It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein
So two people who have reading comprehension problems. If the universe has always existed, when exactly would this "Poof and the universe is here" moment have occurred?
(Facepalm)
Ah, the Missing Link gambit. I was waiting for that. What missing link? We already have the fossils which can be used to trace our ancestry. We have Ardipithecus. We have Australopithecus. We have the evidence of our distant past. We came from Eastern Africa.
originally posted by: randyvs
To this date there isn't a single indication or example of evidence
for this "common ancestor" in the fossil record. So there couldn't have
been to many if they're that tough to find. And I'd say that ads up to
belief in a big ass zero. So find your material proof before you demand
proof of the spirit. Phff you can't even do that.
originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: tsingtao
originally posted by: tsingtao
no, it's the deniers that do that.
example; you said "sky man"
you cannot anthropomorphise God.
well, you can try to.
it's just ignorance, so don't worry about it.
christians don't.
You can anthropomorphise almost anything, and humans have been doing exactly that since the inception of god/s. The standard portrayal of the Christian god in art has been of an old man with a grey beard (or Morgan Freeman), which is an anthropomorphism of a deity, (other religions also do it; Greek mythology, Hinduism, even Islam states that Allah has hands, eyes and feet).
Then there's the whole "god made us in his image", which is a literary anthropomorphism that tries to turn it around by placing the onus on god creating us rather than us creating it. Beyond that, we call god “Father”, or “Him”, which is a very chauvinistic anthropomorphism, yet further enforces the concept of “God” looking like us.
There's nothing wrong with that... it's what humans do... always relating our environment to ourselves, yet it does beg the question of; Were we god's creation?... or did we create god to justify our own form factor in a seemingly random universe?
The evidence points to the latter.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: tsingtao
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: adnanmuf
No, creationism began when people announced that they think that a book of Bronze and Iron Age myths is factually correct and that science is a lie.
i keep hearing that bronze age thing but the "science is a lie" is new to me.
those "bronze age" people were pretty smart, i'd say. didn't they build the great pyramids?
ya think they used magic?
even jk rowling falls way behind.
Oh come off it. Creationists deny the following sciences: Biology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry and Anthropology. And I know that it's not a science, but they also deny History.
originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
(Facepalm)
Ah, the Missing Link gambit. I was waiting for that. What missing link? We already have the fossils which can be used to trace our ancestry. We have Ardipithecus. We have Australopithecus. We have the evidence of our distant past. We came from Eastern Africa.
And the fairytale fantasy of a common ancestor. So much for evidence.
originally posted by: tsingtao
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: tsingtao
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: adnanmuf
No, creationism began when people announced that they think that a book of Bronze and Iron Age myths is factually correct and that science is a lie.
i keep hearing that bronze age thing but the "science is a lie" is new to me.
those "bronze age" people were pretty smart, i'd say. didn't they build the great pyramids?
ya think they used magic?
even jk rowling falls way behind.
Oh come off it. Creationists deny the following sciences: Biology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry and Anthropology. And I know that it's not a science, but they also deny History.
oh, you mean the whacky young earthers?
maybe some of them do. i don't really know.
hell, you deny God. big deal on both of ya.
originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein
So two people who have reading comprehension problems. If the universe has always existed, when exactly would this "Poof and the universe is here" moment have occurred?
It always existed? So one day out of nowhere with nothing or nobody intervening, POOF the universe is made? Yes that is what you are saying.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: adnanmuf
Evolutionists are bum.they ignore evidence that ruin their fantacy they worked so hard on but only for themselves to believe in that fantacy of theirs that humans came from monkeys.human haters.
This is a standard creationist attack, straight out of AiG's playbook. We did not come from monkeys per se, we share a common ancestor.
I'm sorry, 'fairytale fantasy'??? I just listed two of our ancestors, one a hominid and one a pre-hominid. Did you google either of them?
originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Do you think I didn't see the date or something?
My point is that it still applys as far as the fossil record
after all this time.
Hence:
The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.
The present gaps, sound familiar? They were hoping for results in a few years weren't they?
So did it happen?
Or maybe my question is irrelevant again?
We are not out of the woods yet, though. The likelyhood of finding a fossil that represents an ancestor of any sort of other organism, a member of one of those queues of organisms between known organisms on a cladogram, is astronomically low. The chance is even lower when we look very deep into the fossil record - so much so, that we have almost certainly never found one.
Surprising? It shouldn't be - think about it. Groups of organisms are continually evolving, groups migrating, changing, constantly splitting from one another in a fractal way. Are we really likely to accidentally stumble across one particular animal that is a member of a group that is a direct ancestor of another group we know about? No, of course not.
We have to image the lines on a cladogram as being a zoomed out line of our ancestors, a long queue stretching back towards our common ancestor with the next twig. Its along these lines that we slowly change. If the organism bears a resemblance to another or seems to be transitional, it could well be on a myriad of small offshoots from our line of ancestors, and could even be close to our line, but the chances of it actually being on our line is tiny. Walking through an old graveyard, are any of the gravestones likely to be an ancestor of yours? How about a skull in an African cave? Or a fossil monkey in a swamp? Even taking into account pedigree collapse, its still highly unlikely.
Transitional fossils do exist. Its just that they aren't necessarily the precise ancestors of organisms that we see; rather, are members of a cloud of organisms treading along some of the same evolutionary ideas, being as they are closely related to one another. Out of this maelstrom of different lineages there may be just one thread that gives rise to another important lineage. The fossils in this cloud still give us a chance to test our hypotheses about how the trends may have occurred in the lineages we're interested in. But they may not necessarily a true link in the chain.
That's the true art of paleontology, you see: using examples from the fossil record to infer trends and to test hypotheses about the nature of evolution. To assume that it is simply trying to make a sort of flip-book of evolution through time is incredibly ignorant.
1. “Where is the missing link/ transitional fossils?”
First of all, it should be noted that fossils are not easily found. They are rare, as general conditions do not always favor the formation of fossils. This being said, we actually have a HUGE number of transitional fossils and links between species. While it’s true that we won’t be able to find every single fossil for every single species that has ever existed, we have more than enough to accept the fossil record as extremely important evidence. An analogy would be this: ABCD_FGHIJK_MNO_QRST_VW_YZ. We have some blanks, but we can pretty much figure out which letters (or in evolution’s case, species containing certain traits) fit into these holes. Keep in mind that not having a perfectly complete fossil record is NOT evidence against evolution. It simply implies that there’s still room for improvement, and we still continue to fill in the blanks with new fossil finds. Here is a great reference with an enormous listing of different fossils and links: www.talkorigins.org...
and here’s another: darwiniana.org...
and ::gasp:: here’s ANOTHER: www.holysmoke.org...
originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: adnanmuf
If you multiply your post million times, it still does not offer any evidence for your 'claim'. What single male, when that is not what DNA tells us. There is no chicken and egg, and we are not offspring of a single male.
That is not what DNA and evidence tells us, and that is not how evolution works.
originally posted by: randyvs
That's why there' s a book.
He is our Father in Heaven.
Book written by whom? How come large parts of that 'book' were plagiarized from Mesopotamia - from same folks whose religion now we call mythology. How is your religion any different then their mythology?
I will answer that - it's not.
You believe in something without any evidence, and you follow book that we have EVIDENCE that not only is wrong, but is plagiarizing some earlier religions that we today call mythology.
originally posted by: tsingtao
originally posted by: adnanmuf
Evolutionists are bum.they ignore evidence that ruin their fantacy they worked so hard on but only for themselves to believe in that fantacy of theirs that humans came from monkeys.human haters.
and bananas.