10 Questions for Atheists and What do Atheists Believe:

OK, if you want to call it transitional species go ahead.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...l.jpg/769px-Archaeopteryx_bavarica_Detail.jpg

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, technically every species is 'transitional', but would you care to provide me with your understanding of what 'transitional species' should mean? I mean, what is it you would expect to see in a 'transitional species'?

Please tell me it's not along the lines of Ray Comfort's "crocoduck".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's what the picture was supposed to show, not the fossil record, that is at issue. You slide.

In the context of the extra care necessary when dealing with you. Snakelord took a bit of bait there, apparently thinking you were honestly discussing something.

His picture was not an explanation. It illustrated something about the fossil record that John queried. There was no argument present, inductive or deductive. The arguments implied (not present) were not rigorously presented, and thus if admitted could be misrepresented by you, and deflected into familiar confusions with cryptic statements designed for deniability in implication themselves.

That was the context of my comments.

No bird like that survives today.

The fossil record does not prove evolutionary theory. But it agrees with evolutionary theory, completely. There are no established contradictions of Darwinian evolutionary theory in it. That is the material point.

There are dozens of serious, profound, multiply supported, and as yet unexplained contradictions between the fossil record and every creationist hypothesis yet presented.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ray Comfort and his latest celebrity support have proven themselves to be misinformed almost to the point of illiteracy...ableit very conniving swindlers. The Rational Responders dealt with that ridiculous drawing very quickly.

"Crocoduck" my wide load...

 

Snakelord
“

no
never seen what you say the fossils indicate as a practical fact - namely that a fish can grow feathers

All I am asking is if you have (or anyone else) seen a fish grow feathers, or whatever else you expect us to swallow in the name of evolution (and not a mere drift within species).
It just requires a yes or no answer

to repeat my question for the third time

so in other words you can accept something as a practical fact despite neither you nor no one else ever having seen or proved it?

the practical fact in question is that of a fish growing feathers.

Once again, it just requires a simple yes or no answer

 

well if all you present in the name of science are pictures that bear no ultimate significance to ideas of reality, I guess I have nothing to worry about

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Fish came on land and became Amphibians. Amphibians adapted to life on land and became quadrupeds, mammals and lizards. Some of the lizards developed feathers and became birds. It's all in the fossil record.

 

No one has said that, and no one has made any such claims about the fossil record.

No one has ever claimed that a fish has ever grown feathers.

I take that back: no one except a creationist or two, attempting to explain the fossil record by invoking miracles.

You seem to be trolling. What is the purpose of such questions ?

 

-Why do I have an appendix ? Or a tailbone ? Completely useless.
-Just remembered, I dont have my appendix anymore

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Indeed, but you would be amazed how many theists I have heard spout something similar. From "why don't cows grow wings", (the answer should be plainly obvious), to why don't pigs give birth to elephants. We have one more example from lg: "have you seen a fish grow feathers?"

A fish grows feathers? :bugeye:

No. Someone told you fish grow feathers?

Who states a fish grew feathers?

No. I have never seen a fish grow feathers. Nor do I claim that fish grow feathers. Nor does anyone I know of claim that fish grow feathers. Except for Ray Comfort who tends to draw pictures of similar things like crocoducks and elegoats.

 

so what does that make spidergoat's claim

Fish came on land and became Amphibians. Amphibians adapted to life on land and became quadrupeds, mammals and lizards. Some of the lizards developed feathers and became birds. It's all in the fossil record.

F x time = A
A x time = Q
Q x time = M & L
L x time = B

so why doesn't F x time(4) = B

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

so you are claiming that given enough time (and transitional species) a fish cannot grow feathers?

 

A fish?

 

yes
for more details see spidergoat's quote

Fish came on land and became Amphibians. Amphibians adapted to life on land and became quadrupeds, mammals and lizards. Some of the lizards developed feathers and became birds. It's all in the fossil record.

assuming your views of evolution are similar to his,

F x time = A
A x time = Q
Q x time = M & L
L x time = B

so why doesn't F x time(4) = B?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, the appendix is another common "vestigial" organ. Since food does not flow through it, like the rest of the intestine, the assumption is that it has no function. It certainly does not have digestive function. This is true. However, the intestine is much more than just a digestive organ. If you look under a microscope, it'll show that it contains a significant amount of lymphoid tissue. Similar aggregates of lymphoid tissue (known as gut-associated lymphoid tissues, GALT) occur in other areas of the gastrointestinal system. The GALT are involved in the body’s ability to recognize foreign antigens in ingested material.

Plus, the human appendix may be particularly important early in life because it achieves its greatest development shortly after birth and then regresses with age, eventually resembling such other regions of GALT as the Peyer’s patches in the small intestine. So the human appendix is not a vestigial organ at all.

 

just reiterating the words of spidergoat and seeking a clarification

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

hence my original inquiry whether snakelord's explanation is based on inductive reasoning

so in other words you can accept something as a practical fact despite neither you nor no one else ever having seen or proved it?

still waiting for a straight reply ....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Given your question, your entire equation is worthless. Your equation states that L * time = B, it does not say that fish grow feathers.

I gave you one, indeed I even gave you the answer I knew you wanted although I am still waiting to see what it is you're saying hasn't been seen. Your best answer to date: "You haven't seen fish grow feathers". You really expect something other than laughter to such a statement?

 

So you are not saying F x time(3) = L

well it does seem to be your statement, or at least part of it
from my side the response doesn't draw so much laugher but groans of perplexity

F x time(4) = B

True or False?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, not really. Further explanation below..

You know, the computer sitting in front of you is a long way down the line as far as the evolution of mathematical computation devices go. Can you connect speakers to an abacus?

Hopefully this simple analogy will show the error in your question and your earlier claims that anyone is trying to make you "swallow the idea that fish grow feathers".

What your equation attempts fallaciously to do is simply to add more time and skip out the middleman. That's plain stupid.