional form" between marine and land creatures? It was found alive and well in 1939 near Madagascar, and has been caught about 50 times since?
Already addressed here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1...
postscript wrote:
There is no reason to believe that fish were radically different eons ago from what they are now. To suggest that they lived long enough in shallow water to turn gills into lungs is absurd hence the lack of transitional forms.
I guess you missed these transitional forms:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.h...

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65518
Dec 4, 2012
 
Prove it.
nanoanomaly wrote:
Why should I be expected to prove anything to you if scientists don't have to?
Because your claim wasn't a scientific claim.
nanoanomaly wrote:
I remember what you spewed, that's good enough for me.
In other words, you can't produce any evidence to support your claim. Yeah, no surprise there.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65519
Dec 4, 2012
 
postscript wrote:
The conclusion that the Acanthostega is a transitional form is based the "assumption" of macroevolution
No, Acanthostega is evidence in *support* of common descent.
postscript wrote:
Dr. Colin Patterson, an eminent palaeontologist...
The same Patterson who wrote: "In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes..."
postscript

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65520
Dec 4, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think evolution happens within an individual animal such that it could be "observed" actually changing? That's insane and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
Evolutution has never been observed and it never will. If evolution were true - transitional evidence should be abundantly available in fossilized forms. Period. The fact that paleontologists and anthropologists have been looking for them ever since Darwin fabricated his bogus theory says they don't exist.
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>But we don't even need to look at Acanthostega to consider "transitional" animals. ALL animals are always under environmental pressure to change and are ALWAYS "transitional". Even the one that don't appear to change much ove rdeep time are still by definition "transitional".
There is a big difference between environmental adaptation within a species and evolution involving transitional forms from one species to an entirely different one i.e. lizards to birds. Fish might adapt to pesticides in their watery environment over a period of time, but they are not going to sprout wings and tail feathers and fly out of a lake!
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>The insistence on "transitional fossils" is nothing more than a strawman fallacy created by creationists.
And it is also the embarrassing bane of evolutionists who can't find the necessary fossils to prove their theory.
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>The very idea of "species" is a human categorization to make study of biology easier -- we made the word up. Animals themselves could care less how we try to divide them into discrete categories.
I've heard some silly excuses from you atheists about the lack of fossil evidence, but this one takes the cake. LOL!
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>Look at the platypus or the walking catfish or countless other animals that don't fit neatly into our taxonomic ranking system.
Mother Nature is chock full of remarkable examples of creatures that don't fit science's assessment of reality. But this doesn't change the fact that a platypus was a platypus when it first appeared, and it still is.
postscript

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65521
Dec 4, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Already addressed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1...
<quoted text>
I guess you missed these transitional forms:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.h...
Johnny come lately.
postscript

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65522
Dec 4, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, a misunderstanding of Scadding's point. Vestigial organs do not give any *special* evidence of evolution above and beyond the fact that they are homologous organs. But homology itself *does* give evidence for ancestry and hence, of evolution.
From the same paper of Scadding:
"Vestigial organs represent simply a special case of homologous organs.... While homologies between animal species suggest a common origin, the argument ... asserts that vestigial organs provide special additional evidence for evolution."
"Naylor states that ... "[vestigial organs] would still provide powerful evidence for the theory of evolution." I agree with this, but I suggest that this evidence is due to the homologies these organs illustrate and not to their vestigiality."
Perhaps you should attempt to actually understand what an author is claiming before making the assertion that they agree with your argument.
You atheists are a riot. You revere scientists, but only when they agree with your half-baked unsubstantiated notions.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65523
Dec 4, 2012
 
postscript wrote:
You atheists are a riot. You revere scientists
I revere those who practice good science.

Creationists don't practice any science.

So I have no reason to revere them.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 62,821 - 62,840 of70,904
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••