Top youtube Muslim starts being rational

**Needcatscan** · 09-09-2008 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

Well I was attempting to rerail the thread....... did it work..........

Nope

**♥Mark** · 09-10-2008 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

If they go find some fossils that goes from a reptile to a primate does that mean reptiles skipped reptile-like mammals now?

Can anyone else make any sense of this?

**Sandform** · 09-10-2008 01:15 AM

Originally Posted by Mark75

Can anyone else make any sense of this?

I think he means...

If you find a reptile, and then you find a primate, dated at different time periods, it means that it skipped from reptile to primate without a transition...

**♥Mark** · 09-10-2008 01:22 AM

WAT WE HAVENT FOUND EVERY FOSIL THAT HAS EVER EXISTED WAT SCINE IS A LIE

**nitsuJ** · 09-10-2008 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by Mark75

Can anyone else make any sense of this?

Reptiles evolved into reptile-like mammals. It's not that hard to understand.

**drewmandan** · 09-10-2008 01:33 AM

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

If they go find some fossils that goes from a reptile to a primate does that mean reptiles skipped reptile-like mammals now?

You mean like a fossil of a monkey with scales?

**nitsuJ** · 09-10-2008 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by drewmandan

You mean like a fossil of a monkey with scales?

No. "Reptile-like mammal" doesn't have to necessarily mean it's a primate.

Mammal-like reptiles, rather, is what they're called! Even though they'd both be the same pretty much.

They were around 275 mya.

**Sandform** · 09-10-2008 01:45 AM

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

No. "Reptile-like mammal" doesn't have to necessarily mean it's a primate.

Mammal-like reptiles, rather, is what they're called! Even though they'd both be the same pretty much.

They were around 275 mya.

Justin I think they were asking what the relevance was.

Meanwhile...Jiggle Jiggle Shake Shake now you have a party cake!

**♥Mark** · 09-10-2008 01:52 AM

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

No. "Reptile-like mammal" doesn't have to necessarily mean it's a primate.

Mammal-like reptiles, rather, is what they're called! Even though they'd both be the same pretty much.

They were around 275 mya.

So there were rat-turtles.

And this means..?

**nitsuJ** · 09-10-2008 01:56 AM

Originally Posted by Sandform

Justin I think they were asking what the relevance was.

Meanwhile...Jiggle Jiggle Shake Shake now you have a party cake!

It'd mean one of the fossils are flawed. Which goes back to showing that fossils don't really prove reptiles evolved into mammals, or reptiles into birds. Sure it gives up reasonable cause to say they did, but it doesn't necessarily mean they did. Reasonable is a good chance, not a 100% guarantee.

**♥Mark** · 09-10-2008 02:12 AM

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

It'd mean one of the fossils are flawed.

Huh? What are you even saying? Meaning what, the fossils are fake or something? You know what's funny is that there really is no debate among anyone relevant over whether or not evolution happened. We can clearly see that millions of years ago the Earth was populated by creatures which no longer exist today. Along the way, we find that the ancient creatures changed over time into new species. We find that the species continued to change and die out until we get right here to our present day with all our modern life forms. Evolution happened. Sorry. There is virtually no question. The only uncertainty is the exact mechanism (I.E. which theory of evolution) it occurs. Of course that isn't to say no one has any idea. Our knowledge increases every day. Even if you somehow disproved the current theory of evolution, you haven't disproven that evolution has happened. Basically the only way to do that would be to prove that the corresponding life forms in history for which we find fossils did not exist. You'd have to show that these fossils are fake, or otherwise formed in a way that was not caused by an ancient, dead life form. Or maybe the fossils are real, but occasionally aliens come to Earth and remove its inhabitants and replace them with slightly different ones.

**nitsuJ** · 09-10-2008 02:20 AM

Originally Posted by Mark75

Huh? What are you even saying? Meaning what, the fossils are fake or something? You know what's funny is that there really is no debate among anyone relevant over whether or not evolution happened. We can clearly see that millions of years ago the Earth was populated by creatures which no longer exist today. Along the way, we find that the ancient creatures changed over time into new species. We find that the species continued to change and die out until we get right here to our present day with all our modern life forms. Evolution happened. Sorry. There is virtually no question. The only uncertainty is the exact mechanism (I.E. which theory of evolution) it occurs. Of course that isn't to say no one has any idea. Our knowledge increases every day. Even if you somehow disproved the current theory of evolution, you haven't disproven that evolution has happened. Basically the only way to do that would be to prove that the corresponding life forms in history for which we find fossils did not exist. You'd have to show that these fossils are fake, or otherwise formed in a way that was not caused by an ancient, dead life form. Or maybe the fossils are real, but occasionally aliens come to Earth and remove its inhabitants and replace them with slightly different ones.

Ok, say you have a fossil that goes from reptile to mammal-like reptile, then you have a fossil going from reptile to primate. The fossil going from reptile to primate is probably flawed, or contains inaccuracies. I'm not trying to debate evolution is false, I'm an evolutionist, not creationist. So don't waste either of our times to try and prove to me evolution is real. I'm saying fossils don't prove that reptiles evolved into birds, or whatever you'd like to choose, they give reasonable evidence that they more than likely did, but it's not 100% evidence.