Another fossil link found (page 9)

justhuman

I'm sure they will find more links. But again if God create us through an evolutionary process there is nothing wrong about it

Tuesday

It's already been succesfully rebutted thousands, if not millions of times, not just here, but all over the internetz.

Like what? Do you have any examples that have truly been rebutted? You might want to see Ken Miller's discussion at an Ohio university where he discusses all the rebuttals that were completely and utterly oblitherated at the I.D. Trial.

In fact here's a chapter by chapter account of the entire thing from PBS' Nova series

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

Read the court transcripts, Intelligent Design is demolished. For evolution to not be true there are simple proofs that could be brought forth which have not in any way been done. You could show why androgenous retroviruses show up in the exact same places in the genetic code of more evolved species as less evolved species. You could show a reptile with nipples. You could prove why there are extra telomeres in human Chromosome #2 indicating a merged chromosome from primate genome. So really any one of those would be fantastic.

zions watchman

And I thought that you were going to say " They found a skelton remains along side a book bag ? Silly me

reniaa

What I've found difficult is evolution will have a missing link fossil found proclaim it to the world fit it nicely in their graph and then if it turns up as a living fossil swimming around the ocean they try and explain only part of it's group went on to form a new group/species while the others stayed the same for millions of years.

Evolution is post predictive they fit the finds to the theory concentrating on what fits ignoring what doesn't, Its just an alternative to faith in God in this case it's faith in creation itself, mother earth it's old religion, time is evolutionists God they say throw enough time at a thing it will change and of course you gotta learn all your ...illion words to sound authentic.

Mickey mouse

Evolution is post predictive they fit the finds to the theory concentrating on what fits ignoring what doesn't

Wow, that approach sounds so familiar. Gee, I wonder where I've come across that sort of thing before?? Raised Eyebrow

Anti-Christ

What I've found difficult is evolution will have a missing link fossil found proclaim it to the world fit it nicely in their graph and then if it turns up as a living fossil swimming around the ocean they try and explain only part of it's group went on to form a new group/species while the others stayed the same for millions of years.

First the term "missing link" is used mostly by creationist, you don't need fossils to prove evolution , genetic studies has proving evolution over and over again, no faith required. What you are referring to is in the old evolution creation book publish by the WT . Trust me that is a very bad reference to use to understand evolution.

Evolution is post predictive they fit the finds to the theory concentrating on what fits ignoring what doesn't, Its just an alternative to faith in God in this case it's faith in creation itself, mother earth it's old religion, time is evolutionists God they say throw enough time at a thing it will change and of course you gotta learn all your ...illion words to sound authentic.

I'm sorry I don't want to sound insulting but to make a statement like this you seem to not understand evolution very much, I hope you don't get your information from creationist. I suggest you understand something before you reject it.

veen

No comments concerning my blind cave fish then?

Despite overwhelming evidence made available by people(scientists) through painstaking, tireless research over the course of many, many years, crawling around in the dirt trying to find real answers. You(creationists) choose not to believe them, and would rather believe that a book, thousands of years old, has all the answers instead, and that a big invisible man in the sky who hates everyone did it all. And even though I can't think of any reason why plant and animal evolution should neccessarily be at odds with the idea of a creator, you have to fight against it pretty hard because your bible based view of the world is so far fetched and unflexable.

If your home was robbed would you not want any forensic evidence to be used to catch the culprits? I mean, how can you trust those scientists eh?

Anyway how about these?

tijkmo

Sea turtles and land based turtles are two completely distinct groups so we are talking about an ancester common to two distinct families (as opposed to species)

you would have thought that some clever scientist would have given them completely distinct names then.

cos otherwise in the words of monty python ' that's gonna be confusing '

Caedes

Well, according to a very brief foray onto wikipedia,

Geologically speaking this fossil is situated between the basal turtle Proganochelys (The oldest turtle fossil found to date) and Testitudines which includes all the aquatic turtles, In other words all previous turtle fossils to this one were land based, turtle fossils found from later strata include sea based turtles

Testudines include the superfamilies Cryptodira and Pluerodira.

Cryptodira has three living

superfamilies , the Chelonioidea (sea turtles), Testudinoidea (tortoises) and Trionychoidea (softshell turtles and relatives).

So in answer to your initial query, land based turtles belong to the family testudinoidea and there are a variety of families that sea based turtles may belong to.

It didn't occur to me that someone would complain about me not using the correct taxonomic names.

I can see that trying to put the argument across in slightly simpler terms obviously undermines the whole point being made. How on earth could I be so stupid?! Still at least I am not so smug and self-centred to think that no scientist has ever thought of naming different families of turtles.

Caedes

Evolution is post predictive they fit the finds to the theory concentrating on what fits ignoring what doesn't, Its just an alternative to faith in God in this case it's faith in creation itself, mother earth it's old religion, time is evolutionists God they say throw enough time at a thing it will change and of course you gotta learn all your ...illion words to sound authentic.

Like in the way that evolution predicted a mechanism by which traits are passed onto offspring and that mechanism was subsequantly found to be DNA.

I don't believe in evolution because I have faith, I believe in evolution because the empirical evidence shows that evolution is a fact.

Attempting to make a bizarre and and rather sad attack because other people know the difference between a million and a billion (or indeed any other scale term) is a sure indicator of your ignorance and intellectual laziness.

Another fossil link found

Share this