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

I guess you don't mind believing something occurred (in this instance, that a deity willed the universe into existence) despite the fact there is no evidence proving it.

And there is a tremendous amount of evidence for evolution. Creationist twits just refuse to see it.

Quote: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.

Oh, my. Google "evolution of the whale" and you'll find a pretty complete picture of how this creature evolved.

Quote:Keep in mind that all animals, birds, humans, etc. supposedly evolved from a single ancestor.

Keep in mind that all creatures on this planet supposedly were created by an invisible, all-powerful being by waving his hand. Yeah... that makes so much more sense!

Quote: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!

Okay.... let's forget about bones! You know what connects one family or species to another? Our DNA! Our DNA matches that of a chimpanzee by 98%! And as you move further down the evolutionary tree, our DNA matches other species less and less.

So explain why a deity would create us so that our DNA matches other creatures to such a high degree.

Quote:Truth be told, there is evidence for the existence of an intelligent Designer/God.

Great! We're finally going to get some evidence that "God" exists! And what is it?

Quote:The evidence is found in the precision we see around us in the natural world.

Groan.

THIS argument again? Seriously? This is the best you people can do?

Quote:Precision indicates deliberation, and deliberation indicates someone did it.

Oh, really? You know what's pretty precise? The conditions needed to create a tornado. By your logic, "God" must be creating tornadoes and sending them to kill people and destroy homes. Right?

Quote:So you see, theists are not driven by blind faith at all.

Uh, yeah, you are. I can't tell you how many theists I've encountered who tell me they either don't need evidence or they'll continue to believe no matter how much contradictory evidence you show them. That's blind faith.

Quote:Rather, logic plays a large part in the belief system of theists.

Logic?



You mean like the "logic" that has you believing in talking animals, miraculous conceptions, magical healings, people rising from the dead, etc, etc....?

Quote:Meanwhile, what logic are you using in believing macroevolution happened when the fossils record says it did not?

Logic that is supported by tangible evidence.

(April 16, 2012 at 11:41 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(April 13, 2012 at 8:28 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts

You (or whoever you copied that from) makes it sound like the scientific community is making a bare assertion, rather than reporting what the available physical evidence shows.

ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER AGENDA:
I copied the definition of "evolution theory" from a scientific website and identified it with the weblink in my opening post. Here it is again.

"The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor."

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Evolution/

(April 16, 2012 at 11:41 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(April 13, 2012 at 8:28 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: 2. Fossils are the bones of long-dead animals. Do fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal (eg. a whale evolving into a bear)--which is an example of macro-evolution?

You mean like a land animal's descendants involving into whales? That happens to be a transition particularly well-illuminated in the fossil record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER AGENDA:
You are complaining about me quoting Ann Coulter, while you have the nerve to use Wikipedia as your only source! Now, that's a switch. Anybody can post stuff on Wikipedia—including people without credentials. That's why I use other sources along with Wikipedia when citing them.

The transitions you and Wikipedia are claiming to be "particularly well-illuminated in the fossil record" are actually examples of variation within the same species of animals (microevolution). In other words, the animal didn't change into anything other than what it started off as. It might have grown bigger or smaller based upon the availability of food, but it's still the same animal.

There have been instances when over-zealous paleontologists looked at partial skeletons of two entirely unrelated animals and thought it was evidence of one animal evolving into something else. This later turned out to be false.

(May 7, 2012 at 9:51 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(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?

Don't hold your breath.

So animals changed without changing? LOL. They just got bigger or smaller? I'll bite, so maybe you can show me a massive (or tiny) cambrian dog?

I think we have a Golden Crocduck Award winner

Here, the evolution of the eye:


The first stage is just a layer of photosensitive cells. Eventually, the layer becomes a cup, as to sense the direction of the light. Then the opening gets more narrow so that it becomes more accurate, then we get pupils, ect.

And this video is a beautiful presentation of Evolution by Mr. Carl Sagan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZpsVSVRsZk

Guys, this fucking idiot is quoting Ann Coulter.....a cunt so dumb she gives dumb cunts a bad name. I don't know why anyone is wasting time with such a world-class idiot.

Hey, Alter...you're right. Stick with your fucking buy-bull....it's about all you can handle.

(May 13, 2012 at 3:06 pm)Annik Wrote: Here, the evolution of the eye:


The first stage is just a layer of photosensitive cells. Eventually, the layer becomes a cup, as to sense the direction of the light. Then the opening gets more narrow so that it becomes more accurate, then we get pupils, ect.

Annik, eyes have evolved more than once. Check out the calcite eyes of the trilobite which are also seen in a species of Brittlefish.

(April 16, 2012 at 11:41 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(April 13, 2012 at 8:28 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: 3. When people in the pro-evolution scientific community speak about animals evolving into "new species," are they referring to one family of animal evolving into an entirely different family of animal (eg. a squirrel evolving into a bat or a dinosaur evolving into a bird)--which are examples of macro-evolution? Or are they referring to variations of the exact same type of animal (eg. Doberman dog, Bull dog, Rottweiler dog)--which is an example of micro-evolution?

They are talking about the descendants of one species evolving into a different species, like eohippus into the modern horse. 'Family' has a specific meaning in taxonomy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_(biology)

ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER AGENDA:
I wouldn't be too sure of that if I were you. The word "species" was fabricated by evolutionists and they use it interchangeably for animals that can interbreed as well as for animals that cannot interbreed. As a reminder, below is the definition of "species" from my OP.

Quote:DEFINITION OF SPECIES:
Loosely speaking, a species is a related group of organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding. As defined by Ernst Mayr, species are:

"groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Species

Truth be told, pro-evolution scientists change the meaning of the word "species" whenever it suits their purposes, as confirmed by biologist John Endler who wrote:

"Species are "tools that are fashioned for characterizing organic diversity" (Lewin,1979). Just as there are a variety of chisels made for different purposes, different species concepts are best for different purposes; and just as it is inadvisable to use a carving chisel to cut a mortise, problems arise when one species concept is used when it is inappropriate. Confusion and controversy have often resulted because different people working with different groups of organisms mean different things by "species.""


Another thing: The Taxonomy Table was dreamed up by Carl Linnaeus (May 23, 1707 – January 10, 1778) who erroneously classified animals based upon their similarities. In some instances, he put animals in different species despite the fact they can actually interbreed.

Quote:King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.

Deut. !4:7

Hares do not chew the cud. Shouldn't your fucking "god" bat 1.000, asshole?