Our Message: You Can Transform Your Life and Solve Your Problems by Escaping America for a Better Life & Love Overseas! Discover Friendlier People, Social Connection, Saner Cultures, Lower Cost Living, Healthier Food, Greater Freedoms and More!
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
One fossil in a billion is preserved correctly according to geology, just look at how long the Dino reigned here ( 100's of millions of years ) and how big and plentiful they were and geologist have a hard time finding complete specimens of them. So then take like a smaller life form, I believe the last time I looked the average living specimen series lives here on earth for like 3 million years before it goes extinct and then only like one in a billion bones ( or is it complete specimens ? ) is preserved correctly. You then see why there would be lots of gaps in the chain when a very limited amount of people have been piecing the Earth's story of life together over the last 150 years and most life forms are not very big.
Exactly. There were many dinosaurs. However for some reason, they don't find complete specimens. They've extrapolated a whole lot of nonsense over small fragments of bone. You cannot infer anything from one small piece of bone. Neither can you reconstruct a whole animal from a single, small body part. But this is what these archaeologists have done with their science, and everyone believes them and their lies.
There shouldn't be any gaps because there have been hundreds of millions of animals over millions of years, which means there should literally be tons of evidence everywhere around us. Yet there isn't.
Exactly. There were many dinosaurs. However for some reason, they don't find complete specimens. They've extrapolated a whole lot of nonsense over small fragments of bone. You cannot infer anything from one small piece of bone. Neither can you reconstruct a whole animal from a single, small body part. But this is what these archaeologists have done with their science, and everyone believes them and their lies.
There shouldn't be any gaps because there have been hundreds of millions of animals over millions of years, which means there should literally be tons of evidence everywhere around us. Yet there isn't.
Best thing of all is that you will continue to lie no matter the evidence presented. Your usual tactic about people and knowledge.
Can't expect much from a child f***er I guess.
Exactly. There were many dinosaurs. However for some reason, they don't find complete specimens. They've extrapolated a whole lot of nonsense over small fragments of bone. You cannot infer anything from one small piece of bone. Neither can you reconstruct a whole animal from a single, small body part. But this is what these archaeologists have done with their science, and everyone believes them and their lies.
There shouldn't be any gaps because there have been hundreds of millions of animals over millions of years, which means there should literally be tons of evidence everywhere around us. Yet there isn't.
Best thing of all is that you will continue to lie no matter the evidence presented. Your usual tactic about people and knowledge.
Can't expect much from a child f***er I guess.
Even in the first article itself, they openly admit they were making reconstructions before they even had much of the material to extrapolate from. From the first wiki page:
Original skull of the type specimen (CM 9380), inaccurately restored with plaster after Allosaurus, before a complete T. rex skull was known
They even admit they lie sometimes. Most of the bone structure of this particular species of dinosaur had been found until the 1980s. And most, if not all, of the dinosaurs on display in museums are reconstructions, not originals.
Thanks for the insults. Any time a reprobate insults me, that's as good as a blessing.
A good man is above pettiness. He is better than that.
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
El_Caudillo wrote:Who says there aren't any transitional species? Archaeopteryx was a bird with dinosaur features. It is classified as a bird only for the need to classify it as something. What about early whales having their nostrils further forward on the nose like land mammals? Their nostrils gradually moved back to facilitate breathing on the surface of the ocean. Sure it would be good to have more transitional fossils - but the nature of the fossil record is that it is incomplete because the conditions for a complete animal to be preserved rarely happen. If life was brought here by a comet, where did it land? How did life survive the crash, let alone the high speed ride through the universe? Did all species get here on that comet? Why should we chose a very undeveloped theory over a more developed one?
Accepting micro evolution and not macro is like doing the same thing with economics or anthropology, which seems illogical to me.
If you are looking for a half-reptile half mammal you really don't get it. You need to look for the common ancestor of each...i.e the fish.
The "life being brought here by a comet" theory is not fringe. It's accepted in orthodox science. Didn't you know that? One of the co-discoverers of DNA postulated it and it is considered a valid theory by establishment science. The reason for this theory is that abiogenesis could not be proven in the lab. They cannot explain how the first living cell came to be and then began replicating. They hoped they could prove it by having lightning strike a pool of mud to create the first living cells, but that experiment kept failing completely. So they came up with the the comet theory. To this day, no one knows how the first living cells evolved on Earth. Do you have a better theory El_Caudillo?
Ok well then, if reptiles and birds evolved from a fish ancestor, then where are the transitional species between fish and birds? Do you think an ancestor fish can become a bird overnight? lol
Also your video about miracles is not relevant here. It's also not true that anecdotal evidence is weak evidence. It's not that simple. See my webpage debunking that pseudoskeptical theory here:
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Winston wrote:
The "life being brought here by a comet" theory is not fringe. It's accepted in orthodox science. Didn't you know that? One of the co-discoverers of DNA postulated it and it is considered a valid theory by establishment science. The reason for this theory is that abiogenesis could not be proven in the lab. They cannot explain how the first living cell came to be and then began replicating. They hoped they could prove it by having lightning strike a pool of mud to create the first living cells, but that experiment kept failing completely. So they came up with the the comet theory. To this day, no one knows how the first living cells evolved on Earth. Do you have a better theory El_Caudillo?
Ok well then, if reptiles and birds evolved from a fish ancestor, then where are the transitional species between fish and birds? Do you think an ancestor fish can become a bird overnight? lol
Also your video about miracles is not relevant here. It's also not true that anecdotal evidence is weak evidence. It's not that simple. See my webpage debunking that pseudoskeptical theory here:
I saw that on an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation about 20 years ago. Science is nothing but science fiction when it comes to evolutionary biology and astrophysics. It is all just the fantasies of a bunch of geeks who want to believe this stuff is real. And they hate God because they are filthy perverts.
A good man is above pettiness. He is better than that.
I was going to PM you, but our debate may be of interest to others (and hopefully not the historical record). As well as defending evolution and the round earth you have got me interested in supporting (what I guess) is the mainstream argument (these days) that the relative stages of development of different cultures are not due to racial differences. I also think it's important to talk about this as this forum is really getting too much for me on the women and race hate. I initially thought that the Mayans going from the classical Mayan period with advanced science to the post-classic ignorant stage was a good example of one race going through a natural ebb and flow. Then there is Angkor Watt in Cambodia...that must have been one of the most sophisticated buildings in the world when built, what made the Khmer go backward after that? Rome's final degradation and fall is another example. I looked for someone smarter than me who'd written about these things...
This doco 'Guns, Germs and Steel' gives us a number of interesting theories for relative development. It's based on a very popular book. Although I'm suspecting the author of the original book to be a bit affected by the politically correct movement. Some might say you have to heed them to sell any books? Also it's Nat Geo which is very mainstream I know. Hey and also the author claims the average Hunter Gatherer is smarter than somebody living in a modern city. A hunter gatherer needs to be smart to hunt and survive warfare, while the modern office worker isn't even smart enough to think about searching in google for something other than buzzfeed while on the subway! Anyway here is the doco...
Winston...you yourself have admitted you don't know much about biology. Transitional species between fish and bird? Overnight? That's like asking where is the transitional species between man and amoeba! Evolution is not like Bumblebee turning from a robot to car in a manner of seconds so he can give Megan Fox and Shia LeBouef a ride.
As for the comet - certainly I can go with the idea that one cell organisms originally came here on a comet. Bacteria have been proven to be able to survive conditions in space...i.e. radiation, lack of oxygen. But I'm assuming the comet wasn't a Noah's ark with all our current species on it two by two - so then we come back to evolution.
Another theory which is interesting is that life originally came to earth on a piece of rock from Mars. The red planet according to some once had the conditions necessary to support life...
Look science does not have all the answers but we are communicating world wide at the speed of light from the gifts science has given us so it's better to go with what has gotten us here.
Only one specimen in a billion is preserved correctly by geological processes. Take into account how long dinosaurs were here and how few of them are preserved and you get the idea what it really means. This means finding transitional fossils is very difficult and we have used very little resources to do this over the last 100 years or so since scientist have been on this endeavor.
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
El_Caudillo wrote:Another theory which is interesting is that life originally came to earth on a piece of rock from Mars. The red planet according to some once had the conditions necessary to support life...
BTW are you suggesting just because science doesn't know how the first cell came into being that all its affirmations are suspect?
No I'm not suggesting that. But science doesn't have all the answers and it changes a lot with politics and money. There is politics in science too, did you know that? It's not completely objective.
All I'm suggesting is that you research both sides on all these issues we've been talking about. Then make up your own mind after hearing the best arguments from both sides. I think that's a logical approach. That's why I sent you the links that I did by PM.
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
El_Caudillo wrote:Another theory which is interesting is that life originally came to earth on a piece of rock from Mars. The red planet according to some once had the conditions necessary to support life...
BTW are you suggesting just because science doesn't know how the first cell came into being that all its affirmations are suspect?
No I'm not suggesting that. But science doesn't have all the answers and it changes a lot with politics and money. There is politics in science too, did you know that? It's not completely objective.
All I'm suggesting is that you research both sides on all these issues we've been talking about. Then make up your own mind after hearing the best arguments from both sides. I think that's a logical approach. That's why I sent you the links that I did by PM.
I have come to the conclusion our rulers want to take most of us back in time in a lot of ways in most places around the world so they are putting out horse $hit for science to form a certain belief system in the dumb peasants. They are locking the real science away for themselves and their breakaway civilization for the learned ones!
All this science twisting goes hand and hand into the receivers of the bankruptcy playing games just like creating the mythical state of Israel and making the bible look real to pacify the idiots........
Check out this lecture by creationist Kent Hovind, Ph. D, exposing evolution and promoting creationism. Here is gives 100 reasons why evolution is stupid.
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
