Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Just saying, it makes it less of a finger pointing post

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

The only people who point out flaws in Evolution and expect that to make ID or Creationism more correct are right wingers.

And your fallacy is lumping everyone who opposes Evolution due to the many obvious and prevalent flaws into a single group and telling them they believe in Creationism, which is completely different than ID.

[imind]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

You have no idea what ID is and no idea how many blatant flaws are in the current evolutionary theory.

please highlight some of these 'flaws' for us.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

You have no idea what ID is and no idea how many blatant flaws are in the current evolutionary theory.

ID isn't a valid scientific theory

[ballz2wallz]

fake

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Kytro

ID isn't a valid scientific theory

No, it's not. And neither is evolution.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

No, it's not. And neither is evolution.

[motivez]

How about you point out some of those flaws, Tek

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by motivez

How about you point out some of those flaws, Tek

I'm suprised, Motivez. We had a discussion about this on OT and you admitted yourself that evolution has some very blatant flaws.

Lack of evidence:
No fossils that show the progression from one species to another.

No fossil that shows a patially formed organ or a partially unformed one.

**NOTE** Keep in mind that in order to prove evolution using the scientific method you can't just have 1 or 2 examples out of 10 billion species. In order for evolution to be a fact it must be the RULE, meaning we should be able to show how EVERY species evolved and show the trail of organ change/attrophy from EVERY base species to EVERY advanced species.

Logical contradictions:
Evolution states that creatures evolve through genetic mutations guided by natural selection. That is, a certain organ slowly morphs into another organ or another organ slowly appears and then the previous organ attrophies. Despite the lack of evidence (as stated above), this goes against the entire theory of evolution. Why would a partially formed fin, a quarter formed lung, or a half-wing half-arm be advantageous? It would not. A rat whose arms started turning into wings would experience centuries of having half-arm half-wings and would be unable to survive or even compete.

[motivez]

I'll try to find the same link I did in the other thread, but there have been remnents of creatures found that show that they did start to move on land, etc..

Hell, humans have something that allowed us to digest rocks at some point.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by motivez

I'll try to find the same link I did in the other thread, but there have been remnents of creatures found that show that they did start to move on land, etc..

Hell, humans have something that allowed us to digest rocks at some point.

An exception does not make a rule, especially when trying to create a scientific law.

[motivez]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...0405_fish.html

Fossil Fish With "Limbs" Is Missing Link, Study Says

Researchers say the fish shows how fins on freshwater species first began transforming into limbs some 380 million years ago. The change was a huge evolutionary step that opened the way for vertebrates—animals with backbones—to emerge from the water.

"This animal represents the transition from water to land—the part of history that includes ourselves," said paleontologist Neil Shubin of the University of Chicago.

Shubin was co-leader of a team that uncovered three nearly complete fossils measuring up to nine feet (three meters) long on Ellesmere Island in 2004.

The new species, Tiktaalik roseae, had a flattened, crocodile-like head and strong, bony fins.

The large fish probably flexed and extended these fins like legs to help it move through shallow, subtropical waters or even on land, the team says.

The discovery marked the culmination of a five-year, 400-mile (650-kilometer) fossil hunt across the Arctic's frozen tundra. The National Geographic Society partially funded the project, which is to be detailed tomorrow in the journal Nature.

The fish shows other features characteristic of land animals, including ribs, a neck, and nostrils on its snout for breathing air.

The previously unknown creature is the closest known fish ancestor of land vertebrates, Shubin said.

It likely used its fins "to prop its body, much like we do when we do a push-up," he said.

Likewise, the animal's broad ribs would have supported its long, scaly trunk, adds team member Farish Jenkins of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Water supports the bodies of submerged fish, making strong ribs largely unecessary, "so this animal must have developed these structures for life in the shallows and making excursions on to land," Jenkins said.

Image: Fossil fish with fins like limbs appears to walk

Shubin says the fish's wide head and sharp teeth suggest it hunted much like a crocodile and that it also breathed air.

"Look at the side of the snout. It has a nice big pair of external nostrils," he said.

Tiktaalik could become an icon of evolution in action, write paleontologists Per Ahlberg of Sweden's Uppsala University and Jennifer A. Clack of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom in an accompanying commentary.

The paleontologists say the new fish form goes a long way toward filling the evolutionary gap between fish and the earliest amphibians.

"Our remote ancestors were large, flattish, predatory fishes," they write. "Strong limblike pectoral fins enabled them to haul themselves out of the water."

Evolutionary scientists agree that all four-limbed land vertebrates, including dinosaurs and mammals, are descended from lobe-fins, a group of primitive fishes with fins suggesting limbs.

Living lobe-fins include lungfish, which have gills but can also breathe air using modified swim bladders that act as lungs.

Tiktaalik would have breathed like a lungfish, says Clack, senior assistant curator at Cambridge's University Museum of Zoology.

"It's increasing its reliance on air, so it's not purely a gill-breather," she said.

This freshwater fish needed a large, wide head to pump air into its simple lungs.

"It's a sort of bellows arrangement," Clack explained. "The more air you can get in with a mouthful, the better."

Like a Croc

The creature's long snout seems to be adapted for snapping at prey and hunting with its head above water like a crocodile, Clack said.

"Snapping underwater is less efficient, because water pressure gets in the way," she added. "There would probably have been some large invertebrates around the water margins, or it might still have been feeding on small fishes and things in the water."

The creature also lacked the rigid bony covering over the head and shoulders that most fish have, effectively giving Tiktaalik a neck.

"The animal would have been able to lift its head from the water," Clack said.

The new fossils are so complete and well preserved that they "answer questions that previous material has been unable to answer," she added.

Ted Daeschler, co-leader of the fossil hunt, called the discovery "a dream come true."

"We knew that the rocks on Ellesmere Island offered a glimpse into the right time period and were formed in the right kinds of environments to provide the potential for finding [such] fossils," said Daeschler, curator of vertebrate biology at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Ellesmere Island is more than 600 miles (970 kilometers) north of the Arctic Circle in Canada's Nunavut territory.

Polar bears roam the now frigid region. But Nunavut's fossil-bearing rocks were formed when North America was part of a giant supercontinent that straddled the Equator.

Huge predators would have lurked in Tiktaalik's rivers and lakes, study co-leader Shubin says—perhaps one reason why Tiktaalik appears to have been headed for land.

"Land had no predators, and it also had food in the form of invertebrates," Shubin said.

"Put this all together and the shallows and mudflats might have been a good place to make a living."

There.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

I'll try to find the same link I did in the other thread, but there have been remnents of creatures found that show that they did start to move on land, etc..

Hell, humans have something that allowed us to digest rocks at some point.

i think even more importantly than 'remnants of creatures' would be creatues still alive today that reflect that transition...that to me is a logical flaw

[TekDragon]

Great You found one species link out of how many millions?

Face it, Motivez. If the discussion around evolution was not so religiously charged evolution would be considered a crack pot theory. It is being paraded around as a "fact" despite the lack of evidence for it being so overwhelming that supporters of it are forced to grab hold of extremely rare exceptions when a species they find finally does vaguely fit into their perception of reality.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

i think even more importantly than 'remnants of creatures' would be creatues still alive today that reflect that transition...that to me is a logical flaw

I've yet to run into a half bird/half squirrel, or any creature with a half formed organ for that matter. Guess evolution stopped a few millenia ago

[motivez]

What makes you think we'd be able to find these species easily?

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by motivez

What makes you think we'd be able to find these species easily?

They'd be the ones that can't walk because their feet are turning into fins and they can't walk or swim, lungs switching from processing water to processing air, so they can't breathe in either water or air, and have stomachs moving from eating fruit to eating nuts, so they can't digest either.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

What makes you think we'd be able to find these species easily?

let's assume for one second that evolution were in fact that blatantly obvious and transitional. let's assume, in fact, that amphibians did in fact crawl from the ocean beds where they were once fish. now, this you would claim happened over a period of hundreds of years. now, assuming the theory of evolution described exactly what happened, the mutations that occurred in a species were mutations that enabled them to further their existence...they were able to propogate. in order for a species to really 'take hold' and propogate and survive, they would have to do so in considerable numbers. thousands. millions. whatever it is, it's huge. i thikn you and i and everyone else could then agree that if this is indeed the case, the 'remnants', fossils, remains, and even transitional species today would be abundant. we know dinosaurs existed...how? because of the numerous fossils and proof we are able to find today. the same would be for all the species that have been around, right?

[TekDragon]

Another logical fallacy:

Why is it we always see ONE species and then another species. If evolution did occur, why don't we still see 10001 types of monkeys at some state of evolution between humans and monkeys? After all, we have monkeys... and we have humans. So where are all the species in between?