Despite bible thumpers whining we keep finding transitional fossils

IBDaMann said:
The Correct Answer According To Darwin's Theory: All of the above is bunk. Every fossil is of a transitional species.
Click to expand...
Dumb. 99 percent of all species who ever lived went extinct and many fossil species did not transition by speciation into a new species. The vast numbers of animals and plants who died in the Permo-Triassic extinction or the K-T extinction did not have a chance to speciate.

Professionals who work in the field of paleontology do not define "every" fossil as an example of transitional speciation.
 
Cypress said:
Dumb. 99 percent of all species who ever lived went extinct and many fossil species did not transition by speciation into a new species.
Click to expand...
Stupid. I qualified my assertion and you ignored it. You also do not know what did and what did not speciate.

Cypress said:
The vast numbers of animals and plants who died in the Permo-Triassic extinction or the K-T extinction did not have a chance to speciate.
Click to expand...
Stupid comment. You are not omniscient. You weren't there. You don't know.

You also don't speak for the community of professionals who work in the field of paleontology.

Cypress said:
Professionals who work in the field of paleontology do not define "every" fossil as an example of transitional speciation.
Click to expand...
Paleontologists can be morons. All species are in the process of speciating and all fossils are fossils of species that were in the process of speciating. Ergo, all fossils are transitional, regardless of what any moron claims.
 
ZenMode said:
Why do you say that?
Click to expand...

Because Genesis doesn't bear any resemblance to what we know about the origin of the earth and life. Just none.

If Genesis was literally true then God would have to be massively dishonest which doesn't make any theological sense to me. The evidence on the earth that is manifestly clear for everyone to see looks nothing like the creation myth of Genesis. Nothing.

Creation myths abound across the globe and throughout history. This one is no different. If it serves a purpose to the modern reader it is solely around the metaphor it may represent.
 
IBDaMann said:
Stupid. I qualified my assertion and you ignored it. You also do not know what did and what did not speciate.


Stupid comment. You are not omniscient. You weren't there. You don't know.

You also don't speak for the community of professionals who work in the field of paleontology.


Paleontologists can be morons. All species are in the process of speciating and all fossils are fossils of species that were in the process of speciating. Ergo, all fossils are transitional, regardless of what any moron claims.
Click to expand...
You don't get to invent your own definition of transitional fossil.

A transitional fossil is unambiguous evidence of morphological transition between species. The fossil record is incomplete and doesn't always preserve this evidence.

Darwin knew this. That is why Darwin did not excessively rely on the fossil record for his theory but brought in data on morphology and biogeography.
 
Bible thumpers are a problem because intellectuals are too willing to tolerate them.

Our Constitution promises freedom of religion, a largely worthless gift.
As with so many other things, they got their prepositions wrong.
We need freedom FROM religion.

People are free to enjoy their personal superstitions,
but when they try to impose them into the law,
they should be eradicated immediately before they do further harm.
 
Cypress said:
You don't get to invent your own definition of transitional fossil.
Click to expand...
... nor do you.

Cypress said:
A transitional fossil is unambiguous evidence of morphological transition between species.
Click to expand...
Nope. A transitional fossil is a simply the fossil of a species in transition. Guess what. All species are in transition.

Cypress said:
The fossil record is incomplete and doesn't always preserve this evidence.
Click to expand...
Correct.

Cypress said:
Darwin knew this
Click to expand...
Why should any rational adult believe that you are omniscient and somehow speak for dead people?


Cypress said:
. That is why Darwin did not excessively rely on the fossil record for his theory
Click to expand...
Darwin relied mostly on his observations of existing species, which were mostly responsible for driving his theory. Galapagos.
 
Kafka said:
Because Genesis doesn't bear any resemblance to what we know about the origin of the earth and life. Just none.

If Genesis was literally true then God would have to be massively dishonest which doesn't make any theological sense to me. The evidence on the earth that is manifestly clear for everyone to see looks nothing like the creation myth of Genesis. Nothing.

Creation myths abound across the globe and throughout history. This one is no different. If it serves a purpose to the modern reader it is solely around the metaphor it may represent.
Click to expand...
Who wrote the Bible? Man wrote it from experiences and lore passed down, which explains your argument.
 
IBDaMann said:
... nor do you.


Nope. A transitional fossil is a simply the fossil of a species in transition. Guess what. All species are in transition.


Correct.


Why should any rational adult believe that you are omniscient and somehow speak for dead people?



Darwin relied mostly on his observations of existing species, which were mostly responsible for driving his theory. Galapagos.
Click to expand...
Nope.
 
Cypress said:
Dumb. 99 percent of all species who ever lived went extinct and many fossil species did not transition by speciation into a new species. The vast numbers of animals and plants who died in the Permo-Triassic extinction or the K-T extinction did not have a chance to speciate.

Professionals who work in the field of paleontology do not define "every" fossil as an example of transitional speciation.
Click to expand...
Do you have an example of a translational species?
 
Kafka said:
Because Genesis doesn't bear any resemblance to what we know about the origin of the earth and life. Just none.

If Genesis was literally true then God would have to be massively dishonest which doesn't make any theological sense to me. The evidence on the earth that is manifestly clear for everyone to see looks nothing like the creation myth of Genesis. Nothing.

Creation myths abound across the globe and throughout history. This one is no different. If it serves a purpose to the modern reader it is solely around the metaphor it may represent.
Click to expand...
So, God allowed blatantly inaccurate, irrational and unscientific explanations for the creation of the universe to make it into the Bible?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top