Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Revelation777]

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?

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?

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?

To be honest I'm excitingly awaiting Jesus' promised return.

[Duke Guilmon]

It is possible that the so-called evidence is deemed evidence because of how one perceives it? What might be overwhelming evidence for one scientist is very questionable to another. I am sure I know which one you would refer to.

Well thats not true.

A. A transitional fossil must show a connection between the ancestor and decent of the animal.

B. Many transitional fossils like tiktaalik were found based on predictions.

C. You are trying projection in order to put us on an even playing field. In english you are trying to put the faults of creationist on science.

[Revelation777]

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.

1. If anything is pro intelligent design some posters here judge it as deceitful, bias, slanted, a piece of rubbish.
2. If Richard Dawkins passes gas it is held as doctrine.
3. If I suggest a movie some of you guys ferret through the internet looking for negative reviews
4. I get a pro-creation perspective and I am using unreliable unqualified sources
5. Wake up folks, Jews and Christians historically have been the most persecuted people ever.
6. Hitler tried to push forward eugenics which was developed by Francis Galton - his half cousin was Darwin. Surprise, surprise - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
7. Ben Stein is an absolutely brilliant man, and I don't say that because of his views.

[orogenicman]

For the 100th time, I am going to step in and present a challenge. When I see such intransigence in a creationist with regard to such things as transitional fossils, I make this challenge. My challenge is for you to go on a geological field trip with me. I make this offer because only by seeing the evidence in the field first-hand, is there any possibility that such intransigence can be addressed. Rev, if you truly believe in the rule of evidence, I challenge you to go on a one-day geological field trip with me and anyone else who wants to attend. I am disabled, so it has to be in the vicinity of where I live (Louisville, Kentucky). But not to worry, there are lots of outcrops and a myriad of fossil treasures to ponder here. I know you won't take me up on my challenge. I've been offering to do this for almost six years now, and only two creationists have taken me up on the challenge (local friends who where convinced by me that they were wrong about what the evidence shows, but are still believers in Christianity, which is fine). I'm not asking you to give up your faith. I'm asking you to join me in the field to see the evidence first hand. How that influences you afterward is entirely up to you. What say you, Rev. Got a pair? Or will you run away like the rest have?

[Revelation777]

Yes, I am getting ready for Argument #2 but want to prepare a concluding statement to this thread.

OK,,, let me say, as Jesus even warned, many would come in His name saying they were doing His Will, using His Name, and yet He will tell them when they are judged that "I NEVER KNEW YOU." So the title Christian is thrown around like the word love but to me the consistent obedience to the teaching is the best indicator to the authenticity of the label.

Irrelevant to anything in this thread at all, throwing out a No True Scotsman fallacy does not disprove the lists of transitional fossils that were provided and promptly ignored.

Yes, there are a lot of denominations and Jesus gave a parable of the birds nesting in the branches in predicting this would occur. If you look at all these denominations one thing is common. A governing body that has either added or taken away from the original Biblical text. The addition of man made rules which the Lord never intended. Just because someone is a true believer doesn't mean they are not capable of sin or error. I being the one exception.

---

The message is one of love and forgiveness. I hope you don't choose to be in a place of separation from the source of love, life, and grace. It is not a place He desires anyone to choose.

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. — Luke 19:27 1

Luke 12:49-56
New Living Translation (NLT)
Jesus Causes Division

49 “I have come to set the world on fire, and I wish it were already burning! 50 I have a terrible baptism of suffering ahead of me, and I am under a heavy burden until it is accomplished. 51 Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other! 52 From now on families will be split apart, three in favor of me, and two against—or two in favor and three against.

53 ‘Father will be divided against son
and son against father;
mother against daughter
and daughter against mother;
and mother-in-law against daughter-in-law

What would you expect people would react when people turn to Christ when this world is bent on evil and is either denying God or openly rebelling against Him?

[Rampant.A.I.]

That's a lot of ridiculous bald assertion that has absolutely nothing to do with the thread, other than the top one which already been shown is untrue, but are repeating anyway.

Darwin's fame and popularity led to his name being associated with ideas and movements which at times had only an indirect relation to his writings, and sometimes went directly against his express comments.

Apparently you not only don't know what Evolution states, but also don't know what Social Darwinism is, and couldn't bother reading anything about it.

Writers used natural selection to argue for various, often contradictory, ideologies such as laissez-faire dog-eat dog capitalism, racism, warfare, colonialism and imperialism. However, Darwin's holistic view of nature included "dependence of one being on another"; thus pacifists, socialists, liberal social reformers and anarchists such as Peter Kropotkin stressed the value of co-operation over struggle within a species.[179] Darwin himself insisted that social policy should not simply be guided by concepts of struggle and selection in nature.[180]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

[Esquilax]

1. If anything is pro intelligent design some posters here judge it as deceitful, bias, slanted, a piece of rubbish.

You should be posting pro-reality sources; the issue is that your pro ID sources are being that regardless of the reality.

2. If Richard Dawkins passes gas it is held as doctrine.

Stop being childish, please.

3. If I suggest a movie some of you guys ferret through the internet looking for negative reviews

I'm more interested in the truth of the claims, rather than the quality of the movie. Unfortunately, the movies you've suggested are lackluster in both respects.

4. I get a pro-creation perspective and I am using unreliable unqualified sources

When they say up front that they'll never even consider evidence against their views? Yes, you're using unreliable sources, there.

5. Wake up folks, Jews and Christians historically have been the most persecuted people ever.

This is a complete non-sequitur, and I don't think you guys get to cry persecution when right now you're persecuting gays, historically have persecuted blacks, and when most of your more famous stories of past persecution are... mostly fictitious.

6. Hitler tried to push forward eugenics which was developed by Francis Galton - his half cousin was Darwin. Surprise, surprise - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Hitler was a christian, but I don't even care, because this is just getting sad now. If your half cousin was a murdering rapist, would that reflect on you in any way?

Not that I even care about that, by the way, because I don't give a shit about Darwin as a person, just his theory, which is a confirmed, biological fact. This entire point of yours is just fractally wrong, Rev.

7. Ben Stein is an absolutely brilliant man, and I don't say that because of his views.

Ben Stein is a liar who misrepresented the scientists he interviewed in his film, quote mined Darwin in order to lie about his beliefs, and... well, that should be enough. Have you actually looked at the background of Expelled, Rev? At all?

Like, say, what the interviewees had to say after the film was released?

[Minimalist]

Debating these guys is useless. Rev, go on a geologic field trip with me if you truly want answers.

Could you find your way clear to abandoning him on a deserted island?

[Revelation777]

[quote='Revelation777' pid='657587' dateline='1398549195']
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Can't we learn from the artful rendering of Nebraska Man? So now I have to buy into every rendering made from fossils that are supposed to be the missing link or a proof of a transitional organism? No, sir, no.



Show me the precise point at which violet becomes green on this spectrum. If you can do that, your inquiries about 'transitional organisms' and 'missing links' are valid.

If AiG is soooooo disreputably, then why did Bill Nye bother wasting his time debating Ken Ham?

He shouldn't have. It was a mistake.

Your actually proving my point. When going from violet to green, it had to pass through some other colors. Showing me the colors change from one gradually to another.

[orogenicman]

Debating these guys is useless. Rev, go on a geologic field trip with me if you truly want answers.

Could you find your way clear to abandoning him on a deserted island?

Considering that he is ignoring my challenge (as I predicted), the chances of that happening are slim.