Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Esquilax]

Dear Sir,
1. I didn't know what quote mining was.

Well, now that you do, do you accept that it's dishonest, and that it means the source you got it from lied to you?

2. I got both of those quotes from someone who was debating online with someone else. These were isolated quotes. I didn't fish them out from a website and just grabbed what I wanted and left the rest.

I'm actually pretty sure that's true, because you really do seem like a person who will accept anything that confirms what you already believe at face value. Would you admit, then, that the source you got those quotes from was lying, and admit that they aren't arguments for your position?

3. By having the names of who said that quote I thought I was fulfilling my obligation

The names are a start, but we shouldn't have to go google trawling to pull you up on your misquotes; you should do your due diligence around creationists as, as this incident should show you, they tend to lie a lot.

4. If you think I have the time to create some cunning stunts to defend my points when I am up to my eyeballs trying to respond to these replies, please pardon me I do have responsibilities to tend to outside of this place.

As we've been telling you, we'd rather you reply to one post in depth, than ten posts in one sentence each. I get that it can swamp you, we've all been there; focus in on points where you can actually make thoughtful arguments. Hell, if you cut out all the "I know it because god says so," crap, you'd give yourself way more time to work with, and actually appear more thoughtful.

5. You guys are quick to make judgments and put labels on people. You don't know Ken Ham from Adam, no pun intended. You guys also do not know me, yet make me out to be this complete deluded religious fanatic with the IQ of a common house fly. Then just ignore my posts then? Why are you wasting your time on an imbecile such as myself?

Personally, I reply to you because I don't think you're stupid. I do, however, think you're intellectually lazy, and just out for easy answers that don't challenge you. I'm trying to rouse you out of that behavior and show you that the people you've been listening to so far are lying to you.

I may not know Ken Ham personally, but his arguments stand and fall on their own merits, not on the strength of the person saying them. Maybe you don't want to hear this, but it is demonstrably true that Ken Ham's claims are not true, that mainstream science has not only refuted them, but done so decades in the past for some of them, and that he willfully misrepresents science in order to accomplish his goals.

For example, you keep saying "molecules to man evolution," and you got that from Ken Ham, didn't you? Well, I want you to listen very carefully to me: that entire premise is a lie. Ken Ham knows this, he's been told it before, but he keeps going on about it, but that's not at all what evolution is. Saying "molecules to man evolution" makes no more sense than saying "yoghurt to soap gravity,": it's not a thing. Evolution only happens to things that are already alive; it's an aspect of population genetics, which obviously needs a population before that happens. The "molecules" part of Ham's misrepresentation is, in fact, a completely separate field of science called abiogenesis, which Ham conflates with evolution deliberately to make it harder to demonstrate that evolution is true.

It's a lie, Rev. A downright, dirty lie, and a simple trip to any mainstream science website will show you this. Ken Ham lies when he tells you this is a thing; ask me for it, and I'll point you to the work of reputable biologists who can tell you the truth. You just have to want to learn. So far, you haven't even been willing to acknowledge there might even be things about evolution that you don't already know, no matter what we show you.

[Revelation777]

I looked it up on the net and read about it.

Sure hope it wasn't on AiG, or any similar site... Even the wikipedia is a better source of information.

The lack of fossil evidence doesn't defend your position.

And the abundance of fossils doesn't defend yours.
Either we're both wrong, or my position, with its full awareness of the nature of that absence of fossils, is the most accurate available.

Also, a discovery of a tooth or part of a jawbone doesn't give the greatest scholar the right to draw a detailed animal that suits their theories.

Indeed, it doesn't.
But it allows them to make educated guesses as to the shape of the head... from there, more educated guesses as to the shape of the body.
And usually they insist on showing you exactly what the fossil is and how they pieced it together to arrive at the overall body.

Look at this skull... see if you can tell which parts are actual fossil (replica) and which are extrapolations:


They can even then extrapolate a face:

---

---

Of course, we know this isn't exactly what the person looked like, but it's an approximation.

If I went to a local graveyard, dug up every ones bones, and lined the various bodies just so, I could create a convincing lineup showing evolution

---

Dear Faith No More,
I believe without a shadow of a doubt that there is a Creator and He is Jesus Christ.

Who cares? What matters, all that matters, is can you demonstrate any of it?

I can if we had a time machine...

But my take is that no, inert matter can't produce life

---

Yes, God took dirt and made man.

I am quite certain Christianity stole this mythological idea from the Jews and their Golems.

---

Just because you have not experienced any doesn't mean the supernatural doesn't exist.

I would venture to make the assertion that anyone who who claims to have experienced anything supernatural is not right in the head. [/i]

---

I believe without a shadow of a doubt that there is a Creator and He is Jesus Christ.

May your delusion be swiftly swept away from you one before it is too late for you to join the ranks of the rational here in reality.

---

They have a Creation Museum and they will be building a Noah's Ark replica. I am very impressed with their findings.

That is because you prefer the comforting lie over the harsh truth.

Is the harsh truth is that once you die your dead, that's it, you no longer exist?

[Lemonvariable72]

Sure hope it wasn't on AiG, or any similar site... Even the wikipedia is a better source of information.

And the abundance of fossils doesn't defend yours.
Either we're both wrong, or my position, with its full awareness of the nature of that absence of fossils, is the most accurate available.

Indeed, it doesn't.
But it allows them to make educated guesses as to the shape of the head... from there, more educated guesses as to the shape of the body.
And usually they insist on showing you exactly what the fossil is and how they pieced it together to arrive at the overall body.

Look at this skull... see if you can tell which parts are actual fossil (replica) and which are extrapolations:


They can even then extrapolate a face:

---

---

Of course, we know this isn't exactly what the person looked like, but it's an approximation.

If I went to a local graveyard, dug up every ones bones, and lined the various bodies just so, I could create a convincing lineup showing evolution

---

Who cares? What matters, all that matters, is can you demonstrate any of it?

I can if we had a time machine...

But my take is that no, inert matter can't produce life

Actually no you couldn't. Our ancestors have larger canines and more protruding and they all have much stronger brow ridges then homo sapiens.

[Revelation777]

Anyone else ready to move of to Rev's second argument so we can speed up him leaving the forums?

Let him stay, but I'd like to see the other arguments with a bit higher frequency...
One a day would be nice, but I guess rev would be overwhelmed with all the replies from each thread.

I'm waiting for something before I go to number 2...and I ain't gonna tell you what it is.

---

Let him stay, but I'd like to see the other arguments with a bit higher frequency...
One a day would be nice, but I guess rev would be overwhelmed with all the replies from each thread.

Why overwhelmed? It's as easy to ignore 100 replies as it is to ignore one, and that appears to be all he's doing. Well, that plus occasionally dropping in some mindless assertions and empty platitudes.

ok,,,I see how it is

[Foxaèr]

Is the harsh truth is that once you die your dead, that's it, you no longer exist?

It is indeed the harsh truth that theists cannot accept, which is why they create the comforting lie of god and heaven.

[Revelation777]

Why overwhelmed? It's as easy to ignore 100 replies as it is to ignore one, and that appears to be all he's doing. Well, that plus occasionally dropping in some mindless assertions and empty platitudes.

He seems to read everything... but is very selective as to what he replies... and he replies in a strange order...
Some people are weird that way...

I do skip over some because I feel I answered similar questions or people are just making fun of me or of my God

[truthBtold]

He seems to read everything... but is very selective as to what he replies... and he replies in a strange order...
Some people are weird that way...

I do skip over some because I feel I answered similar questions or people are just making fun of me or of my God

Hes not ur god hes the god of the jews.. christians hijacked him..

[Revelation777]

How about we distinguish all pertinent responses to Rev with purple font. We can use normal color font as we talk amongst eachother, and Rev can just focus on the purple.

I second that motion.

That's nice but we are getting off track. The original argument was about transitional fossils. We say ye?

---

Did we ever get an argument or evidence from a reliable unbiased source that there are no transitional fossils, to respond to the clear demonstration there are many transitional fossils?

If no, can we agree this argument has been an utter failure and poorly researched at that?

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.

Part of the problem lies is what you guys see as a transitional fossil, I don't. That is why we are at a standstill and we need to go to Argument #1 but I am waiting for something.

[Esquilax]

Part of the problem lies is what you guys see as a transitional fossil, I don't. That is why we are at a standstill and we need to go to Argument #1 but I am waiting for something.

Yes, that is the problem: we see things as transitional fossils based on detailed cladographic, genetic and morphological study done by qualified scientists over decades, and you don't see anything as a transitional fossil based on the fact that you don't understand what half the words I just used mean, all the while bolstering your opinions with the words of uneducated creationist conmen whose arguments essentially boil down to "in my ill informed opinion, this doesn't seem transitional to me."

One of our two sides is bothering with evidence and research, and the other is being an intractable bore.

And before I go, I did ask you to admit that you were wrong about the quotes that you sourced a few pages back, and that you were lied to from the people you got them from. Any progress on that basic level of accountability, Rev?

[Simon Moon]

Part of the problem lies is what you guys see as a transitional fossil, I don't. That is why we are at a standstill and we need to go to Argument #1 but I am waiting for something.

How does Tiktaalik not fit the definition of a transitional form?

It has fins like a fish, and also has rudimentary fingers like a reptile. The head of a croc and the gills of a fish. The ability to turn its head like a reptile, shoulders like a reptile, yet has scales like a fish.

There are others, but lets start there.

And before I go, I did ask you to admit that you were wrong about the quotes that you sourced a few pages back, and that you were lied to from the people you got them from. Any progress on that basic level of accountability, Rev?

Yes rev, what about your dishonest quote mining?

Please respond.