(April 30, 2012 at 1:17 pm)Thor Wrote:

(April 30, 2012 at 1:15 am)Alter2Ego Wrote: [If there's no challenge anymore, why is the word "evolution" permanentLy locked to the word "theory"?

And here we have a perfect example of the logical fallacy known as an Argument of Equivocation.

My Logic 101 professor just failed you.

Well, even amongst christians, and they set as high a standard as ever achieved in these sort of things, more strident and self-confident ignorance than hers would be hard to find.

It is incredibly rare in nature for fossilisation to happen, it may be that only 1 in 1000 species has ever had any member fossilized and then someone has to find it just when it erodes out of the rock. The record is also overwhelmingly comprised of marine species beacuse of the requirements for fossilisation.

Given the above, the fact that the fossil record is as complete as it is amazing.

And yet some buffoons want the record to be completely unbroken with transitional fossils coming labeled in the deposits with the parts that are relevant.

They demand impossible levels of proof for evolution and old earth while giving not one jot of evidence for their own childish beliefs.

(April 30, 2012 at 1:35 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: It is incredibly rare in nature for fossilisation to happen, it may be that only 1 in 1000 species has ever had any member fossilized and then someone has to find it just when it erodes out of the rock. The record is also overwhelmingly comprised of marine species beacuse of the requirements for fossilisation.

Given the above, the fact that the fossil record is as complete as it is amazing.

And yet some buffoons want the record to be completely unbroken with transitional fossils coming labeled in the deposits with the parts that are relevant.

They demand impossible levels of proof for evolution and old earth while giving not one jot of evidence for their own childish beliefs.

When we understand the chemistry of water well enough to make virtually iron clad predictions about how it evaporates, how it condenses, and how it interacts with the content of the atmosphere and the surface of the earth. When we understand the physics of falling body and fluid dynamics of a droplet well enough to make virtually iron clad predictions about how condensed water will fall through the air, the creationists would say "rain fall is a theory because you have not actually physically captured on film the entire falling process of every rain drop that ever existed".

But when they claim god created rain according to the bible, there is never a hint of even the vaguest allusion to how god created even a single drop of water, much less how it dropped, what is the testable properties of the water, the sky, the earth, and the god tha suggest this is even to be taken as anything more than a joke of a fart.

BTW, rainfall is also a theory, just like evolution. Rainfall, like evolution, happen to be theories that conform to real facts.

Bible may be "truth", but it is the sort of utterly worthless truth that has not a hint of the awareness that there exists such a thing as fact in which it ought to ground itself.

(April 30, 2012 at 2:51 pm)Chuck Wrote: Bible may be "truth", but it is the sort of utterly worthless truth that has not a hint of the awareness that there exists such a thing as fact in which it ought to ground itself.

It is the same "truth" as that of a political ideology being "true". I've often compared fundamentalist religion and zealous communists to be the same -- so intent on the purity of their political "truth" that nothing else may exist side by side.

(April 29, 2012 at 2:04 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: That's the loophole some try to use, now that they realize they cannot explain how life started from non-life. So tell me, where did this "common ancestor" come from? Who gave it life, in order for all other living things in existence to have then evolved from it? Let me know.

We have a variety of possible explanations for how life came from non-life. The only problem we're having is pinning down exactly which one (or which group) was actually the case. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, it doesn't rise to the level of a theory yet, and it simply is not part of the theory of evolution but a separate field. If there is a God, it could have 'poofed' the first microbe into existence, and evolution would have applied thereafter. If you prefer to believe that, at least it requires a lesser level of science denial than defending creationism in the sense of all taxonomic families currently in existence being specially created.

(April 29, 2012 at 2:04 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: But that's just it. I have educated myself, and all I keep finding are admissions from paleontologists that the fossils record is full of nothing but gaps. The existence of gaps is another way of saying: "There are no bones linking one type of animal/species/family to an entirely different type."

Getting all your information about evolution from creationist sites is not educating yourself, it's mis-educating yourself. And it shows in your lack of comprehension of basic evolutionary concepts.

(April 29, 2012 at 2:04 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: Below are a couple examples of what the paleontologists have been saying for the past 30 years.

Quote-mining is a form of lying. Your creationist sites have deliberately (you didn't know any better...but they did) lied to you, you being their target audience. They deliberately took a portion of what these people said out of context to make it seem they meant something very different from their actual positions. It's a morally bankrupt tactic of dishonest propaganda. I would hope you will have a problem with that now that you're aware of it.

(April 29, 2012 at 2:04 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: I will respond to the remainder of your rebuttal in another post.

Looking forward to it.

(April 30, 2012 at 1:35 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: It is incredibly rare in nature for fossilisation to happen, it may be that only 1 in 1000 species has ever had any member fossilized and then someone has to find it just when it erodes out of the rock. The record is also overwhelmingly comprised of marine species beacuse of the requirements for fossilisation.

Given the above, the fact that the fossil record is as complete as it is amazing.

And yet some buffoons want the record to be completely unbroken with transitional fossils coming labeled in the deposits with the parts that are relevant.

They demand impossible levels of proof for evolution and old earth while giving not one jot of evidence for their own childish beliefs.

ALTER2EGO -to- DOWN BEAT PLUMB:
In other words, you don't mind believing something occurred (in this instance, macroevolution) despite the fact there is no evidence proving it in the fossils. The pro-evolution paleontologists write multi-page reports in which they speculate, present their long-winded opinions, and make every attempt to talk around the fact that there are nothing but gaps in the fossils.

Keep in mind that all animals, birds, humans, etc. supposedly evolved from a single ancestor. In other words, this had to have been a common-place occurrence since it's how all life forms that have ever existed reached their present stage. Yet, from this seemingly routine occurrence, not one single bone can to found to connect one family or species of animal to something that is entirely different. And that doesn't raise any red flags for you!

According to you, macroevolution must have happened—regardless of what the paleontologist have had to admit. If that's not an act of blind faith, I don't know what is. Meanwhile, you and your pals have the nerve to refer to creationists as being unrealistiic in believing in a fairytale God they cannot see. Now, is this double-standards or what?

Truth be told, there is evidence for the existence of an intelligent Designer/God. The evidence is found in the precision we see around us in the natural world. Precision indicates deliberation, and deliberation indicates someone did it. So you see, theists are not driven by blind faith at all. Rather, logic plays a large part in the belief system of theists. Meanwhile, what logic are you using in believing macroevolution happened when the fossils record says it did not?

Carry on.

(May 7, 2012 at 3:59 am)Alter2Ego Wrote:

(April 30, 2012 at 1:35 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: It is incredibly rare in nature for fossilisation to happen, it may be that only 1 in 1000 species has ever had any member fossilized and then someone has to find it just when it erodes out of the rock. The record is also overwhelmingly comprised of marine species beacuse of the requirements for fossilisation.

Given the above, the fact that the fossil record is as complete as it is amazing.

And yet some buffoons want the record to be completely unbroken with transitional fossils coming labeled in the deposits with the parts that are relevant.

They demand impossible levels of proof for evolution and old earth while giving not one jot of evidence for their own childish beliefs.

ALTER2EGO -to- DOWN BEAT PLUMB:
In other words, you don't mind believing something occurred (in this instance, macroevolution) despite the fact there is no evidence proving it in the fossils. The pro-evolution paleontologists write multi-page reports in which they speculate, present their long-winded opinions, and make every attempt to talk around the fact that there are nothing but gaps in the fossils.

Keep in mind that all animals, birds, humans, etc. supposedly evolved from a single ancestor. In other words, this had to have been a common-place occurrence since it's how all life forms that have ever existed reached their present stage. Yet, from this seemingly routine occurrence, not one single bone can to found to connect one family or species of animal to something that is entirely different. And that doesn't raise any red flags for you!

According to you, macroevolution must have happened—regardless of what the paleontologist have had to admit. If that's not an act of blind faith, I don't know what is. Meanwhile, you and your pals have the nerve to refer to creationists as being unrealistiic in believing in a fairytale God they cannot see. Now, is this double-standards or what?

Truth be told, there is evidence for the existence of an intelligent Designer/God. The evidence is found in the precision we see around us in the natural world. Precision indicates deliberation, and deliberation indicates someone did it. So you see, theists are not driven by blind faith at all. Rather, logic plays a large part in the belief system of theists. Meanwhile, what logic are you using in believing macroevolution happened when the fossils record says it did not?

Carry on.

Really? then explain how the laryngal nerve of the giraffe counts as "intelligent" design.

Alter2Ego, the vast majority of scientists agree that the evidence is overwhelming. It is only the Creationist disinformation campaign that has been propagating the idea there is no evidence. You really need to take a look at fossils like Ambulocetus and Acanthostega and say to yourself, are all these scientists really wrong about these fossils?

Microevolution is a part of macroevolution, and both are a part of evolution, and Charles Darwin was the first to consolidate all those ideas with natural selection into the scientific theory of evolution. You shouldn't listen to the disinformation campaign that has caricatured macroevolution. Macroevolution does not happen overnight. It's taken about 3.5 billion years of evolution for life to get where it is today, and a lot of that time was dominated by single celled organisms. Humans have only been around for a tiny amount of that time.

(May 7, 2012 at 3:59 am)Alter2Ego Wrote: Truth be told, there is evidence for the existence of an intelligent Designer/God.

Fantastic, I've heard so much about it I've been waiting for someone familiar enough with this evidence to present it. Will we be seeing it anytime soon?