jasonparker

you know this subject about we came from monkeys.... what do you think? did we evolve from monkeys? did everything occured by evolution? what do you think? According to me, since there is no example beneficial mutation, natural selection is not a miracle touch, the occurance of first living organism.... evolution sinks...
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_de...hp?api_id=1245

jasonparker

I belive that Archaeopteryx is a bird and it has nothing to do with transitional form. Below is a brief info about this subject:

ARCHÆOPTERYX AND OTHER ANCIENT BIRD FOSSILS
While evolutionists have for decades been proclaiming Archæopteryx to be the greatest evidence for their scenario concerning the evolution of birds, some recently-found fossils invalidate that scenario in other respects.
Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou, two paleontologists at the Chinese Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology, discovered a new bird fossil in 1995, and named it Confuciusornis. This fossil is almost the same age as Archæopteryx (around 140 million years), but has no teeth in its mouth. In addition, its beak and feathers shared the same features as today's birds. Confuciusornis has the same skeletal structure as modern birds, but also has claws on its wings, just like Archæopteryx. Another structure peculiar to birds called the "pygostyle", which supports the tail feathers, was also found in Confuciusornis. In short, this fossil-which is the same age as Archæopteryx, which was previously thought to be the earliest bird and was accepted as a semi-reptile-looks very much like a modern bird. This fact has invalidated all the evolutionist theses claiming Archæopteryx to be the primitive ancestor of all birds.
Another fossil unearthed in China, caused even greater confusion. In November 1996, the existence of a 130-million-year-old bird named Liaoningornis was announced in Science by L. Hou, L. D. Martin, and Alan Feduccia. Liaoningornis had a breastbone to which the muscles for flight were attached, just as in modern birds. This bird was indistinguishable from modern birds also in other respects, too. The only difference was the teeth in its mouth. This showed that birds with teeth did not possess the primitive structure alleged by evolutionists. This was stated in an article in Discover "Whence came the birds? This fossil suggests that it was not from dinasour stock".
Another fossil that refuted the evolutionist claims regarding Archæopteryx was Eoalulavis. The wing structure of Eoalulavis, which was said to be some 25 to 30 million years younger than Archæopteryx, was also observed in modern slow-flying birds. This proved that 120 million years ago, there were birds indistinguishable from modern birds in many respects flying in the skies.
These facts once more indicate for certain that neither Archæopteryx nor other ancient birds similar to it were transitional forms. The fossils do not indicate that different bird species evolved from each other. On the contrary, the fossil record proves that today's modern birds and some archaic birds such as Archæopteryx actually lived together at the same time. It is true that some of these bird species, such as Archæopteryx and Confuciusornis, have become extinct, but the fact that only some of the species that once existed have been able to survive down to the present day does not in itself support the theory of evolution.
In brief, several features of Archæopteryx indicate that this creature was not a transitional form. The overall anatomy of Archæopteryx imply stasis, not evolution. Paleontologist Robert Carroll has to admit that:
The geometry of the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx is identical with that of modern flying birds, whereas nonflying birds have symmetrical feathers. The way in which the feathers are arranged on the wing also falls within the range of modern birds… According to Van Tyne and Berger, the relative size and shape of the wing of Archaeopteryx are similar to that of birds that move through restricted openings in vegetation, such as gallinaceous birds, doves, wood****s, woodpeckers, and most passerine birds… The flight feathers have been in stasis for at least 150 million years…

http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_de...hp?api_id=1245

franscar

Is this more bible bashing rubbish?

Oi_To_The_World

^is this more bible praising rubbish?
why cant religion and science just get along?

__________________
what is the mind?
no matter.
what is matter?
never mind.

jasonparker

The Ever-missing Links

According to the theory of evolution, every living species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.

If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms".

If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.23

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realised that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties of the Theory":

…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.24

The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found.

Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionist paleontologists have been digging up fossils and searching for missing links all over the world since the middle of the 19th century. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. Trying to prove their theory, evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.

A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.25

Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.26

These gaps in the fossil record cannot be explained by saying that sufficient fossils have not yet been found, but that they one day will be. Another American scholar, Robert Wesson, states in his 1991 book Beyond Natural Selection, that "the gaps in the fossil record are real and meaningful". He elaborates this claim in this way:

jibber

oh for f*ck's sake not another one of these. This thread MAY spark some conversation about a topic other than simple plan and good charlotte, so i'm gonna let this one stay. BUT, if you post one more link to some ultra-fanatical religious site, I'm going to delete it. to date, every single one of them has been denying evolution and citing the "absolute certainty of creationism", there's no need to have more than one thread concerning this topic.

__________________
What you've done becomes the judge of what you're going to do -- especially in other people's minds. When you're traveling, you are what you are right there and then. People don't have your past to hold against you. No yesterdays on the road.
William Least Heat Moon, Blue Highways

Your toughest competitor lives in your head. Some days his name is fear, or pain, or gravity. Stomp his ass.

HOOKED ON THE WHITE POWDER

rise_above

i've heard people say that darwin admitted he was wrong about his theories on his deathbed

__________________
Living tommorow in everyones sorrow
Modern man's daydreams have turned into nightmares
-Henry Rollins

jibber

^yeah i heard that too. apparently he admitted that his theory did have holes and contradictions, but then the same is true for creationism. Both are simply theories, both having believable aspects and both having aspects which don't quite fit. The way I see it, it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does in creationism, but it's my personal belief that there isn't a higher power, so I believe in evolution.

__________________
What you've done becomes the judge of what you're going to do -- especially in other people's minds. When you're traveling, you are what you are right there and then. People don't have your past to hold against you. No yesterdays on the road.
William Least Heat Moon, Blue Highways

Your toughest competitor lives in your head. Some days his name is fear, or pain, or gravity. Stomp his ass.

HOOKED ON THE WHITE POWDER

jibber

on another note, the pope publicly recognizes evolution as a valid theory, so that's basically the same as darwin admitting his theory has problems.

__________________
What you've done becomes the judge of what you're going to do -- especially in other people's minds. When you're traveling, you are what you are right there and then. People don't have your past to hold against you. No yesterdays on the road.
William Least Heat Moon, Blue Highways

Your toughest competitor lives in your head. Some days his name is fear, or pain, or gravity. Stomp his ass.

HOOKED ON THE WHITE POWDER

jibber

ok i'm bored, so i'm just going to point out a few flaws with the intelligent design theory, or as we've been calling it, creationism.

The basics of design of any form created to perform a certain function is the same, the simpler the better. Paley's (who wrote extensive documents on the theory of intelligent design) theoretical argument compares a watch to living beings. He argues that if you found a watch lying in the forest, you wouldn't assume that it had simply come into being on its own. Being that it is of complex (relatively speaking) design, and can conveniently tell time, one would assume that a watchmaker had created it. He relates this to the theory of intelligent design by speculating that as living beings are complex in design, and have been created to serve a specific purpose (to serve God), the it follows that we were created by a higher being as well. Here's the problem with that. As stated before, any engineer, designer, or basically anyone who knows about the construction of a form to serve a specific purpose will tell you that the most perfect designs are the most simple, with no unnecessary functions. Now, since this is not true for living beings (on the grounds that there are many functions within our bodies that serve no usefull purpose), the theory of intelligent design doesn't meet the definition of Godhood, that being an entirely intelligent power. Let's look at birds for example. Many species have hollow bones in the legs to allow for less weight and an all around easier flight. This in iself seems to be almost an argument for intelligent design, were it not for the fact that this characteristic is also present in emus, a bird that doesn't have the capability of flying. If we were created by an all powerfull, Godlike figure, it doesn't stand to reason that that power would incorporate elements of wasteful design. Of course, Paley's other theory that our distinct purpose is to serve God is so obviously a mere opinion that I'm not even going to touch on that. Just another add on, it's been scientifically proven that chimpanzees have 99% identical DNA to that of human beings, so it stands to reason that we did have chimpanzee ancestors at one point. As well, gorilla's have been found with 89% identical DNA, and even cows simply by being a mamal have 50% identical DNA of that of human beings.


Having said all that, we simply can't assume that there is only two possible answers. By saying that intelligent design isn't a valid theory, it doesn't by any means automatically prove the validity of evolution. Of course there are holes in the logic of the theory of evolution, but that by no means is definitive proof that we were created by a higher being. It must be simply assumed that there is an alternative answer, because obviously we came into being in some way, just not by how the theory of intelligent design has been laid out or how darwin lays out his theory of evolution.

__________________
What you've done becomes the judge of what you're going to do -- especially in other people's minds. When you're traveling, you are what you are right there and then. People don't have your past to hold against you. No yesterdays on the road.
William Least Heat Moon, Blue Highways

Your toughest competitor lives in your head. Some days his name is fear, or pain, or gravity. Stomp his ass.

HOOKED ON THE WHITE POWDER