Conquer Club

jay_a2j wrote:

heavycola wrote:Do you get this? Even if you don't believe me, do you understand the principle behind the absence of half-man-half-fish fossils?

WHERE is the fossil of the half-man, have whatever we DIRECTLY evolved from....you don't have to go as far back to the fish.? Its not there. Case closed.

Oh you mean like a dinosaur with feathers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs

jay_a2j wrote:

heavycola wrote:Do you get this? Even if you don't believe me, do you understand the principle behind the absence of half-man-half-fish fossils?

WHERE is the fossil of the half-man, have whatever we DIRECTLY evolved from....you don't have to go as far back to the fish.? Its not there. Case closed.

What??? you haven't closed anything, jay, you just don't understand what i am trying to say.

Let's say that salmons' and humans' common ancestor is a little slimy sea-dwelling verterbrate. Like a newt. Are you suggesting that for evolution to work there should be a fossil (disregarding the paucity of the fossil record altogether) that is half-man-half-newt?

jay_a2j wrote:WHERE is the fossil of the half-man, have whatever we DIRECTLY evolved from....you don't have to go as far back to the fish.? Its not there. Case closed.

Man likely evolved from a genus called Australopithecus into our current genus, Homo. While Homo Sapiens are the only living example of the Homo genus there have been other species attribute to it, namely our ancestors. Homo habilis and Homo erectus were both our direct ancestors. Here's a link showing a gradual change going from the first Homo to Homo sapien.

http://park.org/Canada/Museum/man/evnman.html

I guess this isn't quite going from mosquito to pigeon, but it is a good "half-man" example.

heavycola wrote:Are you suggesting that for evolution to work there should be a fossil (disregarding the paucity of the fossil record altogether) that is half-man-half-newt?

If man evolved directly from a newt, yes. I want to see a fossil of newt developing a human-like skeletal system. Is that so much to ask?

jay_a2j wrote:

heavycola wrote:Are you suggesting that for evolution to work there should be a fossil (disregarding the paucity of the fossil record altogether) that is half-man-half-newt?

If man evolved directly from a newt, yes. I want to see a fossil of newt developing a human-like skeletal system. Is that so much to ask?

I was trying to establish whether you were imagining a man with gills, or a newt with a human face. The fossil record is very poor because the conditions necessary to from them happen so rarely, so yes, a half-man-half-newt is too much to ask.
Well, it turns the newt was a bit misleading anyway:

here's an interesting item from your beloved Fox News - it turns out ours and fishes common ancestor was... a small bony sea creature.

And here is another Fox News story about a recently discovered fossil that bridges the gap between fish and four-legged land animals.

if you won't listen to me, surely you 'll listen to Fox News?

heavycola wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:
if you won't listen to me, surely you 'll listen to Fox News?

I agree with most of the politics of foxnews....not their stance on evolution.

jay_a2j wrote:

heavycola wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:
if you won't listen to me, surely you 'll listen to Fox News?

I agree with most of the politics of foxnews....not their stance on evolution.

Yes but what did you think about the transitional fossil?

heavycola wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

heavycola wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:
if you won't listen to me, surely you 'll listen to Fox News?

I agree with most of the politics of foxnews....not their stance on evolution.

Yes but what did you think about the transitional fossil?

im pretty sure theres no way for jay to overturn that...

heavycola wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

heavycola wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:
if you won't listen to me, surely you 'll listen to Fox News?

I agree with most of the politics of foxnews....not their stance on evolution.

Yes but what did you think about the transitional fossil?

not much

jay_a2j wrote:

heavycola wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

heavycola wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:
if you won't listen to me, surely you 'll listen to Fox News?

I agree with most of the politics of foxnews....not their stance on evolution.

Yes but what did you think about the transitional fossil?

not much

please explain

" 405-million-year-old fossilized fish " C14 can not determine age over 80,000 years...so this figure is not accurate. The science of Carbon dating is flawed for starters. The rest is speculation stemming from incorrect data.

If there is a God would he really want Jay on his side

There are more ways to date fossils than C-14. If you'd paid attention in science, you'd know that.

joecoolfrog wrote:If there is a God would he really want Jay on his side

He doesn't need me on his side...I want to be there.

vtmarik wrote:There are more ways to date fossils than C-14. If you'd paid attention in science, you'd know that.

Actually, I liked Science class when I was in school. (except the chapter on evolution)

jay_a2j wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:If there is a God would he really want Jay on his side

He doesn't need me on his side...I want to be there.

vtmarik wrote:There are more ways to date fossils than C-14. If you'd paid attention in science, you'd know that.

Actually, I liked Science class when I was in school. (except the chapter on evolution)

I didnt say need I said want

jay_a2j wrote:" 405-million-year-old fossilized fish " C14 can not determine age over 80,000 years...so this figure is not accurate. The science of Carbon dating is flawed for starters. The rest is speculation stemming from incorrect data.

dude are you serious...they don't just guess.

jay_a2j wrote:" 405-million-year-old fossilized fish " C14 can not determine age over 80,000 years...so this figure is not accurate. The science of Carbon dating is flawed for starters. The rest is speculation stemming from incorrect data.

...
...
...
...

Are you serious?

jay_a2j wrote:" 405-million-year-old fossilized fish "

has nothing to do with....

C14 can not determine age over 80,000 years...so this figure is not accurate. The science of Carbon dating is flawed for starters.

Actually i think the figure for C14 dating is 70,000 years. There are other ways of dating fossils, jay.
And DID YOU KNOW that in the 1830s (before Darwin published Origin of Species) geologists began using fossils to date layers of rock? The oldest layers of rock contain no fossils - they appear in slightly younger rock, and the life forms fossilised get progressively more complicated as teh rock gets younger! And this has been shown to be true, without exception, all over the world.

jay_a2j wrote:Actually, I liked Science class when I was in school. (except the chapter on evolution)

Er, judging from what you've said in this thread, you wouldn't have liked the chapters on radioactivity, geology and, I dare say, other areas as well, I'd have to check.

In fact, I'm wondering if the only bit of the science textbook you liked was the sticker on the front saying "Evolution is just a theory"...

Stopper wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Actually, I liked Science class when I was in school. (except the chapter on evolution)

Er, judging from what you've said in this thread, you wouldn't have liked the chapters on radioactivity, geology and, I dare say, other areas as well, I'd have to check.

In fact, I'm wondering if the only bit of the science textbook you liked was the sticker on the front saying "Evolution is just a theory"...

Actually, in 8th grade I remember my Science teacher saying, " I don't believe it and you don't have to either but I have to teach it." (He was talking about evolution)

jay_a2j wrote:

Stopper wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Actually, I liked Science class when I was in school. (except the chapter on evolution)

Er, judging from what you've said in this thread, you wouldn't have liked the chapters on radioactivity, geology and, I dare say, other areas as well, I'd have to check.

In fact, I'm wondering if the only bit of the science textbook you liked was the sticker on the front saying "Evolution is just a theory"...

Actually, in 8th grade I remember my Science teacher saying, " I don't believe it and you don't have to either but I have to teach it." (He was talking about evolution)

What a bastard.

i did a project with another person on some of the issues regarding teaching creationism in public schools and ill admit, this type of mentality isnt as uncommon as you might think, given that you may assume that science teachers would be more likely to hold evolution in higher regard to creationism.

Snorri1234 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Stopper wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Actually, I liked Science class when I was in school. (except the chapter on evolution)

Er, judging from what you've said in this thread, you wouldn't have liked the chapters on radioactivity, geology and, I dare say, other areas as well, I'd have to check.

In fact, I'm wondering if the only bit of the science textbook you liked was the sticker on the front saying "Evolution is just a theory"...

Actually, in 8th grade I remember my Science teacher saying, " I don't believe it and you don't have to either but I have to teach it." (He was talking about evolution)

What a bastard.

This made me laugh out loud, which I rarely do. Congrats. While I am a bit surprised, I wouldn't go so far too call him a bastard. I don't mean to be digging too far in, but where did you live at the time?

Frigidus wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Stopper wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Actually, I liked Science class when I was in school. (except the chapter on evolution)

Er, judging from what you've said in this thread, you wouldn't have liked the chapters on radioactivity, geology and, I dare say, other areas as well, I'd have to check.

In fact, I'm wondering if the only bit of the science textbook you liked was the sticker on the front saying "Evolution is just a theory"...

Actually, in 8th grade I remember my Science teacher saying, " I don't believe it and you don't have to either but I have to teach it." (He was talking about evolution)

What a bastard.

This made me laugh out loud, which I rarely do. Congrats. While I am a bit surprised, I wouldn't go so far too call him a bastard. I don't mean to be digging too far in, but where did you live at the time?

Yes...where/when exactly was a science teacher required to teach creation in the classroom?

my teacher was