Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Anomalocaris]

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

Only convincing to the spectacularly easily convinced idiots like christains, Rev, not to the paleontologists.

A paleontologist might note that out of the whole jumbo of bones there are about 206 distinctly different varieties. They might date all of the bones of a similar variety and notice although no two bones are exactly alike, there is no clear trend in how they change over time.

They might compare the bones with bones of similar live animals like chimps and note certain bone features like the suture in skulls change in a predictable way as the animal age, and they might notice the same age related variation exist in bones produced but idiotic christain grave robbing hucksters. They might arrange those bones in sequence of age, and conclude some of the difference is age related, and not a progression of evolutionary change.

They might look at the same bone from different individuals, and observe the range of variation is no larger than what is observed in a living breeding population of another species, and conclud these bones all belong to one specie.

They might observe hip bones clearly show two different minimumally overalapping morphologies, and also observe these differences in morphologies are also seen between different sexes of similar living population, and conclude they represent not transitional forms, but different sexes.

Basically, when the likes of you second guess people with real PhDs from real university that teach real since, it would be like a cockroach challenging an elephant. The powers of scientists in truth finding are not superhuman. But they vastly surpass what the likes of you can imagine, nor indeed what your jesus could have imagined, because otherwise he might not have ran around full of himself and thinking his balony story of his own peternity could never be descisively penetrated.

[Ryantology]

Tonus,
You don't have to buy a ticket if you are not interested.

The Creation Museum is in my state. It exists because of my tax dollars. I don't have a choice but to pay for it.

[The Valkyrie]

Tonus,
You don't have to buy a ticket if you are not interested.

The Creation Museum is in my state. It exists because of my tax dollars. I don't have a choice but to pay for it.

It's amazing the tax concessions that place has received, isn't it?

I wonder if a museum of natural history would get the same concessions?

I also wonder if, after 49 pages, we can rename this thread "Failed Argument #1"?

[Godlesspanther]

What characteristics must a fossil have in order for you to consider it a transitional fossil? You've implied you're looking for specific things. What are they?

He'll never say this, but secretly, the answer is "nothing that any fossil will ever have." Out loud he'll give us some nonsense remarkably similar to the crocoduck, if he answers at all. Mark my words.

The creationists' definition for a 'transitional fossil' is: "if it exists it's not one."

[Anomalocaris]

He'll never say this, but secretly, the answer is "nothing that any fossil will ever have." Out loud he'll give us some nonsense remarkably similar to the crocoduck, if he answers at all. Mark my words.

The creationists' definition for a 'transitional fossil' is: "if it exists it's not one."

AIG said so in overarching term. No fact can be admitted to exist which shows "scripture" to be false.

It is ironic AIG thinks their proclamation about truth of genesis could even theoretically be of any value whatsoever when they out and out admitted their proclamation would be the same regardless of whether genesis is in reality true or not.

Total dissociation from truth is in the christian mind the only way to the truth.

[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.

Looks like they did a nice job...could use a bit more rouge

---

Why do you call them conmen? They have a Creation Museum and they will be building a Noah's Ark replica. I am very impressed with their findings.

And what precisely are their findings? They have a museum with 100% fake contents and a land-locked boat amusement park that's sinking faster than it would have done at sea.

Dear Stimbo,
Then don't go and visit. Simple.

---

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.

You believe in harsh truth, I believe that the Truth can set you free.

---

And what precisely are their findings? They have a museum with 100% fake contents and a land-locked boat amusement park that's sinking faster than it would have done at sea.

This is especially hilarious. Artist renditions based on evidence? Clearly fake.

Museum based entirely on a 2000+ year old book with no evidence? All of it must be real.

You rely on artifacts, I rely on Biblical facts

---

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.

Sorry,
My personal life has been really busy. I have about a free hour now.

---

I highly doubt the level of intelligence of a species will decide or not if they become extinct. I also don't understand how extinction supports evolution?

Nature is indifferent to the survival of species, hence a high rate of extinction. If an insufficient number of individuals within a species are able to pass on their genes, the species goes extinct. It could be just bad luck, like a species that only lives on one side of a particular mountain and is wiped out when the mountain turns out to be a volcano. Other species are also part of the 'reproductive fitness landscape' of a species, extinctions alter the course of evolution.

I wish the Dodo bird were still around. Bet they would of made for some mighty fine grub.

---

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.

there is no such thing as an unbias reliable source. If you think your avg. scientist or professor is not bias, HA!HA!HA! Do you know that most universities if a professor even hints that they believe in creationism that they will be brow beaten to the point where they will be forced to resign. Watch Ben Stein's movie Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed.

---

I believe creationists do believe and accept that there are indeed changes and transitions that take place within organisms. But would not evolution have to show that at some point there was an original organism from with all organisms would of eventually evolve from?

That's what all the evidence we have currently points to, but if we had multiplie lineages, that would not be inconsistent with evolution, only with universal common descent.

---

Who are we to tell God how He should of done things.

We're intelligent designers.

---

Who or what decides this? Is evolution some sort of supreme being that says - ok, you turn into this then stop and you are gonna be this?

Evolution is a process that occurs and different rates depending on the prevailing conditions and the genome of the involved organisms.

So every one who has a religious avatar and/or believes in deity is an idiot?

Nope. My side isn't immune to overgeneralizing.

---

Part of the problem is that you have been duped by some of the books you read. Time to wake up and smell the Truth.

If this is the case, part of the problem is your inability to demonstrate how the books we've read have duped us. Merely asserting that they have isn't helpful at all. Perhaps you could read one or two of them to find the mistakes? The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins is long, but if you're only going to read one, I recommend it.

---

I'm hirsute and love bananas but not an ape.

Maybe we should take this in baby steps. Are you a mammal?

---

Thank you for your recommendation. Make ya a deal, I'll read that and you read the Bible?

Read it, cover-to-cover, twice. A lot of us have read it. May I assume that you will return the courtesy?

---

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

I would be most surprised if anyone here ever points you to an atheistic, rather than scientific, source. It's not our fault that so many Christians have abandoned science that they're poorly represented in the upper echelons of scientific endeavor. They used to be on top in that regard.

---

I am not an expert. Are you?

Compared to you, yes. Compared to Jack Horner, no. I have a good layman's understanding of evolution: I've read several books on the subject (including Evolution? The Fossils Say No by Gish) and learn from those better informed on it than I am. This is not a magic power I possess, you can do it, too.

But you won't. It would undermine your faith to discover how much lying your creationist sources do. It undermined mine. Creationism is the most effective tool for driving science-minded folks out of churches: it requires them to look at the one thing that we can be sure that if there was a God, was authored by that God directly, and reject it if it doesn't match what a certain tribe thought about nature thousands of years ago.

I commend you for studying the subject. However, there is a book that explains the origins of life. That Book says that God created the heavens and the earth. Your books say differently. They both can't be right.

---

Ha! Nice guy? More like a sheep!

Yes, I admit, I am a sheep. bahhhh bahhh bahhhh

[Rampant.A.I.]

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.

Looks like they did a nice job...could use a bit more rouge

---

And what precisely are their findings? They have a museum with 100% fake contents and a land-locked boat amusement park that's sinking faster than it would have done at sea.

Dear Stimbo,
Then don't go and visit. Simple.

---

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

---

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

---

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.

---

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

You believe in harsh truth, I believe that the Truth can set you free.

---

This is especially hilarious. Artist renditions based on evidence? Clearly fake.

Museum based entirely on a 2000+ year old book with no evidence? All of it must be real.

You rely on artifacts, I rely on Biblical facts

---

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.

Sorry,
My personal life has been really busy. I have about a free hour now.

---

Nature is indifferent to the survival of species, hence a high rate of extinction. If an insufficient number of individuals within a species are able to pass on their genes, the species goes extinct. It could be just bad luck, like a species that only lives on one side of a particular mountain and is wiped out when the mountain turns out to be a volcano. Other species are also part of the 'reproductive fitness landscape' of a species, extinctions alter the course of evolution.

I wish the Dodo bird were still around. Bet they would of made for some mighty fine grub.

---

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.

there is no such thing as an unbias reliable source. If you think your avg. scientist or professor is not bias, HA!HA!HA! Do you know that most universities if a professor even hints that they believe in creationism that they will be brow beaten to the point where they will be forced to resign. Watch Ben Stein's movie Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed.

---

That's what all the evidence we have currently points to, but if we had multiplie lineages, that would not be inconsistent with evolution, only with universal common descent.

---

We're intelligent designers.

---

Evolution is a process that occurs and different rates depending on the prevailing conditions and the genome of the involved organisms.


Nope. My side isn't immune to overgeneralizing.

---

If this is the case, part of the problem is your inability to demonstrate how the books we've read have duped us. Merely asserting that they have isn't helpful at all. Perhaps you could read one or two of them to find the mistakes? The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins is long, but if you're only going to read one, I recommend it.

---

Maybe we should take this in baby steps. Are you a mammal?

---

Read it, cover-to-cover, twice. A lot of us have read it. May I assume that you will return the courtesy?

---

I would be most surprised if anyone here ever points you to an atheistic, rather than scientific, source. It's not our fault that so many Christians have abandoned science that they're poorly represented in the upper echelons of scientific endeavor. They used to be on top in that regard.

---

Compared to you, yes. Compared to Jack Horner, no. I have a good layman's understanding of evolution: I've read several books on the subject (including Evolution? The Fossils Say No by Gish) and learn from those better informed on it than I am. This is not a magic power I possess, you can do it, too.

But you won't. It would undermine your faith to discover how much lying your creationist sources do. It undermined mine. Creationism is the most effective tool for driving science-minded folks out of churches: it requires them to look at the one thing that we can be sure that if there was a God, was authored by that God directly, and reject it if it doesn't match what a certain tribe thought about nature thousands of years ago.

I commend you for studying the subject. However, there is a book that explains the origins of life. That Book says that God created the heavens and the earth. Your books say differently. They both can't be right.

---

Ha! Nice guy? More like a sheep!

Yes, I admit, I am a sheep. bahhhh bahhh bahhhh

Clearly, the only Unbias Source is Rev and Ben Stein.

Or Reverend Ben Stein.

So, we have Stein interviewing scientists that have had their qualifications ruined by the establishment, wouldn't you think Stein should interview people working in the scientific community at the time about this issue? If this persecution of dissidents was happening I would think he'd go and talk to people still working in the field and cite his examples for scrutiny. This never happens. Either Stein is a just a terrible host for a documentary and should stick to the game shows, or he has an agenda. Stein does interview PZ Myers, Michael Ruse, Eugenie Scott, and the mighty Richard Dawkins for his grand finale, but he never once asks them about the people that were fired or denied tenure. He only sticks to questions concerning how life began.
He doesn't even really talk to them about why Intelligent Design is rejected by the scientific community versus why evolution is taught. He never asks these questions. Michael Ruse, who isn't even credited during his interview (more sloppy documentary work), proposes a possible life beginning scenario involving crystals. This results in Stein asking him again how it's possible... after Ruse just told him and results in what can be interpreted as a rude response from Ruse. This style of filming to show scientists as unwilling to entertain the idea of Intelligent Design pushes the viewer to see science as intolerable.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/expelled-...e-allowed/



http://www.rottentomatoes.com/mobile/m/e...popup=true

[Duke Guilmon]

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.

Looks like they did a nice job...could use a bit more rouge

---

And what precisely are their findings? They have a museum with 100% fake contents and a land-locked boat amusement park that's sinking faster than it would have done at sea.

Dear Stimbo,
Then don't go and visit. Simple.

---

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

---

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

---

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.

---

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

You believe in harsh truth, I believe that the Truth can set you free.

---

This is especially hilarious. Artist renditions based on evidence? Clearly fake.

Museum based entirely on a 2000+ year old book with no evidence? All of it must be real.

You rely on artifacts, I rely on Biblical facts

---

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.

Sorry,
My personal life has been really busy. I have about a free hour now.

---

Nature is indifferent to the survival of species, hence a high rate of extinction. If an insufficient number of individuals within a species are able to pass on their genes, the species goes extinct. It could be just bad luck, like a species that only lives on one side of a particular mountain and is wiped out when the mountain turns out to be a volcano. Other species are also part of the 'reproductive fitness landscape' of a species, extinctions alter the course of evolution.

I wish the Dodo bird were still around. Bet they would of made for some mighty fine grub.

---

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.

there is no such thing as an unbias reliable source. If you think your avg. scientist or professor is not bias, HA!HA!HA! Do you know that most universities if a professor even hints that they believe in creationism that they will be brow beaten to the point where they will be forced to resign. Watch Ben Stein's movie Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed.

Alright lets get bias out of the way. First lets know our definitions.

a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice

So what is a tendency scientist have? Evidence. of course every one has a bias it is just where it lays. For scientist evidence is more important than anything when it comes to knowledge. But the way you are using bias is of course saying that they consider one idea(science like evolution) and not the other (creationism). But let me ask this, is it bias for a astronomer to find evidence and not consider it for a geocentric model? Answer, no. Why? Because there is no evidence for a geocentric universe, no different than there is no evidence for a spontaneous creation without a progressive order of biodiversity by common descent. There are some creationist in science labs and universities. The problem is that when you guys realize that the consensus of people doing the same thing you are conflicts with your most precious belief, then you must yell CONSPIRACY in order to keep your beliefs and "evidence" no matter how wrong you are. Also here are some things about the move Stein didn't put in his movie. http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...u-to-know/

Funny how you try to use this man to prove a point about bias, yet his whole move was based on one.

[Rampant.A.I.]

The evidence has a clear evolutionist bias. Therefore, we must discard the evidence in favor of a creationist-biased worldview to restore impartiality.

[Lemonvariable72]

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

It would be a great stunt to pull off, though wouldn't it? But someone would have to REALLY believe they could fool an expert with it, and no one REALLY thinks that, do they? No one believes it enough to try it with, say, an archaeological site, and send the photos of carefully arranged skeletons to a museum or university for an evaluation of the remarkable series of gradations in hominid evolution they've 'discovered'. You've never met anyone in your life with a skeleton that could be mistaken for one belonging to a Homo Erectus.

---

Evolution is no threat to anyone's faith in God and Jesus. This includes your own faith.

Maybe he perceives his own faith as so brittle that it can't take even one moment of seriously considering the science without crumbling like a cracker.

I've mentioned that I started off as a creationist. Finding out out how deliberately dishonest so-called 'men of God' were being was far worse than if I had found out they were honestly mistaken.

Lol unless he has met a Olympic runner with forward facing palms, no fore head and eye brows you break your fist on.