Hellbender

When creationists obsess over "transitionals" they are talking about organisms that straddle the line between 2 major types of animals. You are right, however when you say everything is transitional.

*SIGH* why do I get the feeling that you will dismiss every transitional we provide as a hoax? Thank you for proving me right, btw, see the bottom of post #52. Read my quote, posted by capn' above. I have a question for creationists: how many years is it going to be before you stop using long-defrauded hoaxes like these to attack evolution? You do know that they are no longer considered examples of human ancestors in bioanthropology textbooks, and haven't been for over 50 years, right?

Oh yeah, and the list was still pretty long.

The funny thing is, I almost think those "Chick Tracts" are parodies.

so much for debate. Every point we make to you is either ignored, or goalpost-shifted (can't think of a better way to put that). What do you want us to do? you are presenting ID as science, and we reserve the right to point out its logical flaws (of which there are many). If you are going to argue against the theory we are defending, we will do the same. so far you have not revealed anything, except the fact that you know nothing about evolution, like to talk down to us like we are a bunch of idiots, and are generally your garden-variety creationist, the likes of which we have dealt with countless times in the past. Try actually going to the sites we recommend. We can, if you let us. But you continue to cry foul whenever someone attacks creationism, and simply shift the goalposts whenever a good point is made. I'll ask you, what part(s) of modern evolutionary theory do you have a problem with (and your ad hominem about darwin being a supposed racist is not a part of the science, whether it is true or not). A hack theory? Why then have scientists stuck by it for so long? Why has it been around formore than a century? Why is it now considered a foundation of modern biology? Why must people like you resort to logical fallacies such as ad hominem attacks to argue against it? Read the "Intelligent" Design thread. At the end, Mokele lists all the transitionals between lobe-finned fish and humans. Its quite impressive, and I didn't even know we were able to find that many. The problem creationists have with transitional forms is that there are lots of them, and it is one of the simplest disproofs (in their eyes) of creationism. So what do they do? Pretend they don't exist, pretend they are hoaxed, focus on the organisms whose evolutionary histories are not complete, refuse to admit the fossil fits their idea of "transitional" or ask for transitionals between the transitionals. edit: and I can guarantee that you will do at least one of the above after reading bascule's caption on Archaeopteryx.

In a way yes, (as technological innovation can mimic the process of natural selection, if you want to think about it that way). But comparing something non-living to something that is alive and has the capacity to reproduce, and therefore, evolve makes for a blatantly dishonest analogy. You make it sound like biologists need to deliberately hoax fossil evidence of human common ancestry just to prove their theory. Nebraska man (I believe) was a case of an incompetant scientist rushing to conclusions. Mistakes happen, but we don't focus on them. Other hoaxes such as the piltdown man are the result of conmen trying to make money. Why don't creationists focus on genuine fossil discoveries, I wonder? ID makes a point not to be (although we all know its roots lie in religious conservatives), making it the sneakiest form of creationism out there. Pot calling the kettle black. and I'm sure we will see more of the same from you To quote Phi: "read". First of all, just becuase an organism shares a resemblance with ancestral forms, it does not mean it has gone unchanged. Second, if their environmental niche has remained somewhat stable, there is no reason why a particular organism couldn't go unchanged. Not true. Most aspects of evolution have been verified experimentally, such as natual selection, speciation, etc. All have been, and continue to be the subject of rigorous experimentation. Right now I am reading a book called "The Beak of the Finch", and pretty much every chapter goes into some sort of evolutionary experiment done by a biologist.

True, I guess I mean negligable compared to eating white bread and cake.

given enough time..possibly.

even if the conditions were made the same or similar, founder effect and random drift can still occur. These may not always be as drastic as natural selection, but it is still evolution.

Nicholas Cage??? Come on, they should pick someone different for a movie like that. Seriously.

Although #3 sounds like the most fun, I would pick #2 as well. Skye's sage advice makes sense. I have a lot of elective choices, but I always try to pick ones that can may help me in the long run.

- All guns ought to be elimated from the planet! Disagree - Homosexuality should be a federal crime! Disagree - All drug users should be mandatorily sterilized! Agree - Death penalty should be option for all crimes! Disagree - The ACLU is a terrorist organization! Disagree - Everything IMM says is the gospel truth! Agree - Woman shouldnt work in the military or office! Disagree - Hospitals shouldnt be treat the poor! Disagree - People who develop cancers from smoking should not be treated! Undecided - HIV/AIDS is God's punishment against the homosexuals! Disagree - Immigrants should be deported or thrown in prison! Disagree - Abortion doctors should be put to death! Disagree - Government is an unnecessary evil! Disagee - Taxes are a form of theft! Agree - Michael Moore for president! Umm disagree - Voluntarily childless couples are evil and selfish! Disagree - Legal drugs! All of them! Disagree

What other things? Surely he does worse crap to illicit this kind of hatred (not that disrespecting soldiers isn't bad enough).

How old are you? I take it you are in high school? There's your problem. I had the same problem. High school girls (and guys) are generally a different breed. Now that I am more mature, my approach works, but it didn't in high school when girls are generally looking for cocky, decidedly more aggressive guys. If you mean that your hobbies and interests are all over the place, thats not so uncommon. Its better to have interests in a broad range of things. Later on, girls may find this really attractive. I had this problem too. Overcoming shyness is gradual. Once you take one step, you are open to another then another, until you discover you aren't shy anymore. Its hard, its scary and it may take a while, but its worth it. For most people, the first step is the hardest, but it gets a little easier after that. As much as people like to say "looks don't matter", it is still true that they help. There is hope though. And who's to say that some girl in the future may see something about you that she likes. Who knows? Yeah.... maybe, um.....yeah... Nah, this is what this thread has turned into. I was in your shoes before, and feel your pain. I was always the "friend" or the "big brother" figure. I hated it. So I got tired of it, and did something about it. You just gotta make yourself available, make yourself unique and make yourself fun to be around. Good luck.

Wow, i was wondering why he was banned..damn.

Me neither. I'm sure he is a bad man, but the links don't say much about him except for some faint hints of racism. Anyone care to provide more background info instead of ways you want to kill him?

I agree with YT. As I have said before, between me and my girlfriend, I am the better cook, hence, I do the cooking. There is no biological reason for women to have some of the roles they are traditionally assigned.

Use the search function. Just about every creationist argument has been refuted by us. Also, there are a lot of good sites that refute them too.

The links didn't provide much background info. Exactly what is this Michael Crook's claim to fame?

I am sorry, usually I am pretty easy going, but members like buzsaw and herme3 get me frustrated pretty quick. I'll stop posting in this thread, as I don't want to earn myself a warning.

My real question was why do you think that they don't teach creationism in schools? Why should one have to go to a church official to learn about supposed science? You see where I'm going here? Yeah, but they are frequently dishonest. If they come out with evidence that may not fit the bible, they usually ad hoc the crap out of it. You see doing science is to help better understand the world, and hopefull apply what we find to better humanity as a whole. Trying to do science for the sake of proving dogma is not doing science. Some scientists, (stop calling them "secularists". You know, I know and I know that you know that all scientists aren't atheists. You just think that scientists who don't run around with a bible, trying to find data that prove it true, are all athiests. Shame on them them for doing their jobs properly.) likely believe in some metaphysics, but by definition, it can't be detected or measured, hence it is ignored when they are trying to do good science. Really? Wow, that convinced me.

LOL I wasn't equating you to him! I was saying (sarcastically) that my surprise was akin to....oh nevermind.

All I have to say is; Chemical Castration.

I see buzsaw glossed over all the major points in my last post. What a surprise. This is my face right now . I'm as surprised as I was when OJ Simpson was acquitted. Seriously.

Thanks for posting this, Martin. I will be sure to catch it.