Argument #1: Transitional Fossils
April 23, 2014 at 11:19 pm
(This post was last modified: April 23, 2014 at 11:23 pm by Rampant.A.I..)
(April 23, 2014 at 10:24 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: 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?
Ok, so we've thoroughly established you have no idea how evolution works, what constitutes the process, why it does not require a "coach," and can't formulate a compelling argument that it does not occur.
Can we move on now?
(April 23, 2014 at 11:16 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:(April 22, 2014 at 3:26 pm)Esquilax Wrote: It's not a matter of christian beliefs or atheist beliefs or any kind of beliefs!
How are you going to get to the truth of any matter if the one source you'll bother to use says from the outset that they'll never consider anything other than what they already think? How are you able to see both sides of an issue there?
Remember what I said in another thread, that if you could find me a scientific source that had a statement of faith anywhere in it, that would be a source I no longer trust? What you have in AiG is a source that's dedicated to not only just showing one side of the argument, but to actually warping the other side dishonestly in order to discredit it.
How does that seem fair and balanced, to you?
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.
You should find one of those sorts of sites then, where creationists are upfront with their beliefs and respond to objections, instead of constructing straw men and outright lying about challenges to said claims.
You claim established and universally accepted science has holes, yet cannot account for the lack of evidence supporting your beliefs.
You lost this argument, and yet have learned nothing from it. Time to move on.
