Re: Why "Ida" is nothing but wishfull fantasy

[McQ]

If you will notice I gave credit to the author of the article. Further, you probably are only conviced about your beliefs because your professor at college or high school told you what you need to believe to be crediable in the secular world. Its hard to believe in Creation in this day, but it is you that does not have originality.

Really? You wrote at the bottom, "From an article by AP Galling."

You failed to cite the reference, or that you essentially copied and pasted it from Answers in Genesis.

Who is AP Galling? Is he A. Peter Galling? What gives you the belief that he has any clue what he's talking about? Why do you believe him?

My search for him showed 29 articles published...ALL of them in AIG. What qualifications does he have to write about biology, geology, archeology, or even Swine Flu (in which article, by the way, he completely misrepresents evolution/mutation)?  http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... /swine-flu

What has he ever published in any reputable scientific, peer-reviewed journal? I can't find anything.

Help me understand why you are willing to base your argument on an article you copied from AIG, written by a man (I think, as he could very well be a fictitious pseudonym), without any knowledge yourself of the science behind anything that was proposed.

[Jolly Sapper]

This info came from an article as we have all concluded. However, even the photos clearly show something more in the family of small rodents, then ape-like. that is based on the long tail and short limps. It's not hard to see.

    perspective wrote:- A fossil can never show evolution. Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Evolution is an alleged process of change in live organisms. Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil.


    Will wrote:Evolution isn't an alleged process, it's been confirmed. Fossils can demonstrate links between already established species, therefore providing evidence of evolutionary changes, but the use of transitional fossils isn't to prove evolution, it's to study it.


This statement is outright incorrect. From-kind-to-kind evolution has never been obsevred, and evolution is classified as a theory. Dr. Menton Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University states in this article http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/theory.htm that, "In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator."

Well, why are we worried about virus and bacteria mutating then?  If evolution doesn't exist then the flu virus that can infect chickens won't ever be able to infect humans, right?

[perspective]

If you will notice I gave credit to the author of the article. Further, you probably are only conviced about your beliefs because your professor at college or high school told you what you need to believe to be crediable in the secular world. Its hard to believe in Creation in this day, but it is you that does not have originality.

Really? You wrote at the bottom, "From an article by AP Galling."

You failed to cite the reference, or that you essentially copied and pasted it from Answers in Genesis.

Who is AP Galling? Is he A. Peter Galling? What gives you the belief that he has any clue what he's talking about? Why do you believe him?

My search for him showed 29 articles published...ALL of them in AIG. What qualifications does he have to write about biology, geology, archeology, or even Swine Flu (in which article, by the way, he completely misrepresents evolution/mutation)?  http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... /swine-flu

What has he ever published in any reputable scientific, peer-reviewed journal? I can't find anything.

Help me understand why you are willing to base your argument on an article you copied from AIG, written by a man (I think, as he could very well be a fictitious pseudonym), without any knowledge yourself of the science behind anything that was proposed.

Everything you just said is null and void. I could say santa told me. I am aruging my stance on the matter. If you don't agree then defend against the claims. Who wrote it, or what degree they have or do not have does not make it true or false. That is a fallacious argument. Further, I was not aware that this was so important as stated by Will. I will from now on post a link.

[perspective]

This info came from an article as we have all concluded. However, even the photos clearly show something more in the family of small rodents, then ape-like. that is based on the long tail and short limps. It's not hard to see.

    perspective wrote:- A fossil can never show evolution. Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Evolution is an alleged process of change in live organisms. Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil.


    Will wrote:Evolution isn't an alleged process, it's been confirmed. Fossils can demonstrate links between already established species, therefore providing evidence of evolutionary changes, but the use of transitional fossils isn't to prove evolution, it's to study it.


This statement is outright incorrect. From-kind-to-kind evolution has never been obsevred, and evolution is classified as a theory. Dr. Menton Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University states in this article http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/theory.htm that, "In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator."

Well, why are we worried about virus and bacteria mutating then?  If evolution doesn't exist then the flu virus that can infect chickens won't ever be able to infect humans, right?

Mutation is not evolution, it is natural selection. Natural selection is change within kind. Natural selection has never changed one kind into another kind as supposed by evolution. Evolution has never taken place.

[Whitney]

Further, I was not aware that this was so important as stated by Will. I will from now on post a link.

If you had bothered to read the forum rules you'd know that we require all sources to be cited properly.

My 'refutation' is that stuff from AIG is a waste of my time and therefore I don't plan on providing a refutation.  Not to mention that I really don't care either way...if is is just another found 'missing link' then cool, it if isn't oh well; better luck next time.

[curiosityandthecat]

Mutation is not evolution, it is natural selection. Natural selection is change within kind. Natural selection has never changed one kind into another kind as supposed by evolution. Evolution has never taken place.

Intelligent Design at it's best. Your arguments are no longer intelligently presented  or even interesting.

[Will]

The point was that this ancient fossil looks alot like a modern lemur, so maybe it's just an ancestor of modern lemurs.

That's not scientific at all, though.

I will give you that. However, the amount of media hype along with the soon release of a book and documentry is a little fishy. I just don't think it is as big a deal as people are making out to be. It certainly it's THE missing link.

You're saying that it's a fake because the media is freaking out about it? That's not strong evidence.

An opposable thumb is an opposable thumb. Even if it is slightly different, that can be accounted for by adaptablity to environment, not molecules-to-man evolution.

No, all opposable thumbs are not alike and do not necessarily follow along the same evolutionary line.

Again, minor changes within a "kind" (as defined by science) is not evidence for molecules-to-man evolution.

You seem to be missing my point. Transitional fossils are not the end all be all of evidence for evolution. Their function in science is more about explaining how mutations occur and what effect those mutations have on an organism. They're something that becomes quite useful after you learn to understand and accept evolution. If you'd like me to list direct evidence of evolution, I can do that.

This info came from an article as we have all concluded. However, even the photos clearly show something more in the family of small rodents, then ape-like. that is based on the long tail and short limps. It's not hard to see.

Primates came from something similar to rodents once upon a time, and we came from primates (well, we are primates, but you get the picture).

This statement is outright incorrect. From-kind-to-kind evolution has never been obsevred, and evolution is classified as a theory.

If you're talking about one species giving way to another, yes that's been observed. And repeatedly tested. And confirmed. And evolution is not "classified as a theory", it's scientific fact. It just happens that when you're speaking in scientific terms, the term "theory" means fact. Like the theory of gravity.

Dr. Menton Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University states in this article http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/theory.htm that, "In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator."

Thank you for providing a link. Dr. Menton is unfortunately incorrect in basically everything he says here. Evolution has been observed on the microscopic scale for decades. It's been repeated in a laboratory. It is a scientific fact and theory.

Despite any other "evidence" for evolution, the transitional forms are the most inportant aspect of "proving" evolution. There is a remarkable lack of such evidence, so I think that counts for alot.

No, transitional fossils are not the most important aspect in proving evolution. My opinion is that the strongest evidence for evolution would be DNA, but that's for another thread.

He does think that this animal was buried.

He didn't say so, at least not in the quote you provided.

Again, evolution has never been proven. You are not being intellectually honest to say that it is fact. Further, the burden of proof is on the scientists to find these forms. Rare or not the evidence is not there.

Evolution has been proven. If you'd like I can direct you to about a dozen threads on this forum where the irrefutable evidence has been repeatedly posted.

I don't understand this last statement.

"Evolutionist" describes one dedicated to the doctrine of evolution, one that adheres to it like it was a religion. No one that believes in evolution is dedicated to a doctrine, therefore there are no "evolutionists".

[McQ]

If you will notice I gave credit to the author of the article. Further, you probably are only conviced about your beliefs because your professor at college or high school told you what you need to believe to be crediable in the secular world. Its hard to believe in Creation in this day, but it is you that does not have originality.

Really? You wrote at the bottom, "From an article by AP Galling."

You failed to cite the reference, or that you essentially copied and pasted it from Answers in Genesis.

Who is AP Galling? Is he A. Peter Galling? What gives you the belief that he has any clue what he's talking about? Why do you believe him?

My search for him showed 29 articles published...ALL of them in AIG. What qualifications does he have to write about biology, geology, archeology, or even Swine Flu (in which article, by the way, he completely misrepresents evolution/mutation)?  http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... /swine-flu

What has he ever published in any reputable scientific, peer-reviewed journal? I can't find anything.

Help me understand why you are willing to base your argument on an article you copied from AIG, written by a man (I think, as he could very well be a fictitious pseudonym), without any knowledge yourself of the science behind anything that was proposed.

Everything you just said is null and void. I could say santa told me. I am aruging my stance on the matter. If you don't agree then defend against the claims. Who wrote it, or what degree they have or do not have does not make it true or false. That is a fallacious argument. Further, I was not aware that this was so important as stated by Will. I will from now on post a link.

Wow, when you decide to be wrong, you go big, I'll give you that. Nothing I wrote is null or void, especially in light of you presenting that article. Facts matter. Who tells you the so-called facts matters. Who does the primary research matters. It certainly seemed to matter to you when you pulled Dr. David Menton, Ph.D. out and cited him. By the way, my Ph.D. can beat up your Ph.D!  

[Squid]

...*sigh*...people like this give me a headache...go read the article itself instead of creationist websites:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723

[MattParsons]

Again, minor changes within a "kind" (as defined by science) is not evidence for molecules-to-man evolution.

What is a "kind" as defined by science?

- A fossil can never show evolution. Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Evolution is an alleged process of change in live organisms. Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil.

As previously stated, evolution is not a process of change in live organisms.  It's a process of change in populations of organisms.

This statement is outright incorrect. From-kind-to-kind evolution has never been obsevred, and evolution is classified as a theory.
...
- Similarities can never show evolution. If two organisms have similar structures, the only thing it proves is that the two have similar structures. One must presuppose evolution to say that the similarities are due to evolution rather than design. Furthermore, when it comes to “transitional forms,” the slightest similarities often receive great attention while major differences are ignored.

One of the things you'd expect from a theory is that it can make verifiable predictions.  One prediction made by evolution is that there are "transitional species", or a species that exists as a transition state from one species in the past to a different species in the future.  These exist, and many fossils of them have been found.

Despite any other "evidence" for evolution, the transitional forms are the most inportant aspect of "proving" evolution. There is a remarkable lack of such evidence, so I think that counts for alot.

Firstly, why do you say that transitional forms are the most important aspect of proving it?  Secondly, why do you insist there is a lack of such evidence when there clearly isn't? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Again, evolution has never been proven. You are not being intellectually honest to say that it is fact. Further, the burden of proof is on the scientists to find these forms. Rare or not the evidence is not there.

That evolution happens is fact.  You can go out and observe it in a laboratory if you wish.  Influenza and the common cold are a very common example that I'm sure you've got first hand experience with.  The controlled evolution of wolves into dogs, and their various subspecies, is another example.  All of these are consistent with the theory of evolution.

[SSY]

Disproving evolution is easy. All you have tp do is make a load of rubbish, call it evolution, and then disprove that, while ascribing any evidence FOR evolution to a nebulous process called "adaptation".

[PipeBox]

I'm almost sorry I missed this thread.  Perspective, there are so many reasons that your source is wrong, but I'm not even sure you'll be back to look at this thread, so instead of posting anew, I'll just link to my post for Manof-God.

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3172#p40620e

Your post represents flagrant ignorance in regards to evolution.  Ida is, indeed, not the missing link you think we should find.  Even if we found a half-monkey, half-man, by your own standards as stated in the article, it would not count to you, and the thing we find funny is that we don't predict such absurdities. and we don't find them, either!  So, while creationists are unhappy and trumpeting what this fossil is not, we're all concerned with what it is.

Ida is an early primate that serves as an excellent example of a transition from earlier prosimians to monkeys and apes.  We're taken aback by the completeness of the fossil, and it will tell us a lot about the evolutionary process that gave rise to us.  The more fossils we find, the more refined our understanding becomes, in much the same way that a telescope that captures more light gives us a more accurate view of the universe.  This is not some omni-proof, there is none that would put the creationists to bed, anyway.  I know I'm personally thrilled by what this fossil is, not because I think it's ammo to shoot down creationists.  I doubt I'll ever use it in an argument, I can't think of a place it'd be suitable.  "Oh, but you remember when we found Ida and all the scientists we're like 'Wow, that's really well preserved, we stand to gain from its study,' yeah, that settles it."

If you're curious about what evolution really is, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

[SektionTen]

Perspective, you always make me laugh.  

[Sophus]

The fossil does not resemble a human skeleton.

Oh no! And bacteria doesn't look like us either. How could we possibly have come from that? You have thrown my world upside down!