Archaeologica.org

tj wrote:

Beagle wrote:Zagor, whether one agrees with your position or not you've certainly done the homework.

It looks more like copy and paste than it looks like homework.

Sorry, I forgot to put link. Anyway, for all human knowledge you can say that is "copy and paste".

No worries. You forgot to mention the source of your 1st post in this thread as well. I think this should do it.

Dozens of fossils of an ancient loon-like creature that some say is the missing link in bird evolution have been discovered in northwest China.

in other words, they are loons. how science does such wonderful wishful thinking manipulating the words and the fossils to seemingly support their theory.

archaeologist wrote:

Dozens of fossils of an ancient loon-like creature that some say is the missing link in bird evolution have been discovered in northwest China.

in other words, they are loons. how science does such wonderful wishful thinking manipulating the words and the fossils to seemingly support their theory.

wishful thinking dont come into it mate. You see, unlike in the tedious world of metaphysics where flatulence counts as intelectual argument, science is based on falsifiability. That means one purposefully looks for data that contradicts a theory in order to prove/disprove it. No experimental evidence so far encountered (and there is a lot of it) disproves evolution. Sure, there is still alot of debate about how evolution works, but no one who doesnt have a turnip for a brain doubts the validity of evolution as a model for species development.

Sure, there is still alot of debate about how evolution works, but no one who doesnt have a turnip for a brain doubts the validity of evolution as a model for species development

may i remind you that those who believe in evolution are in a minority.

besides you cannot prove one iota of the theory because it is just people's conjecture that fills inthe blanks and not real science.

may i remind you that those who believe in evolution are in a minority.

There is no need for belief in science, only hard facts

There is no need for belief in science, only hard facts

i am only going to say this one last time:

fossils do not prove transition, nor dothey prove who is the mother or daughter fossil; especially since they all come from the same time period. all fossils can do is provide evidence that such a creature existed at one point in time--no more no less.

anything else (especially for evolution) is pure conjecture and cannot be proven. did you ever think that some of those fossils got fossilized in a position that gave them their weird shape, showing only a part of their skeletal structure and not all of it?

scientists leap to prove their theory without considering all possibilities.

archaeologist wrote:

There is no need for belief in science, only hard facts

i am only going to say this one last time:

fossils do not prove transition, nor dothey prove who is the mother or daughter fossil; especially since they all come from the same time period. all fossils can do is provide evidence that such a creature existed at one point in time--no more no less.

anything else (especially for evolution) is pure conjecture and cannot be proven. did you ever think that some of those fossils got fossilized in a position that gave them their weird shape, showing only a part of their skeletal structure and not all of it?

scientists leap to prove their theory without considering all possibilities.

That's a pretty weak argument, Arch. Fossils do not all come from the same time period. I don't know where you went to school, but if they taught you that they are wrong.

Arch is the king of weak arguments....he has to be to still believe in "creation."

Rest assured, if a C14 sample ever showed some proof for some bit of bible-nonsense he'd jump all over the radiocarbon dating bandwagon in a heartbeat.

Fossils do not all come from the same time period

it was the camberian time period. i will get you the link later when i have some free time.

I believe it's the cambrian and the pre-cambrian periods and possibly more. I'm definitely no expert on fossils, though.

If you find some fossils of “discontinued” creatures don’t mean than they evolve in another creatures it means they just existed in that period of time nothing else. I think that following quote explain a lot.

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!

Obviously not a Vegas oddsmaker.

A point by point refutation of the Creationist quote list on page one...for anyone who wants to wade through it.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ ... rt1-1.html

That means one purposefully looks for data that contradicts a theory

Not arch. He picks up his bible for every answer to every question.