Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Revelation777]

You know what is ironic as well, Darwin did not deny that there was a God! In fact, in his sixth addition of Origin he refers to the Creator.

One of best-known criticisms of natural selection was that nothing as complicated as an eye could have evolved purely by chance. Darwin's response was that we can observe many examples of the evolution of light-sensitive cells in nature. The most intriguing thought Darwin had on this subject was that just because we don't understand how something can evolve does not mean that the Creator wasn't behind it. His exact words in the sixth edition of Origin were "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?"[v]. Using the telescope as an example of a man-made optical instrument, he added: "May we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to man?"

reference
Charles Darwin. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Sixth Edition, With Additions and Corrections to 1872. London: John Murray, 1876.

Darwin never said that there was not a Creator. And he never said that the Creator didn't create life.

So? Quote mining Darwin doesn't disprove his theory. Darwin was agnostic.

And we know how the eye evolved.

Trying to use the "complicated eye" fallacy has been debunked thoroughly.

I guess you guys were smarted then him since he just was an agnostic.

---

You know what is ironic as well, Darwin did not deny that there was a God! In fact, in his sixth addition of Origin he refers to the Creator.

One of best-known criticisms of natural selection was that nothing as complicated as an eye could have evolved purely by chance. Darwin's response was that we can observe many examples of the evolution of light-sensitive cells in nature. The most intriguing thought Darwin had on this subject was that just because we don't understand how something can evolve does not mean that the Creator wasn't behind it. His exact words in the sixth edition of Origin were "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?"[v]. Using the telescope as an example of a man-made optical instrument, he added: "May we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to man?"

reference
Charles Darwin. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Sixth Edition, With Additions and Corrections to 1872. London: John Murray, 1876.

Darwin never said that there was not a Creator. And he never said that the Creator didn't create life.

So? Quote mining Darwin doesn't disprove his theory. Darwin was agnostic.

And we know how the eye evolved.

Trying to use the "complicated eye" fallacy has been debunked thoroughly.

In your mind things have been debunked.

---

You base your beliefs, and they are beliefs, on what you observe naturally. God, is a supernatural being. He created a natural world but there are also supernatural events that have occurred, are presently occurring, and will occur. Just because you have not experienced any doesn't mean the supernatural doesn't exist.

Without recourse to faith or special ways of knowing, how does one detect the supernatural as it's happening?

Have you ever watched the movie, "Ghost Busters?"
"

---

The facts remain, fossils have been discovered to suddenly appear in the record without transition. This is what would be expected from intelligent design not macroevolution.

I find myself perplexed that a biblical creationist, particularly a YEC, would use a lack of transitional forms as an argument FOR their side.

In the Noah and the big boat model of reality, the diversity of non-interbreeding populations we see around us demands a period of hyper speciation some time in the last 4k years. Otherwise Noah couldn't have taken 'kinds' rather than species onto the ark and would have run out of room. This geographic radiation and speciation would have happened during a period when people, writing and carbon dating existed. Strangely, nobody noted the sudden diversification of terrestrial life or that somehow the process stopped.

In fact, we found one of the folks of that approximate age. Otzi the ice man

Transitional examples or evidence of sudden appearance of all the currently existing species should be easy to find.

Revelation777, where are your transitional forms? Any idea why the superfast, spontaneous changes stopped?

a poodle and a chawawah

---

You base your beliefs, and they are beliefs, on what you observe naturally. God, is a supernatural being. He created a natural world but there are also supernatural events that have occurred, are presently occurring, and will occur. Just because you have not experienced any doesn't mean the supernatural doesn't exist.

No, it's knowledge. Knowledge changes.

And just because a contradictory book says there's a god doesn't mean there is on.

No supernatural events have been witnessed by enough people to be convincing or tested.

That is what you have been fed, it is a book filled with contradictions. Apologists have answered every supposed contradiction.

Then maybe there was never ever any supernatural events.

---

You know what is ironic as well, Darwin did not deny that there was a God! In fact, in his sixth addition of Origin he refers to the Creator.

One of best-known criticisms of natural selection was that nothing as complicated as an eye could have evolved purely by chance. Darwin's response was that we can observe many examples of the evolution of light-sensitive cells in nature. The most intriguing thought Darwin had on this subject was that just because we don't understand how something can evolve does not mean that the Creator wasn't behind it. His exact words in the sixth edition of Origin were "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?"[v]. Using the telescope as an example of a man-made optical instrument, he added: "May we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to man?"

reference
Charles Darwin. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Sixth Edition, With Additions and Corrections to 1872. London: John Murray, 1876.

Darwin never said that there was not a Creator. And he never said that the Creator didn't create life.

That's because to say so in Victorian England had consequences. Or he believed in God. Either one, makes not one bit of difference to his theory.

And seriously, if you are going to copy and paste from an article, at least give the article credit. That is called plagiarism. And it's against the rules here. And it is even more evidence that you are a person who will lie to further his personal ideology.

If I indeed do that it was not intentional and a misstep. I apologize. I am trying to get through these posts and I cant catch up.

---

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

Good for you. Now tell me why, in Odin's name, we should believe in your god just because you're convinced it exists?

Because it is better to believe now then when it is too late and you have to give an account to Him.

---

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.

Disney has a Land and a World, it doesn't mean that Mickey Mouse really exists, or that you'll find the little mermaid under the sea.

I call them conmen because their business is built on the back of falsehoods and deliberately deceptive practices. For starters, and I can't stress this enough, their website advertises that they will completely disregard all alternative views and will twist things to fit the one they've chosen; that doesn't sound like an objective scientific source to me, which is what they play themselves off as. Not to mention each and every one of their findings is completely, demonstrably false according to science, and you would know that if you went anywhere else to educate yourself, and yet they host those claims there up until the point that the general public finds them so ridiculous that it's embarrassing for them to keep espousing them.

That is the behavior of conmen, not a group that's interested in the truth, no matter what it happens to be.

You might be judging them harshly because you don't like their message.