Latest jab at Evolution

by karvel 13 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • karvel
    karvel
  • poppers
    poppers

    Sounds like irrefutable proof to me. Sheesh -

  • Zico
    Zico

    Is this the argument IDers call 'irreducible complexity'?

    I don't know much about evolution, but they seem to suggest evolutionists avoid the debates with insults against the creationists, from my experience on this board, it generally seems to be the other way around.

    It would be cool to see an 'evolutionist' debunk this!

  • LtCmd.Lore
    LtCmd.Lore

    I call balogna:

    "The fossil is from an Archaeopteryx, an extinct creature sometimes presented as a "missing link" in the line of desent from modern birds. Most paleontologists, however, no longer consider it an ancestor to modern birds."

    That is entirely not true!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds#Archaeopteryx

    http://www.innerbird.com/ancestors_feathered_dinos/bird_ancestors.html

    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

    I can see why they lie about something like that though. It's always used by evolutionists. And it still is.

    Interestingly they use the wings of the archaeopteryx in their argument, but don't even mention the fact that there a controversy about whether those wings are genuine... (They probably are genuine but not mentioning that fact is dishonest.)

    And this link responds to the rest of the article: http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/halfawing.html

    The argument basically lies on the premise that there is no benifit in an intermediate stage of feather developement. And that premise is flawed as demonstrated by the ebonmusings site.

    I haven't checked their other quotes from 'scientists' but if their claims about the archaeopteryx are any indication, they are not above lying.

    Lore

  • LtCmd.Lore
    LtCmd.Lore

    And the 'huge debate between scientists' that they talk about, is not whether they evolved, but how they evolved.

    "There are two hypotheses currently competing to explain this. One is that wings developed in tree-dwelling organisms originally as a method of gliding from branch to branch; animals such as the flying squirrel may be modern-day examples of this. The other is that it developed in organisms that took off for short distances from a running start; over time, longer and longer hops would develop into gliding and finally true flight. In either case, the intermediate stages leading to a modern wing would still present selective advantage, showing that such a process is plausible." From ebon musings.

    BOTH of those options that scientists are supposedly having a heated debate about are evolutionary options that would work. (That's why there is a debate.) It's not that they can't figure out how it was possible, it's just that they have TOO MANY ways of explaining it and they have to choose one.

    Lore

  • karvel
    karvel

    hmm. no evidence linking birds to dinosaurs...riiight

  • bigdreaux
    bigdreaux

    what cracks me up is, they can turn any subject into a religious debate. sheesh

  • AlmostAtheist
    AlmostAtheist

    This web page http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#gannetbeaks discusses some of the Incompetent Design found in nature, among them the diving birds. Some of them have no external nostrils, so they can dive into the water without drowning. Pretty slick design, eh? Except Jehovah was off his game that day and left all the other stuff in the "nose" of the bird in tact. So the "breathing" goodies behind those closed off nostrils is still there and functional -- yet useless.

    If the Watchtower wants to play ID-advocate, they ought to turn away from birds. ;-)

    Dave

  • Kudra
    Kudra

    On the forgery problem that the article talks of...

    ***
    There are six other Archaeopteryx fossils discovered at different times and places under well documented conditions. Five of these also have unequivocal feathers (Charig 1986; Wellnhofer 1993). On the Maxburg specimen, the feathers continue under the bones and are overlain with dendrites that sometimes form within bedding planes, precluding the possibility of forgery (Charig 1986). In addition, several other feathered dinosaurs have been discovered.

    Tiny fractures, infilled with calcite, extend through both feathers and bones, showing that they have the same source. They also match perfectly from slab to counterslab, proving that the two fit together (Charig 1986). These fractures are invisible to normal vision; a nineteenth-century forger would not even know they existed, much less be able to replicate them.
    ***

    WTS is ALWAYS full of SHIT.

  • Kudra
    Kudra

    This is just REALLY pissing me off.

    I have read more about this cause it is such a neat subject- I went through the links from you all and it should be so totally and completely obvious to even the most skimmingly casual of observers that the WTS is OUTRIGHT LYING!

    How can they do that?

    Do they think that their followers don't have a BASIC ENCYCLOPEDIA??

    ugh. I hope they com by my house with this glad rag.

    -K

    "Most paleontologists no longer consider it an ancestor of modern birds"?!?!?

    "However no such missing link has ever been found"?!?!?

    I wonder how many kids will use this garbage to write a report??

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit