(April 22, 2014 at 1:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

---

(April 22, 2014 at 1:07 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: No, Rev, you're right. If a source is written by a Christian, even a Young Earth Creationist, it is worthy to be read, if they are looking at, testing, and interpreting the available evidence objectively.

If the source is starting out from the standpoint that no other viewpoint but the one they are espousing can possibly be correct, that is what makes it an unreliable source. The very mission statement from AiG is that evolution cannot be true, before they even look at the evidence.

How can you possibly think this is a reliable method for testing the evidence that we see around us?

ETA: If you see any of us post a source from a site with a mission statement along the lines of "Our mission is to disprove religious claims, because no matter what, there are no gods and we seek to prove that through our research and bring people to atheism. Atheism is inerrant truth, and everything we look at will be through that lens." Feel free to disregard that source. Just get in line.

---

That's not what they do, SC. This is what those creatard douchebags are all about.

---

---

I know. My point was that if they did do that, I wouldn't automatically disregard the source. But they don't.

(April 22, 2014 at 1:42 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: If evolution isn't true then why does ken ham look like a monkey?

Looks can be deceiving. It's the fact that Canned Ham is a transition fossil that talks like a ape but has the brain of a monkey that clinches the case for evolution.

(April 22, 2014 at 11:29 am)Revelation777 Wrote: Thank you for your recommendation. Make ya a deal, I'll read that and you read the Bible?

If you come here asking questions about transitional forms, why is it unreasonable to expect that you should have to learn more about transitional forms? Why should we have to learn more about Hebrew mythology to "balance out" you looking into your own questions about evolution?

If you're not interested in actually learning about evolution and are only asking these questions to prove us wrong, then you're being dishonest. Before Easter, you said you would be asking seven questions, and that if you got good answers, you'd leave. Not that I'm telling you to leave, but you gave the impression you were willing to learn.

(April 22, 2014 at 12:16 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 12:09 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: They no nothing

Coffee Jesus Wrote:They're primary goal is to show that the Bible be shown inerrant,

Just sayin'.

(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.

Gone five days and this is the first of your arguments I return to.

Disappointing but not surprising since anyone who holds Ken Ham in high esteem and provides links to AiG as "proof" of anything, other than the fact that Ken Ham and his cronies are frauds and liars, just has no understanding of evolution and should not argue against it until they have had the decency to study it.

Thanks for playing, Rev. I give you 1 out of 10.

(April 22, 2014 at 3:02 pm)Beccs Wrote: Thanks for playing, Rev. I give you 1 out of 10.

That was generous.

(April 22, 2014 at 3:10 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 3:02 pm)Beccs Wrote: Thanks for playing, Rev. I give you 1 out of 10.

That was generous.

He deserves one for proving by example at least one human had not evolved since his ancester's monkey days.

(April 22, 2014 at 3:02 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(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.

Gone five days and this is the first of your arguments I return to.

Disappointing but not surprising since anyone who holds Ken Ham in high esteem and provides links to AiG as "proof" of anything, other than the fact that Ken Ham and his cronies are frauds and liars, just has no understanding of evolution and should not argue against it until they have had the decency to study it.

Thanks for playing, Rev. I give you 1 out of 10.

You're far too generous.

(April 22, 2014 at 11:32 am)Revelation777 Wrote:

(April 21, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: I will do him a favor and mention the Cambrian explosion. Lots of missing links there.

It's obvious that what actually happened is God over-poured his coffee beans and had a sudden burst of design ideas. But how do we explain hybrid zones? Why would God place two different species right next to eachother, and program them to mate with eachother when it would only produce infertile offspring?

Understanding the Cambrian explosion. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...ion-causes

---

(April 21, 2014 at 5:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Just a moment, dear:


So basically, they're lying to you. I mean, at minimum this would mean they aren't an objective source, but since you're talking evolution what this means is that there is a one hundred percent chance that you'll only get disagreement, whether evolution is viable or not.

Try again, and this time, use the words of scientists and not conmen.


And again:


How about you post sources that aren't outright biased against the truth, where it contradicts with your favorite story book, Rev. I thought you wanted to be honest about this, and yet here you are still presenting the words of liars as if they were truth.

Just because a source has Christian beliefs doesn't mean that the source should be disregarded. I can do the same with atheistic sources.

You don't say. Unfortunately, you're only rejecting unbiased sources, not specifically atheist sources.

If all you have to support your arguments are links to AIG, you may as well save yourself the time and leave now.

No one here is going to take links from biased, non academic sources seriously.

(April 22, 2014 at 11:32 am)Revelation777 Wrote: Just because a source has Christian beliefs doesn't mean that the source should be disregarded. I can do the same with atheistic sources.

It's not a matter of christian beliefs or atheist beliefs or any kind of beliefs!

How are you going to get to the truth of any matter if the one source you'll bother to use says from the outset that they'll never consider anything other than what they already think? How are you able to see both sides of an issue there?

Remember what I said in another thread, that if you could find me a scientific source that had a statement of faith anywhere in it, that would be a source I no longer trust? What you have in AiG is a source that's dedicated to not only just showing one side of the argument, but to actually warping the other side dishonestly in order to discredit it.

How does that seem fair and balanced, to you?