Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Anomalocaris]

Come on, Rev777, time for you to unload your number 2.

Judging from the stench from his pants, I think he has unloaded number 7 and number 8 already.

[Cyberman]

Id like to see the next argument, and it seems like rev is out of steam and just tossing assertions out with nothing to back them up.

He never had any steam. But I am sure he is not out of hot air.

That's not air.

[Duke Guilmon]

So revelation did you read my explanation on a transitional fossil or was it ignored?

[Cyberman]

Place your bets now, ladies and gentlemen.

[Mister Agenda]

Again, it almost sounds like "evolution" is like a football coach on the sidelines watching and deciding a different direction for the offense based on how the defense is adjusting.

Again, it almost sounds like you are unable to come to terms with the limitations of plain English on this topic. Do you go on about who someone is talking about when they say it looks like it's going to rain and grill them on why 'it' 'decided' to rain?

When and why did evolution decide to go from unicellular to multicellular?

Evolution isn't an entity, it is a process. It didn't decide anything. Multicellular organisms first appeared about a billion years ago, since your Google finger must be broken.

Does evolution have a will or reason?

No, it doesn't. And I refuse to believe you are too stupid to grasp this, which leaves only mendacity as an explanation for the question. Rule of thumb: the mendacious side of an argument is most probably the wrong one.

How does evolution get into "a rut?"

By having a slower-than-average rate of change.

Does gravity get into a rut?

From one perspective, gravity is nothing BUT ruts.

Evolution has "oomph?"

Sometimes the rate of change is faster than at other times, such as when there are large swathes of new ecological niches to colonize.

Did it gulp down a 5 millennium energy drink?

What do you think being childish does for your case?

When did evolution decided to have an explosion of new species?

Never. The rapidity of speciation increases when a large number of new niches become available for colonization, whether through occupying the gaps left by a mass extinction or a game-changing adaptation (like eyes). There's no more volition involved than water takes in flooding a plain.

I am not trying to argue old earth vs. new earth. Most people on this board do not believe in God, I do. I am here to present God, many on here feel I am doing a terrible job at it.

How is evolution relevant? Millions of people accept both evolution and God, so clearly accepting evolution is no barrier to believing in God. I suspect creationists do more to convince people that they can't accept both evolution and God than do atheists.

So I got some work to do. I feel like I am learning a lot of lessons and things on this board and am humbled to be here. I am very grateful for this opportunity.

That's a good attitude. The least you should get out of this exchange is sharper arguments.

Very clever. I'll tell you one thing, if apes can reason they know who their Creator is.

Then why can't you demonstrate a line of reasoning that doesn't contain a logical fallacy that leads to the God conclusion?

This saddens me. However, I have to give you credit and that you appeared to went into it with an open mind. kudos. I have hope for you though and what a day it will be if you get saved.

I think most of us read it that way. Life is too short to read lengthy books just to find things to pick at. Probably why I've never gotten far into the Qu'ran or Book of Mormon, now that I'm no longer a believer, I'm just not motivated enough.

[SteelCurtain]

I'm going with Argument #2: The Bible Fulfills its Own Prophecies.

[Godlesspanther]

Rev. 777,

I hope that you have ceased posting links to AIG. I have some very good solid reasons for rejecting anything that Ken Ham and the other goons at AIG say. Their statement of faith declares that they will lie in order for their findings to fit with the doctrine that they adhere to. This is, in and of itself, dis-fucking-honest.

The primary claim is that there is a magic book that is always right no matter what. A document, in the real world, cannot function that way. It's based on magical thinking. The conclusions that creationists draw from magic bookism are erroneous conclusions. In other words -- magic bookism simply does not work as a method for obtaining accurate information.

Rejecting established scientific data on the grounds that it does not conform to ancient mythology is insane. AIG is a lunatic fringe cult that is based on bullshit. It is not traditional xtianity, it is not science, it is not history -- it is Ken Ham-ism.

[SteelCurtain]

I'll give anyone good odds on that one, too.

[Mister Agenda]

"Molecule to Man" evolution can not be true because it goes against what Scripture teaches. That is probably why they take that stance.

Which is not a scientific position. One of the primary challenges of science is to eliminate the contamination of the bias of scientists. The bias of AIG is foundational.

And wouldn't youer efforts be better focused on convincing us that your particular scriptures are so reliable that should the evidence in front of our noses tell us one thing and scripture another, that we should go with the scripture? Because if that's the root of your conviction, how do you think you'll be found compelling if you're hacking at the branches?

Profound but we believe science and the Bible are in harmony.

It seems to require that you disbelieve a large swathe of science and further disbelieve that isn't disharmony in order for you to believe that.

I said I would present 7 arguments and leave if I felt that have been addressed satisfactory. I would like to present Argument #2.

I don't see any reason why you shouldn't.

---

I wonder what would of happened if you lived in Jesus' day and asked, "Rabbi, did we come from monkeys?"

Same thing as would have happened if you asked 'Rabbi, does the earth go around the sun?'

---

They are standing firm on what they believe to be true. True to the Word of God and what the evidence is showing them. I commend them for that.

The only thing they demonstrate is that evidence can be made to say anything if you torture it enough. The same is true of scripture.

---

Maybe that is why Jesus said this:
Mat 18:3 and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Gullible like children?

[Rampant.A.I.]

"Molecule to Man" evolution can not be true because it goes against what Scripture teaches. That is probably why they take that stance.

Which is not a scientific position. One of the primary challenges of science is to eliminate the contamination of the bias of scientists. The bias of AIG is foundational.

"Molecule to Man" is a made-up deliberate AiG strawman.

Evolution deals with the adaptation of existing life and speciation.

Abiogenesis deals with the production of life from inert matter.

They're separate theories.

The only "Molecule to Man "theory" advanced is:

"God made Man from Dirt."