The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

[he_who_is_nobody]

However the evolutionist will claim that these things were done by aliens, not advanced humans in ancient times.

But this is a strange statement ... does he think that advanced humans lived 135 mya in the Cretaceous?

HBD

No. Whenever creationists state something like this, they are trying to make a point that our ideas of the age of the earth are flawed. Gilbo12345's point is that we have a human artifact in 135-mya rock, thus the rock could not be that old. However, the London artifact is a well-known fake and I think it is quite pathetic and hilarious to see a creationist bring it up in any discussion.

 

[herebedragons]

When I had a brief stint at EFF, I thought Gilbo was the most coherent person there, he seemed, while wrong, at least a bit knowledgeable.

He is one of the more knowledgeable regulars over there, but I wouldn't call him coherent. He has 3 basic talking points

1. He likes to point out what he thinks are logical fallacies (while ignoring his own, of course).
2. He likes to state that there is no experimental evidence that connects evolution to the theory of evolution
3. He likes to equivocate over definitions and claim that scientists use the wrong definitions

His modus operandi is to ignore the actual point his opponent is making and respond with one of the above.

Very frustrating to debate with him.

HBD

 

[herebedragons]

No. Whenever creationists state something like this, they are trying to make a point that our ideas of the age of the earth are flawed. Gilbo12345's point is that we have a human artifact in 135-mya rock, thus the rock could not be that old.

I realize what the point is, but it was a dumb way to make that point. I don't think any evolutionists would deny that humans were quite advanced 5 or 6 thousand years ago. I mean, we have the Egyptian pyramids that are over 4500 years old that would have required some rather advanced engineering to design and build. I have heard people say they think the pyramids were built by aliens, but they weren't exclusively evolutionists.

However, the London artifact is a well-known fake and I think it is quite pathetic and hilarious to see a creationist bring it up in any discussion.

What I find pathetic and hilarious is that they expect that evolutionists will repent of all their "evil philosophies" because of some random, unsubstantiated claim. Then if you question the validity of their claim it is simply because it contradicts your "desperate adherence to atheism." It just ridiculous.

HBD

 

[herebedragons]

Quote of the day:

"How can one be taught critical thinking and still be an evolutionist?" - Gilbo

HBD

 

[Frenger]

Ha!

That was to me that was.

I'm elephantgun on there.

I'm currently writing him a lengthy reply to his "tikaalik isn't a transitional fossil" horseshit.

 

[Frenger]

When I had a brief stint at EFF, I thought Gilbo was the most coherent person there, he seemed, while wrong, at least a bit knowledgeable.

He is one of the more knowledgeable regulars over there, but I wouldn't call him coherent. He has 3 basic talking points

1. He likes to point out what he thinks are logical fallacies (while ignoring his own, of course).
2. He likes to state that there is no experimental evidence that connects evolution to the theory of evolution
3. He likes to equivocate over definitions and claim that scientists use the wrong definitions

His modus operandi is to ignore the actual point his opponent is making and respond with one of the above.

Very frustrating to debate with him.

HBD

I have noticed number 3 quite a lot so far. He has his own dictionary which I have already pointed out makes conversation tricky.

I remember talking to him about a year ago and thinking he was knowledgeable, just barking up the wrong tree. I'm now starting to think he's just being an idiot of purpose.

 

[Isotelus]

I'm currently writing him a lengthy reply to his "tikaalik isn't a transitional fossil" horseshit.

I would very much like to see it! Could you post a link? I'm going to hazard a guess and say gilbo is incorrectly equating 'transitional' with 'ancestral'.

 

[Frenger]

I'm currently writing him a lengthy reply to his "tikaalik isn't a transitional fossil" horseshit.

I would very much like to see it! Could you post a link? I'm going to hazard a guess and say gilbo is incorrectly equating 'transitional' with 'ancestral'.

You are quite right Isoletus. That is EXACTLY what our man has been doing.

Here is my reply.

I will ask simply, how can Tiktaalik be claimed to be a transitional form between fishes and amphibians, when tetrapod are found to live BEFORE Tiktaalik existed.

Hi Gilbo.

Instead of just briefly going over your disagreements I thought I would just show you why tiktaalik is a transitional fossil according to real definitions, and why those footprints found in Poland only change our ideas of the fish transition to tetrapods, but does nothing to shake Tiktaaliks place.

Firstly, the article you linked is just an article. It's not peer reviewed and as such can claim what they want. They do however link THE peer reviewed study that the article was based on, which I then read.

You seem to be hung up on what EXACTLY a transitional form is.

Wiki (which is pretty good on these things as dictionaries seldom get scientific definitions right) defines it as;

A transitional fossil is any fossilized[/url] remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, transitional fossils cannot be assumed to be direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.

Sauce
Emphasis mine,

So a transitional fossil doesn't have to be the direct lineage, but an example of an organism that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendent group.

I can already here you saying "but the tetrapod footprints were from before the tiktaalik".

Do not worry Gilbo, that is answered by the study the article was based on.

The Zachemie trackways show that very large stem-group tetrapods, exceeding 2 m in length, lived in fully marine intertidal to lagoonal environments along the south coast of Laurussia during the early Eifelian, some 18 million years before the earliest-known tetrapod body fossils were deposited. This forces us to infer much longer ghost lineages for tetrapods and elpistostegids than the body fossil record suggests. (Ghost lineages are those that must have existed at a particular time, according to the phylogeny, but which are not represented by fossils at that time.) Until now, the replacement of elpistostegids by tetrapods in the body-fossil record during the mid-late Frasnian has appeared to reflect an evolutionary event, with the elpistostegids as a short-lived 'transitional grade' between fish and tetrapod morphotypes. In fact, tetrapods and elpistostegids coexisted for at least 10 million years. This implies that the elpistostegid morphology was not a brief transitional stage, but a stable adaptive position in its own right. It is reminiscent of the lengthy coexistence of non-volant but feathered and 'winged' theropod dinosaurs with volant stem-group birds during the Mesozoic.

Sauce

So, have these footprints forced us to reconsider tiktaalik as a transitional form? Of course not, it would imply that Tiktaalik and early tetrapods like Acanthostega have long ghost lineages, but Tiktaalik still displays characteristics that help us understand the ways in which fish evolved into tetrapods.

I'm sure you are going to say "oh this is ad hoc evolutionist circular reasoning" but expanding our knowledge based on new information (which is what these uncovered footprints have forced us to do) should be something to be celebrated, it's the best thing about science. As new data comes in, we adapt to it.

We don't know everything about our evolutionary history, but that doesn't mean we don't know anything. Understanding more about the time-scale and conditions that tetrapods evolved in isn't the same as circular reasoning.

I've only shown why tiktaalik is still a transitional fossil in the light of these footprints. If you want to go over its morphology I have a stack of papers that confirm its place between fish and tetrapods which I am happy to go over with you. As you haven't actually ever tried to challenge that analysis however, I'm happy to leave it there.[/quote]

I'm not as well versed in these matters as you are so would be grateful for any additions or explanations of where I might have gone wrong.

 

[Frenger]

And this is his reply.

I already demonstrated that you are attacking a strawman, and here you are attempting to do so again.

My point, (which you have yet to address), is that it is now known that Tiktaalik came AFTER terrapins, therefore it doesn't do transitional form. This nothing to do with being a direct descendant, though if you actually thought about it for one form to become another it would need to be a descendant from the previous, ergo if you claim it to be a transitional form then you are implying that it is a direct descendant, otherwise it would be a dead end species which does nothing for evolution. You seem to forget this, if something is a transitional form between fish and amphibians then it exists in the time period between the arrival of fish and the.arrival of amphibians. Leading to my analogy, you cannot have your son existing before your grandpa, this is based solely on logic.

As I said the similarities argument is based on the a priori assumption that evolution is true meaning that you are engaging in circular reasoning. Additionally it does nothing to address my point above, which you continue to dance around.

 

[australopithecus]

Kid's an idiot. Nuff said.

 

[Isotelus]

And this is his reply.

I already demonstrated that you are attacking a strawman, and here you are attempting to do so again.

My point, (which you have yet to address), is that it is now known that Tiktaalik came AFTER terrapins, therefore it doesn't do transitional form. This nothing to do with being a direct descendant, though if you actually thought about it for one form to become another it would need to be a descendant from the previous, ergo if you claim it to be a transitional form then you are implying that it is a direct descendant, otherwise it would be a dead end species which does nothing for evolution. You seem to forget this, if something is a transitional form between fish and amphibians then it exists in the time period between the arrival of fish and the.arrival of amphibians. Leading to my analogy, you cannot have your son existing before your grandpa, this is based solely on logic.

As I said the similarities argument is based on the a priori assumption that evolution is true meaning that you are engaging in circular reasoning. Additionally it does nothing to address my point above, which you continue to dance around.

Your first reply was perfect. In spite of what he thinks, you have definitely addressed his point and countered it successfully, and he's still not understanding the correct definition of a transitional species. While I'm sure he is aware of the idea of the branching evolutionary tree, it's clear that he's incorrectly thinking of it in this case as a linear process (evidenced by his son/grandfather analogy, which simply does not apply in this context). He needs to realize that because lineages are branched, you can have a group that retains the primitive or basal template continuing to exist at the same time as or following other related lineages that show increasing derivation.

 

[Frenger]

Your first reply was perfect. In spite of what he thinks, you have definitely addressed his point and countered it successfully, and he's still not understanding the correct definition of a transitional species. While I'm sure he is aware of the idea of the branching evolutionary tree, it's clear that he's incorrectly thinking of it in this case as a linear process (evidenced by his son/grandfather analogy, which simply does not apply in this context). He needs to realize that because lineages are branched, you can have a group that retains the primitive or basal template continuing to exist at the same time as or following other related lineages that show increasing derivation.

Thanks Isotelus!

I have yet again tried to point this out to him. In the process, I borrowed* one of your sentences as rewording it would have been a silly thing to do.

I'm excited to see his response!

*stole

 

[herebedragons]

I'm excited to see his response!

You must have missed this

I think the most convincing thing regarding Tiktaalik is the prediction it confirmed. You touched on the issue, but I think you should pursue it further. Here is a great, interactive site that explains how the scientists searched for Tiktaalik by predicting its age and location. It should also address this offensive notion that what paleontologists do is "look at a pile of bones and say evolution did it." That is what these guys at EFT think happens. ggrrrrr.

Gilbo will never relent from his position no matter what you show him, but maybe for the sake of other readers you can make it clear that the point is transitional features not that this is a transitional species, per se. Here is another great site that discusses the transitional features of 17 fish to tetrapod species. It is very well done. It also discusses trackways (although not in the way gilbo wants them to). There is also a lot of other information on this site about what is know of the fish/tetrapod transition.

And besides all this Tiktaalik clearly filled a gap in the fossil record of the fish to tetrapod sequence. Before Tiktaalik's discovery creationists would point to that gap as a discontinuity in the transition. Tiktaalik clearly filled that gap!

Well good luck to you ... try to hold your temper

HBD

p.s. Is there a way to re-size images so they don't have to display full size?

 

[Frenger]

You must have missed this

Teehee, yep, bout sums it up.

I think the most convincing thing regarding Tiktaalik is the prediction it confirmed. You touched on the issue, but I think you should pursue it further. Here is a great, interactive site that explains how the scientists searched for Tiktaalik by predicting its age and location. It should also address this offensive notion that what paleontologists do is "look at a pile of bones and say evolution did it." That is what these guys at EFT think happens. ggrrrrr.

I think I did mention that in an earlier post, but you're right, it needs hammering home more. I can't see the EFF forum from work (for educational reasons) so I'm yet to see if he has graced the interweb with more "I don't understand what you mean, therefore you're wrong", but if he has, I shall fo sho go into this. (thanks for the link)

Gilbo will never relent from his position no matter what you show him, but maybe for the sake of other readers you can make it clear that the point is transitional features not that this is a transitional species, per se. Here is another great site that discusses the transitional features of 17 fish to tetrapod species. It is very well done. It also discusses trackways (although not in the way gilbo wants them to). There is also a lot of other information on this site about what is know of the fish/tetrapod transition.

Gilbo is quite strange, on the one hand he clearly understands, but on another more tedious and irritating hand he doesn't want to understand it. Like you say, it should be done for anyone else on that site.

Well good luck to you ... try to hold your temper

My problem is, I think I'm being funny when obviosly i'm just coming across as a manny twatbag. I shall try and rectify that


p.s. Is there a way to re-size images so they don't have to display full size?[/quote]

 

[Isotelus]

Your first reply was perfect. In spite of what he thinks, you have definitely addressed his point and countered it successfully, and he's still not understanding the correct definition of a transitional species. While I'm sure he is aware of the idea of the branching evolutionary tree, it's clear that he's incorrectly thinking of it in this case as a linear process (evidenced by his son/grandfather analogy, which simply does not apply in this context). He needs to realize that because lineages are branched, you can have a group that retains the primitive or basal template continuing to exist at the same time as or following other related lineages that show increasing derivation.

Thanks Isotelus!

I have yet again tried to point this out to him. In the process, I borrowed* one of your sentences as rewording it would have been a silly thing to do.

I'm excited to see his response!

*stole

You are most welcome! I'm glad you could use at least some of it. Which sentence do you borrow/steal (lulz!)? Although I always remain hopeful, I try not to expect too much from these sorts of people. If you start talking about Archaeopteryx, let me know because I would definitely want to see that too.

 

[mumblingmickey]

This has to be the best one this week... I'll post a link so we can all follow the thread..

But one total moron said this

"But why would Atheists watch a movie with a demon in it? They don't believe in that stuff do they."

And what lead him to this amazing epiphany? A girls YouTube video where a poster for Sweeney Todd the Demon Barber of Fleet Street could be seen in the background....

It was even pointed out to him it was just a poster for a movie...which then gae the response I posted above... heres a link to the comment section...

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=_pvazOMbiHg

What do they do... brain themselves with pages of the bible on a daily basis?

 

[tuxbox]

This

 

[Frenger]

This

"How can you be freethinkers, when scepticism controls all of your decisions?"

LULZ

 

[Laurens]

This

Wow.

Someone makes a shouty video ranting about getting in touch with politicians and talking about a 'war' and we're supposedly the butthurt ones??

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

This

At the begging I tough he was making fun of that comment, then I realize it was is own.