PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Transitional Fossils

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, creationists claim there are NO transitional fossils.  But from some of the exchanges we've had, it appears most of the creationists making this claim, at least on this forum, don't even know what a transitional fossil is.  Seems kind of funny that these creationists, who know nothing about science and have examined exactly 0 fossils in depth, claim that none are transitional while the experts have found 100s of thousands of clearly transitional fossils.  
So let's start simple, can any resident creationist tell us what a transitional fossil is and why it's transitional?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:55 AM on August 21, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon, give it up.

Trying to get a creationist to honesty debate this issue is futile. 99.99% of creationists who post on boards have no intention of educating themselves to the actual facts and no intention of honestly debating.

Most creationists can't even define evolution. You think that they can define a transitional fossil?

But in case you're looking for a list of trans fossils,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
try that
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 03:08 AM on August 22, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon, give it up.

yeah, I know.  But you would think that when the creationists claim that no transitional fossils have been found, they would at least know what a transitional fossil is.
We see this pattern again and again.  When lists and lists of clearly transitonal fossils are presented to them, creationists invariably get in a huff and run off...Like I said before, heck of a way to debate!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:07 PM on August 22, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationists don't debate.

They spam. When was the last time you've seen a creationist actually defend their argument?
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 9:29 PM on August 22, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're absolutely right.  We haven't seen any creationists here actually debating intelligently in a long time...  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:03 PM on August 23, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey Demon!Hey Obvious C!

Guys, I have to ask whether our intention is to actually debate the creationists? If so, I believe we should have a more scientific approach to it, like for example Richard Dawkins or Michael Shermer. We donīt need to use any unnecessary bad language, this will just give them ammunition for their belief that we are "evil" and "damned". Letīs just stick to the issue.

Iīm quite sad that Beaner has left our previous thread, one to which you both, especially you Demon, contributed greatly and intellectually!

Hopefully some creationist will show up and we can have a mature conversation again. Cheers guys!


-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, itīs not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 2:44 PM on August 23, 2008 | IP
Baconsbud

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have to agree with all of you. I believe the main reason most creationist avoid a real debate is they know to have a good chance they must have a working knowledge of both sides. If they actually sit down and learn about evolution it might weaken their beliefs. I have seen many comments on other broads where creationist have said they have no reason to look into anything about evolution because they know their beliefs are the right ones.
  I'm of the mind that until more creationist actually learn the truth of evolution they will continue to make themselves look like robots just repeating what they have been told is the right defense against it.


-------
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 4:13 PM on August 23, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Reason4All at 2:44 PM on August 23, 2008 :
Hey Demon!Hey Obvious C!

Guys, I have to ask whether our intention is to actually debate the creationists?


Debate requires both sides to agree to a certain framework. Creationists outright refuse this framework. At the best all we can do is show their arguments to be poor, incorrect and dishonest. And we have to realize that the vast majority of them will be posting the same argument in a short period of time either here or elsewhere. Like I said, they spam.

The fundamental problem with trying to discredit creationists is that our arguments take work, evidence and effort where they are simply spamming refuted garbage. For every argument they make, we spend far longer in time. Eventually they will win purely through time attrition.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 7:28 PM on August 23, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guys, I have to ask whether our intention is to actually debate the creationists? If so, I believe we should have a more scientific approach to it, like for example Richard Dawkins or Michael Shermer. We donīt need to use any unnecessary bad language, this will just give them ammunition for their belief that we are "evil" and "damned". Letīs just stick to the issue.

Come on Reason4All, Beaner was advocating let the kids decide what is right and what is wrong.  When I pointed out how stupid that would be Beaner didn't respond.  I found that
every claim Beaner made, someone refuted him, completely.  Instead of discussing counter claims, Beaner ignored the counter claim  and simply moved on to the next faulty argument.
This person wasn't here for a debate, Beaner couldn't be bothered to respond to out responses, responses that took a hell of lot more effort than Beaner put into cut and pasting his claims.  
I'm here to debate, if creationists want to do the same, they should be prepared to back up their claims.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:36 PM on August 24, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Anybody want to get back on track and talk about transitional fossils?  As has been stated before, there are thousands and thousands of clearly transtional fossils out there.  How do creationists explain them?  Why are Tiktaalic fossils, for example,  NOT transitional?  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:27 AM on August 26, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From Wikipedia:

Tiktaalik lived approximately 375 million years ago. Paleontologists suggest that it was an intermediate form between fish such as Panderichthys, which lived about 380 million years ago, and early tetrapods such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, which lived about 365 million years ago.

Tiktaalik represents and intermediate form between fish and amphibians. Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, Tiktaalik's 'fins' have basic wrist bones and simple fingers, showing that they were weight bearing. Close examination of the joints show that although they probably were not used to walk, they were more than likely used to prop up the creature’s body, push up fashion.[5] The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets, suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex like a wrist joint. These wrist-like features would have helped anchor the creature to the bottom in fast moving current.[6][7]

The more robust ribcage of Tiktaalik would have helped support the animal’s body any time it ventured outside a fully aquatic habitat. Tiktaalik also lacked a characteristic that most fishes have - bony plates in the gill area that restrict lateral head movement. This makes Tiktaalik the earliest known fish to have a neck. This would give the creature more freedom in hunting prey either on land or in the shallows.

Also notable are the spiracles on the top of the head, which suggest the creature had primitive lungs as well as gills. This would have been useful in shallow water, where higher water temperature would lower oxygen content. This development may have led to the evolution of a more robust ribcage, a key evolutionary trait of land living creatures.

Characteristics of Tiktaalik:

Fish
 - fish gills
 - fish scales

"Fishapod"
 - half-fish, half-tetrapod limb bones and joints, including a functional wrist joint and radiating, fish-like fins instead of toes
 - half-fish, half-tetrapod ear region

Tetrapod
 - tetrapod rib bones
 - tetrapod mobile neck
 - tetrapod lungs

So why would you say Tiktaalik wasn't a transitional creature?  I guess you'll have to define what 'transitional' means.  

Tiktaalik wasn't 'trying' to adapt to land, evolutionary processes were just allowing it (and creatures like it) to adapt and take advantage of an environmental niche that was available -  food supply, perhaps escape from preditors itself, things like that.

Evolution is not a linear process, it's not a ladder with a clear chain of successional forms.  The evolutionary process is more like a bush or tree, with multiple creatures showing similar development in a certain direction.  Some didn't go anywhere evolutionary-wise, others led to new species developing further.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 02:02 AM on August 26, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 8:36 PM on August 24, 2008 :

Come on Reason4All, Beaner was advocating let the kids decide what is right and what is wrong.  When I pointed out how stupid that would be Beaner didn't respond.  


Demon38, I am in total agreement with you that Beaners claims were illogical, at best! But using words such as "stupid" and "moron", and ridiculing the opponent doesnīt actually lead anywhere, it just strangles the debate, I believe. If you do in fact think that Beaner is stupid, just rely on your arguments to prove him so, no need in expressing it so that a hostile atmosphere is created.

Iīm sorry for seeming to teach you anything, as I am a great admirer of your posts here and consider you a very intellectual and intelligent person, I hope you donīt take this as a patronizing attempt from me to direct you in anyway, itīs just a suggestion my friend, and I might be wrong.

Maybe I should start a thread on how to debate a creationist? haha now that would be arrogant!

All the best!



-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, itīs not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 10:37 AM on August 26, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Reason4All

Does it really matter? Creationists like Beaner aren't going to change their mind period. Just because we treat him nice isn't going to result in him actually looking at the facts and arguing honestly using honest arguments. Virtually all of the creationists I've met online are dishonest POS who will twist, distort and lie independent of how others treat them. When they get refuted, they just get up and leave, to post the same arguments somewhere else. This one creationist spammed 4 different boards with the same argument after he was refuted.

Maybe I should start a thread on how to debate a creationist? haha now that would be arrogant!


The best way to debate a creationist is to start by asking them what they know. Generally they shoot themselves in the foot.

A great way to get them to leave is to show that their belief makes their God a liar and their lives a contradiction.



(Edited by Obvious_child 8/27/2008 at 05:51 AM).
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 05:50 AM on August 27, 2008 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

Đ YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
Đ 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.