Concave Earth

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 15, 2016, 02:42:41 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 15, 2016, 06:56:54 AM

Scepti, shut up. First of all, there ARE theories regarding the nature of gravity, but yes, we still don't know for sure yet. Why do you think the fact that we don't know yet should "set off the alarm bell"? There's a point where it has to be admitted that everything works thanks to "magic". You're like creationists, they ask "Where are the transitional fossils?" so you show them a transitional fossil. But then they say "But where's the transitional fossil for the transitional fossil you just showed to me?" and you just want to punch them in the face. You don't understand that there will ALWAYS be a point where we will just have to accept that things are like that just because they are.

Oh, and if you think that doesn't apply to your model, you're not just stupid, you're probably 3 years old.

I have to jump in here and say I as a creationist don't argue like that. I contend that there are no transitional fossils simply due to the fact that you can't proved one fossil had offspring that was different. In fact you'd be hard press to find a fossil that had any children that lived. Not only that but the whole transitional fossil thing is circular reasoning. How do you know it's the descendant and not the contemporary? Because of the layer it is found. How do you know the age of the layer? Because of the fossil found in it.

See that's just dishonest. Typical dishonest creationist argument. You're trying to find the least likely to be found fossil and then declare victory.

How so?

Are you asking for some paleontologist to go out and perform maternity tests on a transitional fossil?

No but if this was court of law then they would've obligated to do so. I'm not denying that there are animals today that have fossils counterparts. I'm just saying that from a legal and logical standpoint you can't prove that a particular kind of fossil had offspring different than it self. Take for example the dog. You can argue that the chihuahua evolved into the Great Dane or vice versa if all you had was the bones. You can even argue that some of them aren't even related in the same family if all you found was bones.

Look, there have been many occasions where fossils of offsprings of creatures have been found (see Maiasaura), but what "difference" do you expect to be found?

First off how do you know it's the offspring and not contemporary? Second the difference I'm talking about is dinosaurs turning into birds. 

What "difference" do you expect to be found between the fossilized skeleton of you and the fossilized skeleton of your father that you would accept as evidence of evolution? It's a bizarre request made specifically to be impossible to be met.

If you can show that I have a trait that is entirely new to my kind then I would believe. Though actually evolution according to the theory doesn't work that fast (and I'm speaking of macro evolution).

First off how do you know it's the offspring and not contemporary?

In general we don't, and that's not what "transitional form" means.  A "transitional form" is any of the animals that demonstrate the path of adaptation between an ancestor and descendant species by having some traits of both or traits intermediate to both.  It's not actually assumed that the "transitional form" is an actual ancestor or even directly in the path itself - a near cousin of the ancestor that displays the same intermediate traits would still be considered a transitional form.
Archeopteryx is an example.  It is an excellent transitional form between non-avian dinosaurs and birds, whether or not it is a direct ancestor of birds.  That's because it displays clear lizard traits and clear bird traits.  It shows that animals were adapting within the path of the transition and therefore provides good evidence as to how the transition occurred.
In the case of maiasaurus, though, the adult fossils were found surrounded by nests, eggs, and young.  The evidence that the adults we found were parents, or at least close kin of the same species, is quite strong.

Second the difference I'm talking about is dinosaurs turning into birds.

And we have plenty of fossil evidence of that, particularly as more and more evidence of feathers is found for known theropod species.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 17, 2016, 11:03:26 AM

First off how do you know it's the offspring and not contemporary?

In general we don't, and that's not what "transitional form" means.  A "transitional form" is any of the animals that demonstrate the path of adaptation between an ancestor and descendant species by having some traits of both or traits intermediate to both.  It's not actually assumed that the "transitional form" is an actual ancestor or even directly in the path itself - a near cousin of the ancestor that displays the same intermediate traits would still be considered a transitional form.
Archeopteryx is an example.  It is an excellent transitional form between non-avian dinosaurs and birds, whether or not it is a direct ancestor of birds.  That's because it displays clear lizard traits and clear bird traits.  It shows that animals were adapting within the path of the transition and therefore provides good evidence as to how the transition occurred.

Archaeopteryx is a normal bird as even an evolutionist interviewed in this article explains.


http://creation.mobi/bird-evolution-flies-out-the-window

In the case of maiasaurus, though, the adult fossils were found surrounded by nests, eggs, and young.  The evidence that the adults we found were parents, or at least close kin of the same species, is quite strong.

That's not what I said. I didn't say that you can't prove that a fossil had children. I said you can't prove it had any that lived. And I know proof only exists in math but you know what I mean.

Quote

Second the difference I'm talking about is dinosaurs turning into birds.

And we have plenty of fossil evidence of that, particularly as more and more evidence of feathers is found for known theropod species.

Actually we don't as my link shows.

Note to mods: it appears this discussion is off topic and while I'm willing to engage at the same time I don't want to derail the thread. Can you please move this discussion to my thread "macro evolution, where's the evidence"? It starts with me jumping in and objecting to another poster.

Archaeopteryx is a normal bird as even an evolutionist interviewed in this article explains.

Dr. David Menton is a creationist for Answers in Genesis.  Where did you get the idea that he was an evolutionist?

Archeopteryx is not a modern bird.  It has teeth.

Actually we don't as my link shows.

What link do you mean?

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 17, 2016, 11:44:18 AM

Archaeopteryx is a normal bird as even an evolutionist interviewed in this article explains.

Dr. David Menton is a creationist for Answers in Genesis.  Where did you get the idea that he was an evolutionist?

I saw the creditials and thought that. I skimmed through it and didn't see anything that indicated he was a creationist. Sorry.

Archeopteryx is not a modern bird.  It has teeth.

And a lot of reptiles don't.

Quote

Archeopteryx is not a modern bird.  It has teeth.

And a lot of reptiles don't.

Neither does any bird, which is the far more relevant issue.  The dinosaur ancestors of modern birds had teeth; modern birds don't.  So archeopteryx is a transitional form, not a modern bird.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 16, 2016, 01:12:27 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 15, 2016, 02:42:41 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 15, 2016, 06:56:54 AM

Scepti, shut up. First of all, there ARE theories regarding the nature of gravity, but yes, we still don't know for sure yet. Why do you think the fact that we don't know yet should "set off the alarm bell"? There's a point where it has to be admitted that everything works thanks to "magic". You're like creationists, they ask "Where are the transitional fossils?" so you show them a transitional fossil. But then they say "But where's the transitional fossil for the transitional fossil you just showed to me?" and you just want to punch them in the face. You don't understand that there will ALWAYS be a point where we will just have to accept that things are like that just because they are.

Oh, and if you think that doesn't apply to your model, you're not just stupid, you're probably 3 years old.

I have to jump in here and say I as a creationist don't argue like that. I contend that there are no transitional fossils simply due to the fact that you can't proved one fossil had offspring that was different. In fact you'd be hard press to find a fossil that had any children that lived. Not only that but the whole transitional fossil thing is circular reasoning. How do you know it's the descendant and not the contemporary? Because of the layer it is found. How do you know the age of the layer? Because of the fossil found in it.

See that's just dishonest. Typical dishonest creationist argument. You're trying to find the least likely to be found fossil and then declare victory.

How so?

Quote

Are you asking for some paleontologist to go out and perform maternity tests on a transitional fossil?

No but if this was court of law then they would've obligated to do so. I'm not denying that there are animals today that have fossils counterparts. I'm just saying that from a legal and logical standpoint you can't prove that a particular kind of fossil had offspring different than it self. Take for example the dog. You can argue that the chihuahua evolved into the Great Dane or vice versa if all you had was the bones. You can even argue that some of them aren't even related in the same family if all you found was bones.

Quote

Look, there have been many occasions where fossils of offsprings of creatures have been found (see Maiasaura), but what "difference" do you expect to be found?

First off how do you know it's the offspring and not contemporary? Second the difference I'm talking about is dinosaurs turning into birds. 

Quote

What "difference" do you expect to be found between the fossilized skeleton of you and the fossilized skeleton of your father that you would accept as evidence of evolution? It's a bizarre request made specifically to be impossible to be met.

If you can show that I have a trait that is entirely new to my kind then I would believe. Though actually evolution according to the theory doesn't work that fast (and I'm speaking of macro evolution).

No. If this was a court of law, you would be called out and objected against. Your argument is similar to this: "You said the suspect was at his home. To prove that, you have to prove he ate spaghetti 43 years ago".

Not only are you asking for something next to impossible, it's got nothing to do with the claim.

First of all, you don't have to have a detailed family tree spanning thousands or even milions of generations to provide evidence (you can't PROVE in science) that birds came from dinosaurs, similar to how you don't need photos of a car at every single place along its course to show that it went from one place to the other.

"I'm just saying that from a legal and logical standpoint you can't prove that a particular kind of fossil had offspring different than it self. "

Are you saying dinosaurs were identical to their parents? Are you identical to your parents?

"First off how do you know it's the offspring and not contemporary? "

In the science of paleontology (and in many other sciences), you can never KNOW that, you can just be highly certain.

"Second the difference I'm talking about is dinosaurs turning into birds.  "

Did anyone claim that a T-Rex gave birth to a turkey? Or are you asking for an impossible family tree again?

"Though actually evolution according to the theory doesn't work that fast (and I'm speaking of macro evolution)."

Then why are you asking?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on July 15, 2016, 06:43:27 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 15, 2016, 02:42:41 PM

I have to jump in here and say I as a creationist don't argue like that. I contend that there are no transitional fossils simply due to the fact that you can't proved one fossil had offspring that was different.

there is no 'proof'. Only evidence.

Yet again... https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Fine. I'll restate it. You can't give substantial evidence that one fossil was the ancestor of another. And I hate to start a evolution/creation debate here

I don't blame you. If you don't want one, don't start one. Simple.

so if you want to continue then I made a thread "macro evolution. Where's the evidence?"

Where is this thread? I haven't seen it.

Pro tip: If you want someone to look at something that you post in another thread, provide a link to it. If you don't know how to do this, ask. It's really easy.

But I'll address the rest of your post.

Quote

Quote

In fact you'd be hard press to find a fossil that had any children that lived.

It's quite common, actually.

I would ask for evidence but again this would derail the thread.

Since you press the issue here, I'll answer here.

I can recommend some very good intro geology textbooks and reference material. What you ask for is very basic. Do you want them?

Quote

Quote

Not only that but the whole transitional fossil thing is circular reasoning. How do you know it's the descendant and not the contemporary? Because of the layer it is found. How do you know the age of the layer?

Younger layers are deposited on top of older layers. Can you propose a plausible mechanism that would insert younger sediments under older, already existing ones?

You're assuming they are indeed younger.

Already addressed.

Younger layers are deposited on top of older layers. Can you propose a plausible mechanism that would insert younger sediments under older, already existing ones?

A violent flood would make layers quickly.

Would a "violent flood" lay down consistent layers over wide areas? You can't tell how quickly consistent sediment layers were deposited just by looking at them, that needs other techniques, but consistency over a wide area suggests "not violent". Storm deposits, for example, are chaotic.

Quote

Quote

Because of the fossil found in it.

Younger fossils are deposited above older ones. It's quite simple, really. It's not a mystery at all.

How do you know which one is younger?

Younger sediments (sometimes containing fossils) are deposited on top of the layer below, which already existed, so the layer that already existed is, by definition, older. Stratigraphy in a nutshell.

I had one more question alpha. Are you on political forums?

No. I may spend time here, but I'm not that dumb! 

If so then its me Maccabee from there. You frequently comment in the gun control section if I remember correctly. If not then my mistake.

Not me. Sorry.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 17, 2016, 11:55:41 AM

Quote

Archeopteryx is not a modern bird.  It has teeth.

And a lot of reptiles don't.

Neither does any bird, which is the far more relevant issue.  The dinosaur ancestors of modern birds had teeth; modern birds don't.  So archeopteryx is a transitional form, not a modern bird.

Correction. Living birds don't and that's not even absolute. Archaeopteryx is a normal bird with teeth.

For those who want to continue this conversation I'll link to the last page of the thread "macro evolution, where's the evidence?"

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66470.msg1794665#msg1794665

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 17, 2016, 11:03:26 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 16, 2016, 01:12:27 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 15, 2016, 02:42:41 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 15, 2016, 06:56:54 AM

Scepti, shut up. First of all, there ARE theories regarding the nature of gravity, but yes, we still don't know for sure yet. Why do you think the fact that we don't know yet should "set off the alarm bell"? There's a point where it has to be admitted that everything works thanks to "magic". You're like creationists, they ask "Where are the transitional fossils?" so you show them a transitional fossil. But then they say "But where's the transitional fossil for the transitional fossil you just showed to me?" and you just want to punch them in the face. You don't understand that there will ALWAYS be a point where we will just have to accept that things are like that just because they are.

Oh, and if you think that doesn't apply to your model, you're not just stupid, you're probably 3 years old.

I have to jump in here and say I as a creationist don't argue like that. I contend that there are no transitional fossils simply due to the fact that you can't proved one fossil had offspring that was different. In fact you'd be hard press to find a fossil that had any children that lived. Not only that but the whole transitional fossil thing is circular reasoning. How do you know it's the descendant and not the contemporary? Because of the layer it is found. How do you know the age of the layer? Because of the fossil found in it.

See that's just dishonest. Typical dishonest creationist argument. You're trying to find the least likely to be found fossil and then declare victory.

How so?

Quote

Are you asking for some paleontologist to go out and perform maternity tests on a transitional fossil?

No but if this was court of law then they would've obligated to do so. I'm not denying that there are animals today that have fossils counterparts. I'm just saying that from a legal and logical standpoint you can't prove that a particular kind of fossil had offspring different than it self. Take for example the dog. You can argue that the chihuahua evolved into the Great Dane or vice versa if all you had was the bones. You can even argue that some of them aren't even related in the same family if all you found was bones.

Quote

Look, there have been many occasions where fossils of offsprings of creatures have been found (see Maiasaura), but what "difference" do you expect to be found?

First off how do you know it's the offspring and not contemporary? Second the difference I'm talking about is dinosaurs turning into birds. 

Quote

What "difference" do you expect to be found between the fossilized skeleton of you and the fossilized skeleton of your father that you would accept as evidence of evolution? It's a bizarre request made specifically to be impossible to be met.

If you can show that I have a trait that is entirely new to my kind then I would believe. Though actually evolution according to the theory doesn't work that fast (and I'm speaking of macro evolution).

No. If this was a court of law, you would be called out and objected against. Your argument is similar to this: "You said the suspect was at his home. To prove that, you have to prove he ate spaghetti 43 years ago".

No it wouldn't. It'll be like me asking for the homeowner's title to the house and electric bill

Not only are you asking for something next to impossible, it's got nothing to do with the claim.

Then why claim that one type of fossil gave offspring to another type if its nearly immpossible to prove?

First of all, you don't have to have a detailed family tree spanning thousands or even milions of generations to provide evidence (you can't PROVE in science) that birds came from dinosaurs, similar to how you don't need photos of a car at every single place along its course to show that it went from one place to the other.

Your problem is proving that the car from Florida is the same car in California. There are many cars that are exactly the same. At least with cars you can track the license plate.

"I'm just saying that from a legal and logical standpoint you can't prove that a particular kind of fossil had offspring different than it self. "

Are you saying dinosaurs were identical to their parents? Are you identical to your parents?

No I'm saying that dinosaurs are the same kind as their parents. My parents are human.

"First off how do you know it's the offspring and not contemporary? "

In the science of paleontology (and in many other sciences), you can never KNOW that, you can just be highly certain.

Then how can you be highly certain?

"Second the difference I'm talking about is dinosaurs turning into birds.  "

Did anyone claim that a T-Rex gave birth to a turkey? Or are you asking for an impossible family tree again?

No, and I think you know what I mean. I'm saying that you guys claimed the T. Rex evolved into the turkey over millions of years.

"Though actually evolution according to the theory doesn't work that fast (and I'm speaking of macro evolution)."

Then why are you asking?

Asking what?

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 15, 2016, 07:17:41 PM

I had one more question alpha. Are you on political forums?

No. I may spend time here, but I'm not that dumb! 

Quote

If so then its me Maccabee from there. You frequently comment in the gun control section if I remember correctly. If not then my mistake.

Not me. Sorry.

Oh, sorry then. I saw a name similar to yours on there.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 15, 2016, 07:15:39 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on July 15, 2016, 06:43:27 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 15, 2016, 02:42:41 PM

I have to jump in here and say I as a creationist don't argue like that. I contend that there are no transitional fossils simply due to the fact that you can't proved one fossil had offspring that was different.

there is no 'proof'. Only evidence.

Yet again... https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Fine. I'll restate it. You can't give substantial evidence that one fossil was the ancestor of another. And I hate to start a evolution/creation debate here

I don't blame you. If you don't want one, don't start one. Simple.

I couldn't resist at least correcting someone's statement about creationists.

Quote

so if you want to continue then I made a thread "macro evolution. Where's the evidence?"

Where is this thread? I haven't seen it.

Pro tip: If you want someone to look at something that you post in another thread, provide a link to it. If you don't know how to do this, ask. It's really easy.

I didn't had the linked copied so I couldn't paste it at the time of that post. I gave the link in an earlier post.

Quote

But I'll address the rest of your post.

Quote

Quote

In fact you'd be hard press to find a fossil that had any children that lived.

It's quite common, actually.

I would ask for evidence but again this would derail the thread.

Since you press the issue here, I'll answer here.

I can recommend some very good intro geology textbooks and reference material. What you ask for is very basic. Do you want them?

You can show one type of fossil is similar to another but that doesn't prove that they are related or one sired the other. Salamanders look a lot like lizards but they aren't related nor did one sired the other.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not only that but the whole transitional fossil thing is circular reasoning. How do you know it's the descendant and not the contemporary? Because of the layer it is found. How do you know the age of the layer?

Younger layers are deposited on top of older layers. Can you propose a plausible mechanism that would insert younger sediments under older, already existing ones?

You're assuming they are indeed younger.

Already addressed.

Not really.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on July 15, 2016, 06:43:27 PM

Younger layers are deposited on top of older layers. Can you propose a plausible mechanism that would insert younger sediments under older, already existing ones?

Quote

A violent flood would make layers quickly.

Would a "violent flood" lay down consistent layers over wide areas?

If its big enough then yes.

You can't tell how quickly consistent sediment layers were deposited just by looking at them, that needs other techniques, but consistency over a wide area suggests "not violent". Storm deposits, for example, are chaotic.

Mass grave yards stretching over multiple states would disagree with you.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Because of the fossil found in it.

Younger fossils are deposited above older ones. It's quite simple, really. It's not a mystery at all.

How do you know which one is younger?

Younger sediments (sometimes containing fossils) are deposited on top of the layer below, which already existed, so the layer that already existed is, by definition, older. Stratigraphy in a nutshell.

But how do you know that's what takes place? How do you know a flood or rapid water laid down those sediments in a short time? You yourself said you can't tell how fast a layer was deposited.

Look, can you just wait a while please? Just hold onto it, because right now I don't want to spend too much time on that debate, since it looks like it will be long.

Correction. Living birds don't and that's not even absolute. Archaeopteryx is a normal bird with teeth.

In what way is archeopteryx a "normal bird"?  Does it have any other features that no modern bird has?

Archeopteryx actually has a bony tail, which is a big indicator that it is unlike modern birds.

Also, there is almost nothing in physical sciences that is possible to PROVE, but you can determine things with great certainty. Evolution has been determined with such certainty.

You should also not expect any fossils where the parent is of different "kind" than the offspring (although what is meant by "kind" is highly debatable), because that's not what is being claimed. As you yourself stated, evolution is slower than that and a continuum rather than a process with discrete steps. The difference from parent to child is almost imperceptible, but the differences pile up after generations.

Archeopteryx actually has a bony tail, which is a big indicator that it is unlike modern birds.

Also, there is almost nothing in physical sciences that is possible to PROVE, but you can determine things with great certainty. Evolution has been determined with such certainty.

You should also not expect any fossils where the parent is of different "kind" than the offspring (although what is meant by "kind" is highly debatable), because that's not what is being claimed. As you yourself stated, evolution is slower than that and a continuum rather than a process with discrete steps. The difference from parent to child is almost imperceptible, but the differences pile up after generations.

You could even step back from Archaeopteryx and look at Anchiornis. Slightly less bird-like, slightly more dino-like. A transitional to the transitional, if you will.

Just look at this thing. If this is a bird, what was Velociraptor? Microraptor? If it's a dinosaur, why isn't Archaeopteryx?

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 18, 2016, 07:21:04 PM

Correction. Living birds don't and that's not even absolute. Archaeopteryx is a normal bird with teeth.

In what way is archeopteryx a "normal bird"?  Does it have any other features that no modern bird has?

I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying.

On-topic: I highly recommended Dr. Cyrus Teed's "Cellular Cosmogony" for anyone interested in hollow earth or concavity.

The efforts of Dr. Teed and UG Morrow to disprove convexity often mirrored those of Dr. Rowbotham with similarly documented results.

Archeopteryx actually has a bony tail, which is a big indicator that it is unlike modern birds.

And that's where it ends. Everything else (except teeth) would classify it as a normal perching bird.

http://creation.mobi/dinosaur-bird-evolution

Also, there is almost nothing in physical sciences that is possible to PROVE, but you can determine things with great certainty. Evolution has been determined with such certainty.

Such as?

You should also not expect any fossils where the parent is of different "kind" than the offspring (although what is meant by "kind" is highly debatable), because that's not what is being claimed. As you yourself stated, evolution is slower than that and a continuum rather than a process with discrete steps. The difference from parent to child is almost imperceptible, but the differences pile up after generations.

Like what?

On-topic: I highly recommended Dr. Cyrus Teed's "Cellular Cosmogony" for anyone interested in hollow earth or concavity.

The efforts of Dr. Teed and UG Morrow to disprove convexity often mirrored those of Dr. Rowbotham with similarly documented results.

Sorry for derailing it.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 19, 2016, 10:44:32 AM

Archeopteryx actually has a bony tail, which is a big indicator that it is unlike modern birds.

And that's where it ends. Everything else (except teeth) would classify it as a normal perching bird.

http://creation.mobi/dinosaur-bird-evolution

Nope. Just in case the bony tail and the teeth are not good enough for you, you also have its clawed fingers. Yes, it had fingers on its wings.

"Such as?"

What do you mean?

"Like what?"

Say a slightly darker skin tone, slightly longer fingers, slightly stronger teeth, etc.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 20, 2016, 03:05:14 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 19, 2016, 10:44:32 AM

Archeopteryx actually has a bony tail, which is a big indicator that it is unlike modern birds.

And that's where it ends. Everything else (except teeth) would classify it as a normal perching bird.

http://creation.mobi/dinosaur-bird-evolution

Nope. Just in case the bony tail and the teeth are not good enough for you, you also have its clawed fingers. Yes, it had fingers on its wings.

So does the swan and I believe the ostrich.

"Such as?"

What do you mean?

What claims have evolution explained with certainty?

"Like what?"

Say a slightly darker skin tone, slightly longer fingers, slightly stronger teeth, etc.

That's not evolution. That's variation within a family and it has limits. Humans will never be charcoal black, have fingers as long as an elephant's trunk, or have teeth that can bite through steel.

Humans will never be charcoal black,

Some are already that black.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 21, 2016, 09:03:57 AM

Humans will never be charcoal black,

Some are already that black.

Their close but not that black.

...

Reply was moved to a new thread Stratigraphy.