Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fossils?
01-15-2009, 03:07 AM (This post was last modified: 01-15-2009 11:32 AM by Pilgrim.)
Post: #1
Fossils?
Who verified the authenticity of these? Please be specific as to qualifications of those involved, their standing within the scientific community and method used for dating claimed for them.

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinis...rwin07.php

"Love is not a feeling, it's an act of your will." Don Francisco.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-15-2009, 09:52 AM (This post was last modified: 01-15-2009 09:30 PM by clarence clutterbuck.)
Post: #2
RE: Fossils?
Where are the fossils? I clicked on the link and saw only Harun Yoyo's silly creationist disinformation service with a picture of him captioned, "A life dedicated to faith," meaning belief without evidence. That says it all really, but I don't see how it gives him the right to denigrate and lie about disciplines that do prove their points with evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-15-2009, 11:33 AM (This post was last modified: 01-15-2009 11:35 AM by Pilgrim.)
Post: #3
RE: Fossils?
(01-15-2009 09:52 AM)clarence clutterbuck Wrote:  Where are the fossils? I clicked on the link and saw only Harun Yoyo's silly creationist disinformation service with a picture of him captioned, "A life dedicated to faith," meaning belief without evidence. That says it all really, but I don't know how it gives him the right to denigrate and lie about disciplines that do prove their points with evidence.
Sorry Clarence I posted the wrong link. My bad, corrected now though. As to the rest of your reply it would seem he is submitting 'evidence' which is why I asked for verification. Smile

"Love is not a feeling, it's an act of your will." Don Francisco.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-15-2009, 12:33 PM
Post: #4
RE: Fossils?
It is suspicious that all the so-called fossils are the same chalky white colour, each bearing signs of having been unearthed from (or prepared with) an identical clay like material. I suspect they are not genuine fossils.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-15-2009, 01:57 PM (This post was last modified: 01-16-2009 02:11 AM by clarence clutterbuck.)
Post: #5
RE: Fossils?
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinis...rwin07.php

Skulls That Demolish Darwin Wrote:Age: 65 million years
Period: Cretaceous
Location: Meng Gu, China
Giraffes are noted for their extraordinarily long necks. Darwinists hypothesized that the necks of these animals lengthened gradually as they stretched to reach higher branches. This, one of the best known deception of the theory of evolution, is totally refuted by the fossil evidence: giraffes were exactly the same 65 million years ago as they are today. There is no trace of any specimens in the fossil record undergoing constant change and growing longer necks in order to reach higher branches. The giraffe today is exactly the same as it was 65 million years ago.

[Image: zurafa_kafatasi.jpg]

Here's a page from Yahya's absorbing book, featuring one of the dodgy looking skulls that self evidently does not date from the age of dinosaurs 65 million years ago. The comments about how "Darwinists" theorise the Giraffe's neck increased in length is also inaccurate - this is thought to be due to an evolutionary arms race of male Giraffe's using their necks to beat against each other like a wrecking ball in competition for mates. I think we can safely conclude that the "fossils" are fakes.

A better thread title might be HARUN YAHYA: LYING FOR ALLAH!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-15-2009, 06:06 PM
Post: #6
RE: Fossils?
Quote:Skulls That Demolish Darwin Wrote:Age: 65 million years
Period: Cretaceous
Location: Meng Gu, China
Giraffes are noted for their extraordinarily long necks. Darwinists hypothesized that the necks of these animals lengthened gradually as they stretched to reach higher branches. This, one of the best known deception of the theory of evolution, is totally refuted by the fossil evidence: giraffes were exactly the same 65 million years ago as they are today. There is no trace of any specimens in the fossil record undergoing constant change and growing longer necks in order to reach higher branches. The giraffe today is exactly the same as it was 65 million years ago.

This is not evolution and natural selection, this is Lamarckism. Lamarck said that characteristics were promoted by use and passed down. It is thoroughly discreditted. Natural selection is that within a population of animals, if those with longer necks were able to leave for offspring generation after generation, then eventually we have longer necked animals. If however, there is no advantage in terms of reproducing to long necks, then there would be no change in neck length. Advantage to neck length could be access to food or something else entirely, such as this being particularly sexy for other giraffes, and then getting mating preference.

Stasis is the term for populations that have little change over a lengthy period. This simply means that there is little advantage to changing because the environment is also stable. The organism simply being as well adapted as it needs to be to current local conditions. The example of these fossils, even if correct in characterisation, does not not refute basic evolution in the smallest way.

PDF article, one of many that discusses the evolution of giraffes It is another one of these wonderful stories about how the natural world is created as self sustaining system.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-15-2009, 07:50 PM (This post was last modified: 01-15-2009 07:51 PM by God Rocks.)
Post: #7
RE: Fossils?
(01-15-2009 03:07 AM)Pilgrim Wrote:  Who verified the authenticity of these? Please be specific as to qualifications of those involved, their standing within the scientific community and method used for dating claimed for them.

I don't think they are verified at all. There are only two references on the page. One is a reference to the statement "... no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species." The other is to the statement "The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky." Neither of these statements really mean anything. There's no fact behind them.

If there was any real evidence to this information there would have been references supporting the specific facts such as the fossil's ages, where they were found, and where they are now.

His and Your Humble Servant
RF's Sponsors
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-15-2009, 11:43 PM (This post was last modified: 01-15-2009 11:45 PM by clarence clutterbuck.)
Post: #8
RE: Fossils?
Perusing the Forum section of Richard Dawkins.net, I came upon this comment on a thread about Yahya's skulls.

Quote:I'm an archaeologist, so I deal mostly with organic bone is soil matrix. Occasionally someone will bring me a fossil thinking being an archaeologist makes me a paleontologist. Even then, the fossils I do see are mostly late Pleistocene ungulate leg bones. In any case, I was wondering...do those samples you selected even look fossilized? To me they look like modern skulls stuffed full of clay.

https://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtop...6&start=25

My thoughts exactly, although I am no specialist. The crude falsification used in Yahya's book is an insult to the intelligence. It makes me angry that such a criminal fraudulent cretin is accorded any respect or attention.

Wikepedia reports that he was sentenced to a jail term last year for running an illegal organisation, but was appealing against the conviction. Further information proved elusive. does anyone know if he is still deservedly languishing in priz?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-16-2009, 06:08 AM (This post was last modified: 01-16-2009 06:10 AM by Pilgrim.)
Post: #9
RE: Fossils?
(01-15-2009 11:43 PM)clarence clutterbuck Wrote:  Perusing the Forum section of Richard Dawkins.net, I came upon this comment on a thread about Yahya's skulls.

Quote:I'm an archaeologist, so I deal mostly with organic bone is soil matrix. Occasionally someone will bring me a fossil thinking being an archaeologist makes me a paleontologist. Even then, the fossils I do see are mostly late Pleistocene ungulate leg bones. In any case, I was wondering...do those samples you selected even look fossilized? To me they look like modern skulls stuffed full of clay.

https://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtop...6&start=25

My thoughts exactly, although I am no specialist. The crude falsification used in Yahya's book is an insult to the intelligence. It makes me angry that such a criminal fraudulent cretin is accorded any respect or attention.

Wikepedia reports that he was sentenced to a jail term last year for running an illegal organisation, but was appealing against the conviction. Further information proved elusive. does anyone know if he is still deservedly languishing in priz?
I did find a site which I unfortunately neglected to save to favorites that claimed it was all a conspiracy by communists in collabaration with muslims who were in fact communists *rolls eyes*and that he has now been released from prison. But that was not the point of this thread. I just like to check out any 'evidence' that is put forward in support of an arguement and don't classify it as supporting evidence unless that verification is forthcoming. By the same token I do not dismiss it out of hand simply because of the source. I try to keep an open mind. Which is why I asked for scientific verification of the claims concerning the 'fossils' since I have heretofore been unware of anything like them being found with the datings given within the fossil record. However, that said the claim that the fossil record does not support evolution is valid. It doesn't

"Love is not a feeling, it's an act of your will." Don Francisco.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-26-2009, 03:03 AM (This post was last modified: 02-26-2009 03:04 AM by clarence clutterbuck.)
Post: #10
RE: Fossils?
Pilgrim Wrote:However, that said the claim that the fossil record does not support evolution is valid. It doesn't.

This is a strange statement because evolutionary scientists are of the opinion that the fossil record does support evolution. What is the basis of your claim that it doesn't?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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