Another fossil link found (page 4)

ninja

so......... did the turtle come from a non-turtle?

mkr32208

Hill- that is exactly the problem, you are NOT stupid. If you were stupid this would be easy! We could simply say 'hill is just to unintelligent to understand the points that are being put forward.'

Case closed, you're simply too dumb to understand. Here is the problem though; YOU'RE NOT DUMB... You're ignorant and hardheaded. Worse, you're ignorance is INTENTIONAL! You WALLOW in your ignorance!

Here's an illustration like jebus would have used;

I paint my house blue, you come to look at my house and say "why is your house colored triangle?"
I respond "triangle? No Hill the house is BLUE!" "nope nope nope the house is clearly colored triangle..."
So I spend all day trying to explain that triangle is NOT a color. It is a shape! And my house is clearly blue and clearly NOT triangle. At the end of the day you are still saying that the house is 'colored triangle.'

Do you see the issue? We say here is proof of evolution and you say "yes but where did life start!" We try and try to explain that evolution has NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE STARTED! And you respond with 'that house is still colored triangle...'

I'll take the retards any day...

ninja

oh....I get it.......seahorse-horse-pegasus.......ape-human-ninja......ninja...always learning

MissingLink

so......... did the turtle come from a non-turtle?

Going back far enough yes. But this example is just one intermediate step between land turtle and sea turtle.

snowbird

Snowbird,
Asking questions is always good, learning something from the answer is even better.

Or, as demonstrated by Socrates, better yet is the answerer who learns from the questioner.

Sylvia

funkyderek

ninja...always learning

If only!

leavingwt

Just saw this news headline...

http://www.livescience.com/culture/081118-god-evolution.html

Earnest

The fossils are from the Middle Jurassic period and are about 164 million years old and could be a missing link between land-based and aquatic turtles.

Scientists concluded that the newly discovered species was aquatic because the fossils were found in rock that once formed the bottom of a lake or lagoon, and because unlike the remains of contemporary land animals, which were fragmented having been washed into a pool, the turtles were relatively complete and articulated.

“Eileanchelys waldmani can be plausibly interpreted as the earliest known aquatic turtle,” researchers concluded in their report published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society.

I do wonder if anyone commenting on this thread has actually read the report published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Without pre-empting what the report actually says (as I have been unable to obtain it), there does seem to be far more uncertainty about these findings than contributors to this thread suggest.

snowbird

Pertinent excerpt and quotes from Leaving's link:

Shermer followed up, asking Giberson, then why believe in God at all?

"It makes the world so much more interesting," Giberson said. "The mystery of God’s existence is a more satisfying mystery than the mystery of how can all this arise out of a particle."

But what is your evidence, Shermer said, for belief in God?

"I was raised believing in God, so for me, the onus would be on someone to stop me from believing," Giberson said, adding that "there is a certain momentum that is already there."

Shermer said, so "you’re stepping off the page of science."

"Absolutely," Giberson said, but added that he thinks science will soon nail down a definition of consciousness that will make God's intentions more clear.

Personally, I'm of the belief that it will be God Himself, not science, that will make His intentions crystal clear.

Sylvia

hillbilly

The ostensibly more rational theists or deists have a more insidious approach, where they simply find a gap in our current knowledge and assert that the only thing that can fill that gap is a god, an intelligent complex entity whom they further declare - to avoid the infinite regress - to be an exception to the very rule that supposedly requires his existence.

Do you see the issue? We say here is proof of evolution and you say "yes but where did life start!" We try and try to explain that evolution has NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE STARTED! And you respond with 'that house is still colored triangle...'

yep... ya lost me at "triangle".

I do understand that Creation and evolution are two distinct parts to the argument. Succintly stated, neither posistion will ever have a factual basis to slam dunk the other...therefore, we will be perpetually blessed with the dichotomy about the chickens and eggs.

(I really needed to post the lead qoute over again... I wrote something sorta like that in college once.... brought my grade down from a B to a C...verbiage is a dangerous thing)

Hill

Another fossil link found

Share this