Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What's more probable?
06-19-2011, 07:29 AM (This post was last modified: 06-19-2011 07:50 AM by fxmikey.)
Post: #11
RE: What's more probable?
I thought you understood science? What i write is based on scientific studies! Actual scientists that have critically reviewed this subject. So to answer your impertinent accusation that i am lying check out the papers for yourself (references at the bottom)
You get your information in exactly the same way! scientific study remember!

Now to critically answer your one example above!

When evolutionists wish to cite evidence for evolution, they almost always point to the alleged reptile-to-mammal transition!

A Critical Review of the Evidence of The Jaw Joint

Now let us consider the two creatures, Morganucodon and Kuehneotherium that supposedly represent the most definitive transitional forms between reptiles and mammals. These are the creatures that, it is claimed, possessed the mammal-type jaw-joint side by side with the reptile-type jaw-joint. In mammals there is a single bone in each half of the lower jaw, called the dentary, since it bears the teeth, and this bone articulates directly with the squamosal area of the skull. Reptiles have six bones in each half of the lower jaw. Articulation of the jaw with the skull is indirect, with the articular (one of the bones of the jaw) articulating with the quadrate bone of the skull, a bone not found in mammals. Another fundamental difference between reptiles and mammals is the fact that all reptiles, living or fossil, have a single bone in the ear, a rod-like bone known as the columella, which connects the tympanum (eardrum) to the inner ear. Mammals possess three bones in the ear called the stapes, incus, and malleus, which connect the cochlea to the tympanum. Evolutionists maintain that the stapes corresponds to the columella and that the quadrate and articular bones of the reptile somehow moved into the ear to become, respectively, the incus and malleus bones of the mammalian ear. No explanation is given how the intermediates managed to hear while this was going on.

Another difficulty with the above notion is the fact that while thousands of fossil reptiles have been found which possess a single ear bone and multiple jaw bones, and thousands of fossil mammals have been found which possess three ear bones and a single bone in the jaw, not a single fossil creature has ever been found which represents an intermediate stage, such as one possessing three bones in the jaw and two bones in the ear.

Morganucodon3 and Kuehneotherium4 each possessed a full complement of the reptilian bones in its lower jaw. Furthermore, there was no reduction in the functional importance of the reptilian (quadrate-articular) jaw-joint, even though these creatures are supposed to be intermediates between reptiles and mammals, allegedly possessing a mammalian (squamosal-dentary) jaw-joint in addition to the reptilian jaw-joint. Kermack, et al., state "The most striking characteristic of the assessory jaw bones of Morganucodon is their cynodont character. Compared with such a typical advanced cynodont as Cynognathus, the accessory bones present show no reduction, either in size or complexity of structure. In particular, the actual reptilian jaw-joint itself was relatively as powerful in the mammal, Morganucodon, as it was in the reptile Cynognathus. This was quite unexpected."3 (We would interject here that we emphatically reject the idea of calling Morganucodon a mammal.)

These authors relate that it has long been generally held by evolutionists that there was a progressive weakening of the jaw joint in passing from early to late cynodonts, which weakening continued into the first mammals (the cynodonts were "advanced" mammal-like reptiles). This is what one would predict if mammals evolved from reptiles and there was thus a gradual evolutionary replacement of the reptilian jaw-joint by the mammalian jaw-joint. Kermack and his co-workers now reject this idea since the reptilian jaw-joint of Cynognathus was extremely powerful and the lower jaw of Morganucodon closely resembled that of Cynognathus.

There is no doubt whatsoever therefore, that Morganucodon had a powerful standard reptilian type jaw-joint. Although almost all of the available material related to Morganucodon consists of disarticulated bones (the individual bones are scattered about) and almost all of the individual bones consist of fragments, a fragment of a jaw was recovered with the quadrate bone still in contact with the articular bone, leaving no doubt about the existence of a reptilian jaw-joint in this creature. But did Morganucodon and Kuehneotherium have, in addition to this reptilian jaw-joint, a point of contact between the dentary and squamosal and, if so, does this indicate the incipient formation of a mammalian type jaw-joint?

Kermack and his colleagues certainly believe that this has been established for Morganucodon and Kuehneotherium (it is also said to have been accomplished in several other groups of mammal-like reptiles6). What is the basis for this belief? Regardless of how strongly this belief is held, it rests on inference. The evidence is extremely fragmentary and no fossils are available showing the dentary in actual contact with the squamosal of the skull. In fact, not even a single intact lower jaw is available, all such specimens being reconstructed from fragments.

What is the evidence for a squamosal-dentary joint in these creatures? This evidence consists of an alleged condyle on the dentary. A condyle is a rounded process at the end of a bone forming a ball and socket joint with the hollow part (termed the fossa) of another bone. In mammals there is a very prominent condyle on the posterior end of the dentary which articulates to the squamosal bone of the skull. The squamosal contains a fossa for the reception of the condyle and the contact forms the jaw-joint. With Morganucodon and Kuehneotherium, the dentary extends sufficiently posteriorly to encourage the belief that it made contact with the squamosal and the alleged point of contact on the dentary is called the condyle.

Whether the dentary bone of these creatures actually made contact with the squamosal can only be inferred. But if there had been a real contact between the dentary and squamosal, could it be said that this constituted a mammalian jaw-joint which existed alongside the reptilian jaw-joint? We must remember that these creatures had a fully-developed, powerful reptilian jaw-joint. The anatomy required for such a jaw-joint, including the arrangement and mode of attachment of musculature, must be quite different from that required for a mammalian jaw-joint. How then could a powerful, fully-functional reptilian jaw-joint be accommodated along with a mammalian jaw-joint?

References

1. S.G. Gould and Niles Eldredge, Poleobiology, V. 3, p. 147 (1977).
2. Niles Eldredge, as quoted by Boyce Rensberger (New York Times News Service) in the Houston Chronicle, Sec. 4, November 5. 1980, p. 15.
3. K.A. Kermack, F. Mussett and H.W. Rigney, Zool J. Linn. Soc., V. 53, No. 2 p. 157 (1973).
4. D.M. Kermack, K.A. Kermack and F. Mussett, Zool. J. Linn. Soc., V. 47, No. 312 p. 418 (1968).
5. Ref. 3, p. 119.
6. A.W. Crompton and F.A. Jenkins, Jr., "Origin of Mammals" in Mesozoic Mammals, J.A. Lillegraven, et al., Eds., U. of California Press, Berkeley, 1979, p. 62.
7. G.A. Manley, Evolution, V. 26, No. 4 p. 608 (1972).

Other articles that may be consulted:

A.W. Crompton and F.A. Jenkins, Jr., "Mammals from Reptiles: A Review of Mammalian Origins", Ann. Rev. Earth and Plan. Sci., V. 1, pp. 131-153 (1973).

A.W. Crompton and Pamela Parker, "Evolution of the Mammalian Masticatory Apparatus", Am. Sci., V. 66, pp. 192-201 (1978).

I will randomly pick another so called evidence for evolution next.
Also you are picking one liners from my argument out of context. That's not science as you should know. That is exactly how information gets misunderstood just like when people pick out single verses in scripture out of context. The whole argument needs to be critically viewed!

I'm glad you showed an interest in what i believe and will happily add to your site all that we believe. I would like to mention though that what i believe is true Bible study and not any hocus pocus made up story from some preacher in robes standing on the platform like the Catholics teach! It's false teachings like this that has put Christianity in bad light. The true word of God is a marvellous thing but i'm not going to convince you of that it seems or at least in our short lifetime.

Mike




P.S I'm sorry you lost your girlfriend
Just to add. The Bible has not changed like you said. Have you not heard of the "dead sea scrolls"? There are also many other scrolls that have been found and dated before Christ and have exactly the same written material in as the Bible we see today! If you want more information on this then i will get it for you in time of course from an archeologist.

There are many prophesies. I will list as many as i can, for now take my word for it as i only have enough time to deal with this topic.

Also to your reply to my tweet. It is obvious we do not need music to survive (survival of the fittest remember!). Did you not know that Mozart was able to compose at the age of 6 so what you are saying about the evolution of music is sorry complete nonsense! Music has always been around and i believe God given! Even God rejoices when he has established the promised land.

What do you think the Gospel message is?

Mike

p.s Just something extra for you to think about! Did you know that there is a fault line running right beneath the mount of olives - scientific fact! This is exactly the point mentioned in the Bible where Jesus will return. It mentions in the Bible that the mountain will split in two!

There are many more such wonderful verses. I will dig them out.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-20-2011, 12:51 AM
Post: #12
RE: What's more probable?
fxmikey, you said there were no fossils found, I gave you a list, and you replied by copying the first creationist website you could find and posting it.

I pointed out that you are either miss-informed or a liar, and you ignored what I said. If I wanted to here more dribble from the ICR I can find it just as easily as you did. You made a blaitently ignorant statement in your post here

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  “What is the evidence for Evolution?
1. Observation of evolution in action
2. The fossil record”

So I listed a great number of examples, and I still finished replying to your other points even though they were based on false information.

You made no attempt to understand what I had said, I doubt you even took the time to look much of it up, instead you copied another post form ICR.

I presented such information in the hope that you would learn, instead you have shown no desire to have and original thought on the subject.

If by some chance you actually have a desire to learn, here is a list of Creationist Arguments and Claims http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html at least you will be able to pick something that is not ridiculous. This is a scientific site, consisting of scientific data from evolutionists, creationists, believers and non-believers. It is maintained by almost every University. Most of the claims you will find in the link will have new(er) evidence that either supports the claim or disproves it.

(06-19-2011 07:29 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  Also to your reply to my tweet. It is obvious we do not need music to survive (survival of the fittest remember!). Did you not know that Mozart was able to compose at the age of 6 so what you are saying about the evolution of music is sorry complete nonsense! Music has always been around and i believe God given! Even God rejoices when he has established the promised land.

Wow thats interesting so, Mozart was just as good of a musician at on the day he was born as he was when he was 30 years old. Holly shit that is amazing! I have never heard of anyone who's abilities didn't improve over time with practice and learning.

Not to mention I don't think Adam and Eve had a piano, or a theremin. I find it hard to understand how these instruments were not based on anything else, no small gradual changes and improvements. Hell, I'm an Embedded Systems Engineer and for the life of me I can't figure out how the theremin worked before there was electricity, not to mention amplitude, and frequency modulation was completely unknown.

(06-19-2011 07:29 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  Just to add. The Bible has not changed like you said. Have you not heard of the "dead sea scrolls"? There are also many other scrolls that have been found and dated before Christ and have exactly the same written material in as the Bible we see today! If you want more information on this then i will get it for you in time of course from an archeologist.

Yep and the dead sea scrolls date from 4000-6000BC ? Oh wait they don't. They date from 150BC - 70AD and they contain books that arn't in the bible. This is what I was telling you about, the bible, THE EXACT BOOK YOU AND I READ has been canonized and this is well documented! The majority of it was done before English was even a language. So for you to say (or think) that some how you have the original, unaltered bible, then you know less about the bible than you do about evolution and science combined!

(06-19-2011 07:29 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  p.s Just something extra for you to think about! Did you know that there is a fault line running right beneath the mount of olives - scientific fact! This is exactly the point mentioned in the Bible where Jesus will return. It mentions in the Bible that the mountain will split in two!

Did you know that almost every country has at least 1 fault line? Not to mention if you take the average, there are more than 30 faults per country.

My personal #1 reason that I don't like religion is because I like knowledge! And Religion suppresses knowledge; not just the knowledge unfortunately, but it suppresses the entire drive to understand.
http://www.EvilTheists.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-20-2011, 01:09 AM
Post: #13
RE: What's more probable?
fxmikey, everything evolves! Everything gets built up or decayed down. Nothing is stagnant, nothing blinked into existence the way it is now, not even you!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-20-2011, 02:07 AM
Post: #14
RE: What's more probable?
Oh my word! I finally decided i am wasting my time on here. It's no wonder it says in 2 Timothy 2 v 23 to avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife!

You do not have debates or reasonable discussion. You are impertinent and speak a very low form of sarcasm. I quote "Holy Shit that is amazing!" A typical phrase from an American that gets angry. This is because you can't handle the fact that there is so much evidence against Evolution. So what if i obtained my information from a web site. I read it through and sounded very logical and plausible to me which included all the references, which i could easily say to you, go and study them! Your site and quotes are constantly made up from either Dawkins, Hitchens or the like!

You posted a list of so called evidence for evolution and i found something straight away from a random one i picked that completely counteracts the very very weak point that you made and that hurts! so then you lower yourself to typical American english of trying to make someone else look stupid instead of having a reasonable debate. You basically don't have anymore answers to what i put forward from the scientists that did the hard work with ripping apart the mamilian-reptile debate.

You are 28, an embedded systems engineer and you know it all apparently about evolution and creation. It shows! I admit i do not know it all but, know one can or ever will know it all. This is why Hawkins and Hutchins are detested so much by people of a humble contrite character. To me they are extremists trying to make a huge name and following for themselves. They act like cult leaders that are arrogant in nature and are certainly not open for debate just like yourself!
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers. 2 Timothy 4 v 3.

And you think you know about the dead sea scrolls! The Dead Sea Scrolls contained every book apart from Esther - Reason because it is well documented that every Jewish family had this book in their home so it was not required in the scrolls also! Anyone can blurt out and say the Bible is canonised. Well i have been to many talks with historical evidence to show that it was not! Show me the evidence otherwise then we have a debate, just like i did! but of course you don't like reasonable debates do you because you are extreme in your views and just get angry and shout when a very reasonable counter argument for so called literal evolution is put forward. I only listened to a very interesting program on the radio the other day which explained how even the great Darwin believed in the creativity of creation!

Have you actually studied plate tectonics then? because you seem to know everything about that now as well! Hardly! The Earth does contain major fault lines separating the plates and a series of normal fault or rift lines (look at the tectonic map!) but i am talking about the exact location for where Jesus will return so again what you are saying doesn't counteract this very fact!

All you people do is to try and ridicule something you are not comfortable with! I was hoping to have an interesting debate but it is absolutely pointless with someone that only gets angry because they can't handle reasonable counter arguments and resorts to impertinent and unwitting sarcastic remarks!

I should have know from the name - Evil Theists !!!!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-20-2011, 09:43 AM
Post: #15
RE: What's more probable?
By the way that video, is that the best you can do! Pick out one liners from the Bible absolutely pathetic! and the young guy talking sounds like a conceited arrogant person lacking in factual knowledge.
The truth is we are here for a minute amount of time. So you can spend the rest of your life along with Dawkins and the like and waste your time trying to Bring the Bible down but at the end of the day this alone leads to absolutely nothing! like we were before, never to have existed. How is that going to help you all? so whats the point in wasting your precious time? Why? It just doesn't make any sense!
I am personally not against science and discovery because it is not against Bible teaching. I learn from both but i am certainly not extreme with my views or will push them on anyone.
People go on about the extremist religions, which are disgusting yet the atheist movement of late is extreme in their own views. It's this extreme thinking by people i avoid whether believing in God or Not.
Good luck with your journey because it's not going to take you anywhere at the end of the day. It will all be in vain!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-17-2011, 12:44 PM
Post: #16
RE: What's more probable?
I wish I had noticed this thread earlier , then I could have saved some typing time and energy.

There is no logic in the argument and I also think the text has been lifted from some other source , the best way to debate a subject is to discuss one point at a time thoroughly then move on . To say "There's no point me even adding anymore your minds are made..." after a long post , seems a little suspicious.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2011, 03:02 PM
Post: #17
RE: What's more probable?
(07-17-2011 12:44 PM)Martinuk Wrote:  I wish I had noticed this thread earlier , then I could have saved some typing time and energy.

There is no logic in the argument and I also think the text has been lifted from some other source , the best way to debate a subject is to discuss one point at a time thoroughly then move on . To say "There's no point me even adding anymore your minds are made..." after a long post , seems a little suspicious.

I can see that jumping into this debate it can seem that way. I guess the reason for those remarks were due to many attacks for holding my belief to be true. Harsh attacks from many atheists on twitter at the time and from Matinuk on this site for submitting evidence against evolution. Anyway it has sparked some interesting conversation and it seems to continue, with yourself and now Corky, who is not as cool i might add.

I will return!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


[-]
Share/Bookmark (Show All)
Facebook Linkedin Technorati Twitter Digg MySpace Delicious

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)