Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Confused Ape]

This is a twisting going on here. In Genesis 1:1 that covers that God made everything. When the author gets into more detail the sun and moon come into focus. We can't assume that the Lord only made the sun and this galaxy. The author simple brought the focus on this galaxy.

Who is the author here? What do you believe the purpose of the Bible is? Why did the author simply bring the focus on this galaxy and the Earth in particular? Do you think the Bible's purpose would have been served by including verses about other stars having planets and the universe containing billions of galaxies?

Millions of Christians believe that the Bible just tells humans that God created everything and science is discovering how he did it. As far as they're concerned, evolution is how he arranged for humans to get here.

As far as moon being a light it is. The text doesn't say that the moon produces its own light, but it is a light because it reflects it. How many times have you heard the term moonlight.

All that Genesis says is that the moon provides light at night. It doesn't go into an in depth explanation about how it reflects the sun's light. Why not? Why do you accept that the moon reflects the sun's light when Genesis doesn't provide the details?

You aren't obliged to accept evolution, of course, but you're wasting your time trying to convince atheists that God exists by quoting Young Earth Creation sources. The vast majority of Christians regard Young Earth Creation as rubbish and some of the websites debunking it are run by Christians. Here's another one - Evidence For God -

Scroll down the page and you'll find -

Scriptural rebuttals to young-earth creation science
Scientific rebuttals to the young-earth creation science
Specific Scientific Rebuttals to Young-Earth "Scientific Proofs"

PS: Scroll down to the bottom of the page and read the warning from St Augustine.

[Revelation777]

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. When and why did evolution decide to go from unicellular to multicellular? Does evolution have a will or reason? How does evolution get into "a rut?" Does gravity get into a rut? Evolution has "oomph?" Did it gulp down a 5 millennium energy drink? When did evolution decided to have an explosion of new species?

When we say evolution "does" something, Rev, we are speaking colloquially. We mean the processes by which evolution operates in a population. Evolution didn't 'decide' anything. A mutation happened that caused an organism to replicate in an odd way, and then there was a multicellular organism that was better in the environment than the unicellular one. There is actually great evidence that this happened multiple times, and there is actually a fantastic study showing the origin of multicellularity in a common green algae Volvox. So, no, evolution has no reason or will or any kind of consciousness. We tend to anthropomorphize things, and scientists do it with evolution a lot. It is nothing more that colloquial.

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. 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.

This is good to hear, Rev. I couldn't care less that you believe in God, that is to say I don't care to try and change it. That's great for you---it works for you---and that's all well and good. Seriously. But you have come on here and seriously misrepresented demonstrable facts. The very least that could come from this is maybe that you approach these issues with an open mind, instead of a made up one. I can think of a thousand things that would prove to me that scientists were wrong about evolution. If the evidence were to come in, I'd jump off the ship as fast as any other person here. It's hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone who is of the opinion that he can't be wrong.

Are you telling me that if God could be proved you would be more than happy to believe in Him? Or, if evidence showed evolution is wrong that you would change your original beliefs?

---

Rev, I suggest you leave now before you embarrass yourself further. We have heard and dealt with all these objections before.

As of today I have no plan on leaving. You may want to put me on your ignore list, but I hope you don't.

---

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

Do you just not care to respond with something coherent? You literally just parroted back to me what I already stated. Taking that stance you are eschewing all science, Rev. It does not matter what the evidence says, it doesn't matter what you experience, it does not matter what reality dictates, it is wrong if it contradicts the Bible? You really are taking that stance?

What you call evidence might not be considered that at all amongst others who debate this issue. However, your comrades would agree with you wholeheartedly. Ciao.

---

??? Do you just not care to respond with something coherent? You literally just parroted back to me what I already stated. Taking that stance you are eschewing all science, Rev. It does not matter what the evidence says, it doesn't matter what you experience, it does not matter what reality dictates, it is wrong if it contradicts the Bible? You really are taking that stance?

Yes, creationists really do take that stance. They think that stupid book has magical powers, such that, it is always right no matter what. Even when it is obviously wrong -- it's still magically somehow right.

Completely irrational, illogical, preposterous, and just plain fucking stupid.

---

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

What do you think would have happened?

I am not sure what He would of said but I bet it would be profound. Please show respect for that book even though you reject it.

---

Perhaps that is supporting the flood account?

Wow. You read all that and still got flood account, huh? Nevermind the shear superficial nature of that argument. Nevermind if there were a year long worldwide flood catastrophe, you'd expect there to be evidence of it literally everywhere. Nevermind the idea that literally all of these fossils would be in the same strata, having all been buried at the same time. Nevermind the mountains and mountains of contradictory evidence for a worldwide mass extinction and repopulation of the earth 4,000 years ago. Nevermind all this, because you found a sentence that said "burial in sediments from a local river flood." Honestly...

Maybe we get into the worldwide flood account in a future argument?

---

Jesus told us to go out to the world and make disciples.

So, then get yourself married and make some disciples.

Have the decency to take "we're not interested" literally and stop trying to convert us. It isn't going to happen with your levels of claims, counterclaims, and pseudo-science.

You are invited to our next Bible study.

[SteelCurtain]

When we say evolution "does" something, Rev, we are speaking colloquially. We mean the processes by which evolution operates in a population. Evolution didn't 'decide' anything. A mutation happened that caused an organism to replicate in an odd way, and then there was a multicellular organism that was better in the environment than the unicellular one. There is actually great evidence that this happened multiple times, and there is actually a fantastic study showing the origin of multicellularity in a common green algae Volvox. So, no, evolution has no reason or will or any kind of consciousness. We tend to anthropomorphize things, and scientists do it with evolution a lot. It is nothing more that colloquial.

Do you care to respond to this?

This is good to hear, Rev. I couldn't care less that you believe in God, that is to say I don't care to try and change it. That's great for you---it works for you---and that's all well and good. Seriously. But you have come on here and seriously misrepresented demonstrable facts. The very least that could come from this is maybe that you approach these issues with an open mind, instead of a made up one. I can think of a thousand things that would prove to me that scientists were wrong about evolution. If the evidence were to come in, I'd jump off the ship as fast as any other person here. It's hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone who is of the opinion that he can't be wrong.

Are you telling me that if God could be proved you would be more than happy to believe in Him? Or, if evidence showed evolution is wrong that you would change your original beliefs?

Absolutely. If there was overwhelming evidence for God, I would accept it. Just as if there was a theory proposed to replace evolution that more accurately reflected the preponderance of evidence, was falsifiable, was able to be used to predict future phenomena, and better explained what is visible in the natural world, I would accept that as well. Can you say the same?

Do you just not care to respond with something coherent? You literally just parroted back to me what I already stated. Taking that stance you are eschewing all science, Rev. It does not matter what the evidence says, it doesn't matter what you experience, it does not matter what reality dictates, it is wrong if it contradicts the Bible? You really are taking that stance?

What you call evidence might not be considered that at all amongst others who debate this issue. However, your comrades would agree with you wholeheartedly. Ciao.

What? Can you clarify this? What exactly would my comrades agree with?

[Revelation777]

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.

This is the most damning post you have made so far, Rev.

I see it as an incredible wonderful statement the Lord had made. Children don't have to deal with much pride like adults do in order to believe.

[SteelCurtain]

This is the most damning post you have made so far, Rev.

I see it as an incredible wonderful statement the Lord had made. Children don't have to deal with much pride like adults do in order to believe.

They also don't have to deal with intelligence, education, rational thought, intellectual honesty, or the capability to accurately evaluate the real world. Congratulations, Rev, you are proud to be an ignoramus.

[Revelation777]

I'm tired of this moron spouting AIG so I'll shove Richard Dawkins up his ass.

'SHOW ME YOUR CROCODUCK!'
'Why doesn't the fossil record contain a fronkey?' Well, of course, monkeys are not descended from frogs. No sane evolutionist ever said they were, or that ducks are descended from crocodiles or vice versa. Monkeys and frogs share an ancestor, which certainly looked nothing like a frog and nothing like a monkey. Maybe it looked a bit like a salamander, and we do indeed have salamander-like fossils dating from the right time. But that is not the point. Every one of the millions of species of animals shares an ancestor with every other one. If your understanding of evolution is so warped that you think we should expect to see a fronkey and a crocoduck, you should also wax sarcastic about the absence of a doggypotamus and an elephanzee. Indeed, why
limit yourself to mammals? Why not a kangaroach (intermediate between kangaroo and cockroach), or an octopard (intermediate between octopus and leopard)? There's an infinite number of animal
names you can string together in that way. * Of course hippopotamuses are not descended from dogs, or vice versa. Chimpanzees are not descended from elephants or vice versa, just as monkeys are not descended from frogs. No modern species is descended from any other modern species (if we leave out very recent splits). Just as you can find fossils that approximate to the common
ancestor of a frog and a monkey, so you can find fossils that approximate to the common ancestor of elephants and chimpanzees. Here is one called Eomaia, which lived in the early Cretaceous period, a little more than 100 million years ago.

As you can see, Eomaia was nothing like a chimpanzee and nothing like an elephant. Vaguely like a shrew, it probably was pretty similar to their common ancestor, with which it was roughly contemporary, and you can see that a lot of evolutionary change has taken place along both pathways from an Eomaia- like ancestor to an elephant descendant, and from the same Eomaia- like ancestor to a chimpanzee descendant. But it is not in any sense an elephanzee. If it were, it would
also have to be a dogatee, for whatever is the common ancestor of a chimpanzee and an elephant is also the common ancestor of a dog and a manatee. And it would also have to be an aardvapotamus, for the same ancestor is also the common ancestor of an aardvark and a hippopotamus. The very idea of a dogatee (or an elephanzee, or an aardvapotamus or a kangaroceros or a buffalion) is deeply unevolutionary and ridiculous. So is a fronkey, and it is a disgrace that the perpetrator of that little witlessism, the Australian itinerant preacher John Mackay, has been touring British schools in 2008
and 2009, masquerading as a 'geologist', teaching innocent children that if evolution were true the fossil record should contain 'fronkeys'.

An equally ludicrous example is to be found in the Muslim apologist Harun Yahya's enormous, lavishly produced, glossily illustrated and fatuously ignorant book Atlas of Creation. This book obviously cost a fortune to produce, which makes it all the more astounding that it was
distributed free to tens of thousands of science teachers, including me. Notwithstanding the prodigious sums of money spent on this book, the errors in it have become legendary. In the service of illustrating the falsehood that most ancient fossils are indistinguishable from their modern counterparts, Yahya shows a sea snake as an 'eel' (two animals so different that they are placed in different classes of vertebrates), a starfish as a 'brittlestar' (actually different classes of
echinoderms), a sabellid (annelid) worm as a crinoid 'sea lily' (an echinoderm: this pair come not just from different phyla but from different sub-kingdoms, so that they could hardly be more distant
from each other if they tried, while still both being animals) and - best of all - a fishing lure as a 'caddis fly' (see colour page 8). But in addition to these gems of partisan risibility, the book has a section on missing links. One picture is seriously offered to illustrate the fact that there is no intermediate form between a fish and a starfish. I find it impossible to believe that the author seriously thinks evolutionists would
expect to find a transition between two such differing animals as a starfish and a fish. I therefore cannot help suspecting that he knows his audience all too well, and is deliberately and cynically exploiting their ignorance.

'I'LL BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION WHEN A MONKEY GIVES BIRTH TO A HUMAN BABY' Once again, humans are not descended from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys. As it happens, the common ancestor would have looked a lot more like a monkey than a
man, and we would indeed probably have called it a monkey if we had met it, some 25 million years ago. But even though humans evolved from an ancestor that we could sensibly call a monkey, no animal gives birth to an instant new species, or at least not one as different from itself as a man is from a monkey, or even from a chimpanzee. That isn't what evolution is about. Evolution not only is a gradual process as a matter of fact; it has to be gradual if it is to do any explanatory work. Huge leaps in a single generation - which is what a monkey giving birth to a human would be - are almost as unlikely as divine creation, and are ruled out for the same reason: too statistically improbable. It
would be so nice if those who oppose evolution would take a tiny bit of trouble to learn the merest rudiments of what it is that they are opposing.

Put down your fucking bible. Delete the link to AIG and get a copy of "The Greatest Show on Earth." Maybe you'll learn something...although that seems even far more unlikely than a crocoduck.

I don't mean to be critical but this guy doesn't across to me as a genius at all. When explaining what we should not expect from species common ancestor, he doesn't tell us what to expect. Even if this process of change was for millions of years we should be able to map a slow transition through the fossil record for a variety of different species, we don't. Dawkins tells us what not to do but doesn't answer the obvious questions science can't answer.

[Godlesspanther]

When we say evolution "does" something, Rev, we are speaking colloquially. We mean the processes by which evolution operates in a population. Evolution didn't 'decide' anything. A mutation happened that caused an organism to replicate in an odd way, and then there was a multicellular organism that was better in the environment than the unicellular one. There is actually great evidence that this happened multiple times, and there is actually a fantastic study showing the origin of multicellularity in a common green algae Volvox. So, no, evolution has no reason or will or any kind of consciousness. We tend to anthropomorphize things, and scientists do it with evolution a lot. It is nothing more that colloquial.
This is good to hear, Rev. I couldn't care less that you believe in God, that is to say I don't care to try and change it. That's great for you---it works for you---and that's all well and good. Seriously. But you have come on here and seriously misrepresented demonstrable facts. The very least that could come from this is maybe that you approach these issues with an open mind, instead of a made up one. I can think of a thousand things that would prove to me that scientists were wrong about evolution. If the evidence were to come in, I'd jump off the ship as fast as any other person here. It's hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone who is of the opinion that he can't be wrong.

Are you telling me that if God could be proved you would be more than happy to believe in Him? Or, if evidence showed evolution is wrong that you would change your original beliefs?

Yes, if there were strong evidence that there really is some sort of deity -- I would have no choice but to accept that the deity exists. But, there would have to be real world evidence for it.

If, all of a sudden we started seeing evidence, quickly mounting preponderance of evidence that evolution does not occur in biological organism, then yes, we drop evolution and go with whatever the evidence points to.

There is no room for dogmatism in science. That is why creationism is not and never will be science. It is based on a dogmatic insistence that a book has magical powers, such that, it's always right no matter what. They ignore, twist, exaggerate, fabricate, or otherwise fuck with the evidence to fit their pre-conceived dogma. This is exactly the opposite of science. That is why we have safeguards to eliminate researcher bias. Scientists strive only for honesty and accuracy in discovering new information. There is no dogma, political, or religious agenda.

Then we can look at the bias of creationists. Take, for example, that piece of shit propaganda movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I did see it and I wrote a rathe lengthy review on it. Very dishonest. For one -- it's not a documentary, it's propaganda. Like it or not -- that's just obvious.

When analyzing propaganda, the first question one should do is identify the target audience. "Who is this for?" In the case of Expelled, it is clearly not intended for me. In order to find this movie anything other than a repulsive piece of propaganda, one would have to be a right-wing conservative, xtian, ignorant, scientifically illiterate, and gullible.

If you do some actual research into that movie you will find that all of the cases of "persecution" in the film were grossly misrepresented. Interviews with scientists were craftily and dishonestly edited. And most of all -- Adolf Hitler didn't have jack shit to do with Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution. The movie is a pack of lies.

I guess that you have decided that you would rather be a creationist than be honest.

[Revelation777]

I think we broke him.

I'm not dead yet.

---

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.

No -- they are dogmatically believing stuff that plainly and simply is not true based on a faulty methodology. There is nothing commendable about it. They are just lying. That's it -- just lies.

There is no such thing as a magic book that is always right. One does not exist. You need to grow up.

This book was here long before you and will be going strong long after we're gone. I love that love story.

---

In other words, "stop thinking for yourselves and I'll let you into 'paradise' and worship me forever"

Jesus also reputedly said that you have to hate your family before you can be one of his followers. I say "reputedly" because there's no actual evidence for his existence.

---

Bible quotes to atheists, the last resort of the desperate theist who has run out of arguments.

To be fair -- ALL loony cults operate exactly that way.

Christianity is not a cult, it is a relationship with Jesus the Christ.

---

My beef is with "Molecule to Man" evolution.

Exactly do you know about real biochemistry, organic chemistry, and geological history that qualifies you to have any "beef"?

What would you think about someone who can barely add two and two, but claim he really has a beef about the a solution to a differential equation? And how about if the same ignoramus then cite as support some other "work" whose author also can't add two and two, and who furthermore claims he would never recognize any evidence of his own error that might ever be produced in the past, present or future?

Do you recognize the similarity between yourself and this ignoramus; and between the so called work that claims to be correct by the simple expedient of proclaim all evidence to the contrary to be inadmissible, and the aig christain bible clown site?

You are as ridiculous in this as you would be in having a "beef" with anything else that has vast substance to understand, but which you totally don't understand.

I am learning more and more. I am thankful that this site offers persons such as I to share our opinions and objections. This is what I admire about this board. You all allow me to raise my objections.
Secondly, we all are in the process of learning and discovering. If you are impatient with me than I suggest you ignore my posts.

---

I believe that Creationists are open upfront about their beliefs and intentions. Yet, this site is still explaining there stance, why they believe what they do, and challenging some claims that scientists have made that have holes.

They're upfront about their intentions, it's just that those intentions represent an inexcusable bias that prevents anything they present from being at all truthful where it disagrees with the position they've taken before examining the evidence.

Put it this way: if I told you that I was beginning from the position that the bible is always wrong, and that's how I interpret the evidence, would you take anything I said seriously? If the answer is no, why would you expect us to do otherwise?

As for holes in the science... what would you think if I told you that all of the holes that AiG claims exist have been answered and refuted by science for years, and yet they're still up there on the AiG website? Because, you know, you can find out whether or not that claim I just made is true: you've just got to look at proper, mainstream science sources.

We can point you to some, if you like. You've just got to take that first step to see if how AiG is representing science matches with the actual discoveries. Are you willing to do that, and hence be truthful in your investigation?

I am learning that if I cite anything from AiG that you will instantly reject it. So I will try to incorporate other sources.

[Simon Moon]

I'm not dead yet.
lts operate exactly that way.

But are you ever going to tell us what you expect to see in a transitional fossil?

You claim what we have shown you doesn't meet your standards, so what would?

And by the way, what are your credentials to make the claim that you haven't been shown a transitional form?

[Revelation777]

They're upfront about their intentions, it's just that those intentions represent an inexcusable bias that prevents anything they present from being at all truthful where it disagrees with the position they've taken before examining the evidence.

Put it this way: if I told you that I was beginning from the position that the bible is always wrong, and that's how I interpret the evidence, would you take anything I said seriously? If the answer is no, why would you expect us to do otherwise?

As for holes in the science... what would you think if I told you that all of the holes that AiG claims exist have been answered and refuted by science for years, and yet they're still up there on the AiG website? Because, you know, you can find out whether or not that claim I just made is true: you've just got to look at proper, mainstream science sources.

We can point you to some, if you like. You've just got to take that first step to see if how AiG is representing science matches with the actual discoveries. Are you willing to do that, and hence be truthful in your investigation?

Rev, pay careful attention to what Esquilax wrote above. You seem to miss all the important stuff, or you choose to ignore it, whatever.

There are more holes in your beliefs than any thing else on this planet.

I read what he wrote. I respect the man but that doesn't mean I agree with him. I think he would of taken me up on my movie ticket offer if he lived her in the USA.

---

They're upfront about their intentions, it's just that those intentions represent an inexcusable bias that prevents anything they present from being at all truthful where it disagrees with the position they've taken before examining the evidence.

Put it this way: if I told you that I was beginning from the position that the bible is always wrong, and that's how I interpret the evidence, would you take anything I said seriously? If the answer is no, why would you expect us to do otherwise?

As for holes in the science... what would you think if I told you that all of the holes that AiG claims exist have been answered and refuted by science for years, and yet they're still up there on the AiG website? Because, you know, you can find out whether or not that claim I just made is true: you've just got to look at proper, mainstream science sources.

We can point you to some, if you like. You've just got to take that first step to see if how AiG is representing science matches with the actual discoveries. Are you willing to do that, and hence be truthful in your investigation?

Rev, pay careful attention to what Esquilax wrote above. You seem to miss all the important stuff, or you choose to ignore it, whatever.

There are more holes in your beliefs than any thing else on this planet.

I also think Esquilax would become a great Biblical apologist if he becomes a believer someday. Him and Ken Ham probably would be friends and share the same accent.

---

They're upfront about their intentions, it's just that those intentions represent an inexcusable bias that prevents anything they present from being at all truthful where it disagrees with the position they've taken before examining the evidence.

Put it this way: if I told you that I was beginning from the position that the bible is always wrong, and that's how I interpret the evidence, would you take anything I said seriously? If the answer is no, why would you expect us to do otherwise?

As for holes in the science... what would you think if I told you that all of the holes that AiG claims exist have been answered and refuted by science for years, and yet they're still up there on the AiG website? Because, you know, you can find out whether or not that claim I just made is true: you've just got to look at proper, mainstream science sources.

We can point you to some, if you like. You've just got to take that first step to see if how AiG is representing science matches with the actual discoveries. Are you willing to do that, and hence be truthful in your investigation?

Rev, pay careful attention to what Esquilax wrote above. You seem to miss all the important stuff, or you choose to ignore it, whatever.

There are more holes in your beliefs than any thing else on this planet.

Not nearly as much holes as Darwinism.