Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[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