leptoceratops's avatar

leptoceratops

For Honour And Glory
60 Watchers49 Deviations
10.8K
Pageviews
offending infidel
(thefactofcreation.blogspot.com…)


Many aspects of the Darwinist deception regarding Tiktaalik Roseae, for long years the subject of speculation by Darwinists, have been exposed. Darwinist fraud, which we have maintained on the agenda so many times, has once again been revealed with new aspects. It has again been seen that people are being misled by Darwinists; TIKTAALIK ROSEAE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SPECIES OF ALLIGATOR:
 

Firstly "Darwinist" is as silly a thing to label your enemy as a Neutonist, but alas I argue with an ass (a poet and.. well you know it). But yes it has been a long fourteen years since the unearthing of Tiktaalik rosseae but no it is not an alligator.


Related image  



- There are various very important facts about Tiktaalik Roseae that need to be known. The Tiktaalik Roseae fossil, that has to date been comprehensive depicted with odd-looking legs and even its whole body, reconstructions of which have been prepared and these fantastical reconstructions put on display in museums, and which has for years been described as an intermediate fossil in books, in fact CONSISTS SOLELY OF A SKULL. 

It doesn't, most of tiktaalik survives, but naturally as all creationists eventually must, when the truth doesn't suit you ignore it. From the rest of us hear on earth, hope you're having a nice trip.


- None of the bones added onto the skull belong to this life form at all, CONSISTING OF BONES BELONGING TO OTHER LIFE FORMS discovered in the same fossil-rich strata. 

Except that they (though admittedly broken) were found set in the matrix in such a way that is is highly unlikely that they are unassociated. but then again creationists are famous for being unable to see the forest through the trees.

Image result for incomplete puzzle



- The fin fragments that have been attempted to be linked to this animal in fact belong to other fossil fishes living in the same strata. DELIBERATE ATTEMPTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO PORTRAY THESE AS BEING PART OF THE DISCOVERED SKULL. In this way, Tiktaalik Roseae has been turned into a false intermediate fossil. 
- Therefore, all the speculation about the animal’s skull and the other parts added onto it is FALSE.

It is very convenient how you only use pictures of the specimen partially unearthed, but even if the skull is completely unrelated to the rest of the body, its the front limbs that really matter taxinomically speaking. The front limbs are a clear example of the relationship between tetrapods and the other lobe finned fishes.


Related image


All the characteristics of the skull are CHARACTERISTICS BELONGING TO ALLIGATORS: The eyes being close to one another and located on the top of the head, the flat skull, the skull being able to move independently of the body, the sharp teeth and its general appearance are all specific to the alligators. In appearance, the animal IS IDENTICAL TO THE ALLIGATOR SINANSIS SPECIES LIVING IN today’s China.

eyes on top of its head, a flat, independently moving skull and sharp teeth are not specific to alligators by any reasonably definition of the word specific. you also neglect to explain how exactly a Chinese alligator waddled its ass to Nunavut.



Indeed, one can see the fraud here from the account of the artist involved in the reconstruction of Tiktaalik Roseae. In reconstructing the fossil, the artist in question explicitly states that HE TOTALLY INVENTED THE CREATURE THROUGH THE POWER OF HIS IMAGINATION.

Furthermore, the same artist stated that he determined the tissues of the animal in question and had no qualms about stating that a great deal of speculation was needed in order to produce a living appearance from a single fossil remain.

CITATION NEEDED, you don't really expect me to believe something just because you pulled it out of your ass, right?

As we have seen, it is not at all hard for a Darwinist artist under the influence of evolution to turn a skull with entirely alligator characteristics into a very strange-looking, false transitional form. The Tiktaalik Roseae deception that has been going on for so many years has been seen by millions by means of this simple deceptive technique.

Some people, lacking any great knowledge of the subject, may fall into the error of thinking that Darwinists behave scientifically, that an intermediate fossil has genuinely been found and that what is on display is what the animal really looked like. The fact is, however, that all that they have is an alligator skull, bones and fin fragments belonging to fish and other life forms discovered nearby the skull, and the power of imagination of an artist guided by tall tales of evolution. To sum up, Darwinists have deceived people yet again.

Tiktaalik Roseaeis a false transitional fossil brought to the fore by Darwinists out of an urgent need at a time when they are in the worst despair and have begun being defeated. Just as with the IdaArdi and Austrolapithecus Sediba deceptions, which have recently visited such terrible humiliation on Darwinists.    

In fact,Tiktaalik Roseae is a perfect species of alligator, examples of which are still alive today. It lived 375 million years ago AND IS TOTALLY IDENTICAL TO THE LIVING SPECIES OF ALLIGATOR.

This life form is in fact A LIVING FOSSIL THAT COMPLETELY DEMOLISHES DARWINISM.

Every individual living thing is a transitional form, that's kind of a key concept in evolutionary biology.

On the topic of alligators. Tiktaalik roseae is not an alligator, because it is not an archosaur, because it lacks cranial fanestra, something archosaurs are rather famous for. you may have noticed this if you actually looked at a the two skulls side by side, there is also the fact that tiktaalik has many small teeth (as is common in fish) whereas crocodilians have a comparatively small number of rather robust teeth. The most glaring over site in my opinion is that you failed to mention why tiktaalik has a third (Parietal) eye, this is a feature common in many types of fish and some tetrapods but is not present in archosaurs.








So long as Darwinist speculation persists we will of course continue to issue clarifications regarding their intermediate fossil frauds. But the real issue is that Darwinists HAVE STILL NOT BEEN ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR HOW A SINGLE PROTEIN MIGHT HAVE EMERGED SPONTANEOUSLY. Evolution collapses right at the phase of the very beginning of life.

It is truly humiliating for Darwinists to offer deceptive accounts of a living thing whose fins turned into legs WHILE THEY ARE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN HOW A SINGLE PROTEIN MIGHT HAVE COME INTO EXISTENCE, WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN DEFEATED AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF LIFE.

Abiogenisis is vary complex and not fully understood, but also outside the scope of evolution (you know the topic of your essay).

More furore over yet another Darwinist deception has now blown up. But the deception has been completely exposed in all respects. Darwinists are left with no way out. Whenever they come up with a deception, that deception will inevitably be crushed. And we would once again remind the public that they are left speechless by even a single protein.

You literally have not presented any evidence against evolution, your arguments are, well not arguments at all.

This is an immutable law of Allah. Our Lord reveals in one verse how falsehood will always be defeated:

With any luck you've got something right (for once).

Rather We hurl the truth against falsehood and it cuts right through it and it vanishes clean away! Woe without end for you for what you portray! (Surat al-Anbiya’, 18)

 Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb who do not use reason.
(Surah Al-Anfal 8,22)
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
The following was taken from the transcript of:


It's always good to learn new terms in the term we want to learn today is moter, meaning temporary marriage it is basically a marriage which is incompatible or marriage which is baseless.

Great, I too like leaning new terms.

So, why I'm saying this is because there's a baseless marriage between Darwinism and scientific advancement. So we have this type of rhetoric that you get in popular newspapers, that you get in popular documentaries, they again these are things oh you know if you don't accept Darwinism or if Darwinism not accepted in some parts of Muslim world or Darwinism not accepted in you know Christian America then there'll be scientific regression and people will be backwards and so on and so forth. This is actually totally nonsense, it's totally nonsense and the reason why it's totally nonsense is because there was scientific advancement before Darwin so the idea that if people don't accept Darwinism as being true literally which we have loads of reasons not to believe that's true anyway he's gonna lead to a regression in science is nonsense because we had scientific advancements before Darwin.

Without an understanding of evolution there, is still scientific advancement, but not in regards to natural science. Natural science is at this point so based on the Theory of evolution that without understanding this you can hardly do anything of note. We can't ignore ideas we don't like, as rational people we have no choice but to believe what is true.

But yes there still will be scientific advancement, but people who refuse to understand evolution usually distrust science whole-sale, and that leads to stagnation. Just look at the US, in 1950 a yank could earnestly say "we're number one". but now almost 70 years later such a comment can only be made out of irony or ignorance. they had the best education, the best scientists and they were about to start the space race with the USSR, but now look at them, they're education is one of the worst among the developed nations, they're falling behind in the sciences, and NASA is a decade or two away from pan handling. At the root of it all is scientific literacy, without that we have nothing.

So the idea that if people don't accept Darwinism as being true literally which we have loads of reasons not to believe that's true anyway he's gonna lead to a regression in science is nonsense because we had scientific advancements before Darwin and in fact Darwin was living in a time in which there was a lot of scientific advancement so this whole idea of if you don't accept human chimpanzees to you you don't accept the tree of life we don't accept natural selection led them the Monad to the man you are you know scientifically taking the world backwards that's total nonsense.

Of course there was scientific advancement before Darwin, there was great scientific advancement made in the bronze age too, they had some of the worlds greatest art and architecture, But does that mean we should have stopped there, of course not.
Image result for mycenaean sword

What does Darwinism teach you about science fundamentally what does that teach you about mathematics or logic or philosophy or poetry, it teaches you all of these things fundamentally are either due to your survival and reproduction or a maladaptive of something which is a maladaptive product of that so essentially if you're a Darwinist you should really care about scientific advancement unless that leads you to having greater survival in reproductive value. Now some of the Darwinists can say of course that's what science is all about that's total nonsense science and scientists is not just about enhancing human reproductivity and enhancing our survival that's part of it.

Nobody said that because we have evolved via natural selection that we most abandon everything that doesn't help us survive. Humans were naturally selected for curiosity and creativity, that is why we have been so successful, a 
byproduct of this is that we are most satisfied when we are learning and creating in our spare time, ergo Art and Science are born, not as solely tools but as pleasurable pastimes as well.

So okay grant you that, I will give you that as roadkill, fine you can have that you can have that little past science. What about the science what about the power of science that has nothing to your survival in reproduction? What about the part size which is actually the essence of science which is for the sake of learning not learning for the sake of your survival reproduction but learning for the sake of learning? So you'll have a professor say who's way past an age that he can't basically get aroused right and have children he's way past that age right, and you know he hasn't got that sort of Darwinian motive he'll still spend his life at the rest of his life you know searching into the cosmos coming up with different theories going around talking about science that's learning for the sake of learning that's learning and promoting science and scientific advancement for another greater purpose not to do with surviving reproduction, and so that power science Darwinists actually can't claim so this whole false notion that 'oh if we don't follow science I mean if you don't follow Darwinism we're somehow gonna fall back into cavemen times and you know, paint our faces blue and throw Spears at each other' it's total nonsense.

(this guy is starting to ramble now) As I said Learning for it's one sake is an unintended byproduct of natural selection, a happy accident lets say. and as far as "He can't basically get aroused" Men don't really work like that, My great granddad could still get it up at 96 (it's a long story). But I don't no where you got "fall back into cavemen times and you know, paint our faces blue and throw Spears at each other" What? Nobody ever said that. you do know what the world before Charles Darwin looked like, right.
Related image

If we truly were Darwinists, if we truly did actually just want to focus on survival and reproduction we wouldn't be learning anything about the natural world unless it helped us with our survival and reproductive value, but as we know that's not them that's not the main reason why scientists do what they do they do what they do because they want to learn something about the world and they want to get to know the unknown. Look at guys like Newton from a Darwinian point of view, how are you gonna explain this guy he thought it was a great thing that he died a virgin, he thought it was a great thing that he was doing what he was doing but he never had any children how do you explain that from a Darwinian point of view. You don't actually have an explanation so scientific advancement is not based upon somebody accepting Darwinism is actually based upon a emotion a drive a desire to discover which is actually fundamentally non Darwinian.

First off, you are confusing believing in natural selection with enforcing it, there are no mobs of scientists, to my knowledge that go around sterilizing cripples and dullards to improve the 
gene-pool, when that happens then you can talk about how destructive "Darwinism" (not a word by the way) is. As for Newton, he was most likely an Asexual, but he was also a genius. He did not spread his genes, but his contribution to humanity is not lessened by it.

The desire to Discover is totally Darwinian, it is in our DNA and has brought us out of our caves to walk on the moon.

Image result for moon landing
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In

Larking about.

1 min read
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong here...

Related imageRelated image
Image result for chimpanzeeImage result for mark zuckerberg robot
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In

Firstly I would like to take a moment of remembrance and faithful observance of this of this solemn day, and swear never to let it pass unmarked.






By popular demand (a suggestion
 made over a year ago)

The offending video 

Welcome to the Darwinian delusions channel this channel is dedicated to showing that Darwinism is speculative based on assumptions and there's disputes about his most fundamental ideas, now we as human beings we respond to social proof, if lots of people are believing something or doing something we simply follow them and this is the reason why when I speak to people who believe in Darwinism and I asked them for evidence they don't actually have evidence.

I assume by "Darwinists" (what? guess that makes me a Newtonist too?) you mean random people. Though it is unfortunate that be it true or false most people take their knowledge spoon fed, but if you actually took the time to speak with someone educated on the subject (or read a Wikipedia article) then you may see that we do have some evidence to back up our claims.

What they do is they say go to Richard Dawkins, go talk to university, go to Cambridge University speak to these scientists, I have faith in them, I believe in them. But this is completely wrong we should base our decisions in our life based upon evidence.

Well admittedly that is basically what I just did more or less, but this is not because I have "faith" in them, it is because I am willing to trust someone who has accurately portrayed the facts before and is likely to do so again, and if you really based your life on the evidence you would put down your apologetic for dummies handbook for a bit and make some independent observation.

Now one of the evidences that people use is this book called the greatest show on earth by the Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, now even though his other books; the blind watchmaker, The Selfish Gene, River of Eden, all of these things touched upon the topic of Darwinism this according to him is the first time where he's written a book about the evidence for Darwinism.
Now I just want to challenge this book using one assumption that he makes and show why that assumption is wrong now the assumption that he makes in this book is that the Darwinian history of life is true because all common similarities are due to common descent -

I've not read the greatest show on earth, but you have a very impressive book shelf so I withdraw my argument...

Balls to that! Lets away!

-now this is a false inference and the reason why is because you can see in front of you two saber-tooth Tigers clearly according to Darwin or anybody who believes in the Darwinian history of life both of these would be either linked through some sort of ancestor descendant relationship because they look so similar but there's a big problem one of these is from North America one of these is from South America and they have never interacted one of them is a marsupial saber-toothed tiger and one of them is a placental saber-toothed tiger in fact the marsupial saber-toothed tiger is much closer to the kangaroo than it is to the other placental saber-tooth tiger
Smilodon fatalis  by leptoceratopsRelated image
The thing is, you're straw-maning, nobody (intelligent) ever said that these to animals were close relatives because the both have long teeth, from the very beginning Darwinian evolution has been determinable from deeper physiological traits, now backed up by DNA. if your argument discredits anyone it would be the long dead Richard Owen and he peers.

And this picture came from philosophy of human evolution which is published by Cambridge University so the fact of the matter is if you come across a big book written by a very important academic it doesn't mean that that itself is enough for you to believe in his idea even one piece of evidence around us can falsify all of the information in this book and that's exactly what this saber-tooth Tiger example does but I want you guys to realize that example is one amongst many that we know in nature.

uh, well I don't get what you mean, If you can find any point at which Richard Dawkins says that sabre toothed marsupials and sabre toothed cats are close relatives because they have long teeth I will eat my hat.

I hope you've learned something from this video if there is a book that you've been reading about Darwinism that you would like me to respond to please comment below des Alcala hi for listening assalamu alaikum.

Well, I'm sorry to say I've learned nothing, Wa-Alaikum-Salaam

Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Stephen Hawking.StarChild.jpg
I am very bad at words for grief, so I will say little.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Featured

TheFactsofCreation:HowTiktaalikroseae...adebunking by leptoceratops, journal

Scientific Advancement and Darwinism: Debunked by leptoceratops, journal

Larking about. by leptoceratops, journal

I refute: Tiger refutes Richard Dawkins by leptoceratops, journal

Stephen W. Hawking 8 January 1942,14 March 2018 by leptoceratops, journal