(April 21, 2014 at 5:52 pm)Cato Wrote:

(April 21, 2014 at 5:48 pm)Heywood Wrote: Atheist assume it can because otherwise their world view would be incoherent.

An assumption based on our knowledge of chemistry stemming from observation of the world. The assumption of God is supported by baseless assertion stemming from the imagination of an ignorant ancient.

Negative Cato, there is no knowledge of abiogenesis. Atheist just assume it to be true because their world view demands such an assumption.

There is no reason any particular universe should happen to produce life. Ours did. Theist assume a nebulous God did it. Atheists assume some nebulous abiogenetic process did it.

(April 21, 2014 at 5:27 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: drawings of foot bones and sketches are unconvincing to me

In other words, you aren't familiar enough yourself with the concepts involved to properly evaluate the evidence yourself, so you reject it for not fitting your untrained expectations.

(April 21, 2014 at 5:27 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: I respectfully disagree, if you lived back in the Garden my money would be you would of been in complete awe and wonderment.

Speaking for myself, I'm in complete awe and wonderment right now. What does that have to do with the topic?

(April 21, 2014 at 5:27 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Actually evolution would expect creatures over time transitioning into a trilobyte, instead, we just find trilobytes...sounds like Creation to me.

Due to the haphazard nature of fossilization, we don't expect to find complete lineages of most species, so it's not unexpected that some would appear in the fossil record whose direct ancestors weren't preserved. If Creation were true, we wouldn't expect to find organisms that were extinct before humans showed up, and we wouldn't expect to find any transitional fossils at all, because Creation excludes the possibility of transitional organisms entirely.
Either that or it requires evolution at a pace that no organism can manage (all extant cat species having evolved from one proto-cat-kind in the last several thousand years, for instance).

(April 21, 2014 at 5:27 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Then everyone should of evolved into the strongest, most rugged, smartest, creature imaginable. The rabbit must not of got the memo.

Evolution doesn't have an arrow. It always has to make do with what it's got to work with, and the only criteria it has is reproductive success. Rabbits are VERY successful, evolutionarily speaking. That is how badly you misunderstand what the theory actually says.

Deists assume a nebular god. Theists assume a specific God, and atheists are content to say "we don't know, but it seems like we have a pretty good idea."

Both of the former are simply afraid of the dark.

(April 21, 2014 at 5:34 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: there are changes that happen within species, but not species into a different species

There's a Nobel Prize waiting for the person who can find a mechanism that would prevent speciation. Without that it's like claiming that you can't get to a million by counting.

---

(April 21, 2014 at 5:48 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 21, 2014 at 5:46 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Rev: can inert matter produce life?

Atheist assume it can because otherwise their world view would be incoherent.

Once there was no life on Earth. Now there is. There are only so many possibilities, even if you invoke God, unless you're suggesting God is an eternal biological organism.

(April 21, 2014 at 9:10 am)Revelation777 Wrote: If a kind or basic type of animal over a long period of time has evolved into a different kind of basic type of animal, then it is reasonable to expect a plethora of transitional forms in the fossil record. However, this is not the case, rather, the fossil record shows the original diversity of animal and plant forms.

Evolution models of the fossil record predict the following:
- wholesale transitions in organisms over time
- primitive forms evolving into complex forms
- gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms

We do not find any of these to be true based on our fossil record.

Trilobites are an example of an organism appearing suddenly in the fossil record void of any evidence of transitions. Furthermore, trilobites have an organized complexity comparable to modern day invertebrates.

The facts remain, fossils have been discovered to suddenly appear in the record without transition. This is what would be expected from intelligent design not macroevolution.

Everything in this post is wrong, Every single thing.

Let me rephrase: Nothing about this post is right. Not one single thing.

Boru

Shit, he even made a Macroevolution/Microevolution distinction for extra cliche points.

(April 21, 2014 at 6:02 pm)Heywood Wrote: Negative Cato, there is no knowledge of abiogenesis. Atheist just assume it to be true because their world view demands such an assumption.

There is no reason any particular universe should happen to produce life. Ours did. Theist assume a nebulous God did it. Atheists assume some nebulous abiogenetic process did it.

Do you even understand how evidence works?

Oh wait, you're a theist: of course you don't.

(April 21, 2014 at 5:27 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:

(April 21, 2014 at 9:49 am)pocaracas Wrote: Ah... here they come!
The hounds of the creationist!

"kind"? What the heck does that mean? Species? Genus? Family? Order? Class? Phylum? Kingdom? or Domain?

Second, there are a myriad of transitional fossils collecting dust in museums all over the world!
Here's just one example for which we do have fossils, The elephant:

---

---

On top of that, fossilization is an extremely rare event. Just think of all the humans from before the 20th Century for which fossils have been found... and all those that have vanished.
Given that it is rare, some holes are expected in the fossil record. The amazing thing is that we have so few holes as we do!

Last, the trilobite... what have they done to you, to deserve such unflattering representation?
They show up on the fossil record around 521 million years ago. Remember when I said fossilization is a rare event? Well, the farther back in time we go, the harder it is to find fossils... and this was a time on the planet's history when all life was underwater, making it even more difficult to generate fossils...
Just because we have no fossil evidence, it doesn't mean that they didn't evolve from something else.... what it was, we may never know... it may be lost to geology and plate tectonics and erosion.

You do know what a fossil is, don't you?

drawings of foot bones and sketches are unconvincing to me

3 points I addressed.... you decided to speak of one of them.... and in a very rude and crude manner... not to say something "minimalist-like".
In the 2 lines preceding the "drawings and sketches", what did I write?
Care to tell me?
What was the very relevant piece of information I relayed to you by the form of writing on an online forum?
Did you understand it?
Clearly not, or else you wouldn't have taken the time to write that turd I'm quoting above!

Were you perhaps expecting me to send you, via this very online forum, the actual fossils, the millions of fossils from thousands and thousands of different locations, depths and plant and animal species??
And did you expect to understand from what sort of plant or animal that ancient fossil came from?
Can you even grasp the number of different fields of knowledge and science that are required to identify one fossil?

Let go of your lying and conning sites and learn from the people who actually work in the fields of science you are trying to address.

Do you know what a fossil is?

I predict that nothing we can say is going to change Rev's mind. He really doesn't understand the theory of evolution, and based on the links he provided to creationist propaganda, he doesn't want to learn either. This is just an exercise in futility.

Let's go over this again:
<God exists> + <God has always existed> + <God is all powerful> + <God created the universe> each have no evidence, yet each premise is required for a theist or deist viewpoint.

<Abiogenesis might be how life originated> has evidence behind it.

How are these two "interchangeable" by any stretch of the imagination?

You have a theory with evidence, and somehow have equated that to an unfounded assertion that there must be some sort of magical being, somewhere in the universe, that is empirically unverifiable, unfalsifiable (and therefore not scientific), and this magical being suddenly becomes an "alternative choice" to a well-founded theory with supporting evidence.

What is this, amateur hour?

It's the same as saying <lightening is an electrostatic discharge between charged clouds and the planet> or <Thor exists> <Thor is the God of Thunder and Lightning> therefore <Thor causes lighting> are interchangeable "theories."

What?

In the same vein: Either God exists, or I have a piece of lint in my pocket. I have a piece of lint in my pocket, therefore God does not exist.

Someone should write a mobile app where you can shake your device, and 2-3 random premises appear with a conclusion.

I guarantee you some of the Theists on this board would start copy-pasting arguments whenever they ended in "Therefore God"