Can anybody tell me why 1 and 2 are not sillier?

(February 17, 2014 at 8:33 pm)Lek Wrote: Can anybody tell me why 1 and 2 are not sillier?

Just did

(February 17, 2014 at 8:05 pm)Lek Wrote:

(February 17, 2014 at 7:53 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: And that's precisely what happens when people switch off their brains and go with Goddiditism - you get mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers who couldn't spot a scientific paradigm if they were in the middle of a herd of scientific paradigms, covered in scientific paradigm musk at the height of the scientific paradigm mating season and doing the scientific paradigm mating dance.

In other words, Creationists.

Boru

What's sillier?
1 - There was nothing there and then was something there.

2 - The universe always existed.

3 - God, who always existed, created the universe?

What's sillier?

1. God has always existed

2. Ignoring objections and raised on a debate forum, and switching to false dilemmas

3. Saying "a magical wizard must have done it" instead of "I don't know the first thing about science, so maybe I don't know everything about the origin of the universe"?

(February 17, 2014 at 8:37 pm)MitchBenn Wrote:

(February 17, 2014 at 8:33 pm)Lek Wrote: Can anybody tell me why 1 and 2 are not sillier?

Just did

I'll interpret Dawkin's quote - "I don't know."

(February 17, 2014 at 8:33 pm)Lek Wrote: Can anybody tell me why 1 and 2 are not sillier?

Why? You completely ignored answers to your post about evolution. Seems to me you aren't interested in discussing anything.

(February 17, 2014 at 8:33 pm)Lek Wrote: Can anybody tell me why 1 and 2 are not sillier?

Because 3 depends on the most unsupported and unsupportable skyhook it's possible to imagine.

Quote:Not all people who believe the the biblical story of creation believe in a young earth. Much controversy revolves around the use of the Hebrew word "yom" in the creation account.

So, you don't have a problem with the idea of god playing in the dirt as long as he has enough time?

(February 17, 2014 at 7:52 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Micro and Macro evolution are church-invented terms. No one in science uses them, you've been lied to.

"Cross species evolution" is also a church-invented term.

"MISCONCEPTION: Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.

CORRECTION: While it's true that there are gaps in the fossil record, this does not constitute evidence against evolutionary theory. Scientists evaluate hypotheses and theories by figuring out what we would expect to observe if a particular idea were true and then seeing if those expectations are borne out. If evolutionary theory were true, then we'd expect there to have been transitional forms connecting ancient species with their ancestors and descendents. This expectation has been borne out. Paleontologists have found many fossils with transitional features, and new fossils are discovered all the time. However, if evolutionary theory were true, we would not expect all of these forms to be preserved in the fossil record. Many organisms don't have any body parts that fossilize well, the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are rare, and of course, we've only discovered a small percentage of the fossils that might be preserved somewhere on Earth. So scientists expect that for many evolutionary transitions, there will be gaps in the fossil record. To learn more about testing scientific ideas, visit the Understanding Science website. To learn more about evolutionary transitions and the fossils that document them, visit our module on this topic."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...faq.php#e4

I didn't say that gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution. I said that they're compatible with progrerssive creationism. I do think they weaken the theory of evolution, because it could show that creatures are not continually evolving as many evolutionists believe. If macro and micro evolution aren't scientific vocabulary that's fine. There's an abundant fossil record showing evoluiton within particular species, but a very scarce record of creatures evolving from one species to a completely different species. I've seen the list of fossils said to be cross-overs. (Sorry, I used that term.) There's much dispute over them and it's my opinion that's it not sufficient for proof of that type of evolution. Also, if respected scientists are not evolutionists, I guess I should ignore them. I've come across your arguments before, including puncuated equalibrium, which relate to this discussion, but I want to look at the issue from all sides before I decide for myself.

(February 17, 2014 at 8:05 pm)Lek Wrote: What's sillier?
1 - There was nothing there and then was something there.

2 - The universe always existed.

3 - God, who always existed, created the universe?

1 is not an actual coherent position
3 is 2 plus useless garbage

(February 17, 2014 at 9:37 pm)Lek Wrote: I do think they weaken the theory of evolution, because it could show that creatures are not continually evolving as many evolutionists believe.

Which would be an argument from ignorance: "We don't see it in the fossil record, and therefore it doesn't happen." Given the actual mechanism of evolution, and the fact that we can see that between generations right now, the idea that it would suddenly stop happening in the past and then start happening now is ludicrous.

Quote:There's an abundant fossil record showing evoluiton within particular species, but a very scarce record of creatures evolving from one species to a completely different species.

Lemme see if I can simplify this for you: so you agree that there's plenty of evidence showing evolution within species. Given that you agree that these changes occur, and you must understand that, as per the mechanism of natural selection, successful changes propagate and spread through a future population, you would expect those changes to repeat once they've evolved in, correct? So, an organism propagating change A would show change A among all the successful iterations of its species, and when the next generation evolves change B and that too is successful, you'd have a species that now possesses two changes- A and B- over what it used to look like generations ago. Following me so far?

That process doesn't stop. Creatures with A and B will evolve change C, which will stick too. And then change D. And then Change E. And all those changes will add up. So let's say that the original species was a dog, right? And you can look forward in time and see the descendants of that dog, who have changes A and B and C, all the way through to change Z, and because of all those changes, they look totally different. Now they walk upright (change P, let's say) and have less fur (call it change F) and no tail and so on. They look more like people than dogs!

Is it your contention that that descendant, bipedal, hairless, tailless animal is the same species as its quadrupedal, furry, tailed ancestor? Is this thing walking around on two legs with bare skin and no tail a Labrador, or not?

That's evolution. Microevolution is macroevolution, just over a smaller time scale.

Quote: I've seen the list of fossils said to be cross-overs. (Sorry, I used that term.) There's much dispute over them and it's my opinion that's it not sufficient for proof of that type of evolution.

It's too bad for you that biologists don't agree with you, then. Because I'm more likely to take my cues from the guy who actually studied for this, than I am from the guy with an ideologically based opinion. Can you even furnish me with a reason why we shouldn't consider, say, Tiktaalik, a fish with legs, to be a transitional form?