Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Revelation777 Wrote:
Who are we to tell God how He should of done things.

'Have', for the love of Mike....'HAVE'.

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

Revelation777 Wrote:
Who are we to tell God how He should of done things.

Isn't that what you theists created god for? So your pastors, your priests, your saints, and other parasites whom you hold in reverence can tell him to take their side when they propond yet another of their feeble, baseless, wishthinking nonsensical positions?

[The Valkyrie]

Revelation777 Wrote:
Who are we to tell God how He should of done things.

Is that what you theists created god for? So your pastors, your priests, your saints, and other parasites whom you hold in reverence can tell him to take their side when their propond yet another of their feeble, baseless, wishthinking nonsensical positions?

They use that line to try to shut people up. I've encountered it many times.

Who am I? I'm an intelligent, curious individual that their god, according to their mythology, made me to be this way. If I don't use my god-given curiosity, isn't that an insult to their deity?

And I question their god because, if he does exist and created us the way we are, in our current form, he's incompetent.

[Duke Guilmon]

This needs some clarification, so let use go over what a transitional fossil is.

A transitional fossil is any fossil that shows both primitive traits and derived traits. A transitional fossil is supposed to show a connection between two groups of animals, let use use the extinct animal biarmosuchus.



During the evolution of life "reptiles"(synapsids are not reptiles but I will use that word for the sake of argument) evolved into mammals. Now how does Biarmosuchus fit as evidence for this? Lets take a look.

"Reptile" traits:

Sprawled out legs

no repository turbinates

Long pelycosaur tail

Mammal traits:

A single canine as the first tooth on the maxilla, all other maxillary teeth small

Tendency for an enlarged caninelike tooth on the dentary

Internal nostrils covered by a partial fleshy palate

Enlarged temporal opening giving more powerful bite

So here is a fossil that shows evidence of evolution by connecting two groups predicted by scientist before discovered. So either evolution is real, or what every deity made life without evolution is a liar to make fossils with traits of animals they have been known before they were discovered based on predictions.

[Revelation777]

Of course, because to him and similar pulpit-pounders The Truth™ is directly proportional to the authority of the person speaking it. For instance, JC 'must have been' his god incarnate, or son of same, because he said so; and, being a god, wouldn't possibly lie. Therefore everything the character said is literal truth. Rev's blinkered mind is way too narrow even to consider the possibility that what's important is the validity of the words spoken, not the person speaking them. That's why he keeps hiding behind the skankily repellant child-mind-rapist Ken Ham - a self-aggrandised authority touting the god squad party line.

Seems like you have made some harsh judgmental statements towards people you don't share the same views towards. Understood, but for those who believe Jesus is the Son of God have received what He has said as true and live try to live their lives accordingly. Again, you might not agree but can you respect that?

[Faith No More]

That's all the response that you have?

Move onto the next argument, Rev, because this one was D.O.A.

[Revelation777]

Rev's blinkered mind is way too narrow even to consider the possibility that what's important is the validity of the words spoken, not the person speaking them. That's why he keeps hiding behind the skankily repellant child-mind-rapist Ken Ham - a self-aggrandised authority touting the god squad party line.

I looked Ken Ham up and discovered that he's a Bachelor of Applied Science, with an emphasis in Environmental Biology. I was very interested to see who is criticizing him.

Ken Ham Reception

Other Christians, old Earth creationists, and the scientific community at large have criticized Ham's statements and tactics. Answers in Creation, an old Earth creationist website, has called Ham willfully ignorant of evidence for an old Earth, and said that he "deliberately misleads" his audiences on matters of both science and theology.[39] Astronomer Hugh Ross, a progressive creationist, has debated Ham and other Answers In Genesis staff[40] regarding the compatibility of an old Earth with the Bible.[41] BioLogos has also responded to Ken Ham's criticisms of its viewpoint.[42]

I haven't checked the qualifications of people who believe in Old Earth Creation, or Progressive Creation so I only know about Hugh Ross from the wikipedia article. The BioLogos Foundation was started by Francis Collins who led the Human Genome Project - he believes that evolution is the way God did it.

Seeing as highly educated people can wear blinkers in order to hang onto their religious convictions I've come to accept that nothing is going to change Revelation777's mind. I am, however, curious as to why he's opted for Young Earth creation instead of Old Earth creation or Progressive Creation.

I believe my mind can be changed, but only if God changes it. I don't claim to know it all. However, I do believe in an Intelligent Designer who knows it all because He created it all.

---

Who or what decides this? Is evolution some sort of supreme being that says - ok, you turn into this then stop and you are gonna be this?

Any being with sufficient intellect can design a "set it and forget it" evolutionary system to produce what ever that being wants. I did this thread which touched on that subject:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-24609.ht...ig+blunder


In evolution theory there is something called punctuated equilibrium which proposes most species will exhibit little change for most of their history. The crocodile is a good example. That beast hasn't changed much in the last 250 million years.

Some like to think about periods of punctuated equilibrium as plateaus. I like to think about them as high walled valleys in the evolutionary path that need a special mutation or parlay of mutations that give a species enough oomph to lift it out of the valley its settled in. Once out of the valley rapid changes can occur again until a species settles into another valley. An example of this is life going from unicellular to multicellular. For billions of years life on this planet was unicellular and didn't change a whole lot. Evolution was in a bit of a rut. Then came the mutation or parlay of mutations that gave evolution enough oomph to climb out of the rut onto a plain were rapid and diverse changes could happen. There was a an explosion of new species which appear...suddenly. Some of those suddenly appeared species were trilobites which then went on to settle into a new valley.

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?

---

For Revelation777. I've found the Old Earth Ministries website and this is their Statement of Beliefs. Beliefs include -

That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are inspired by God and inerrant in the original writings, and that they are the supreme and final authority in faith and life.

There is one god, the Creator; eternally existing in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The articles on this site point out flaws in the Young Earth Creationism outlook. You aren't going to accept any arguments from atheists but you might be interested in looking at different points of view presented by other Christians.

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.

---

I'm hirsute and love bananas but not an ape.

You are an ape, and striving to de-evolve into a mere bible howling monkey.

Better apes are embarrassed by association with you.

Very clever. I'll tell you one thing, if apes can reason they know who their Creator is.

---

Most of us atheists already have read it and it is precisely having read it that we are atheists.

Yes, and in fact I've read it thrice, (I can't believe I just used that word...) each time under a slightly different "belief system", asking for God's/the holy spirit's guidance.
And yet here I am today, an atheist.

This saddens me. However, I have to give you credit and that you appeared to went into it with an open mind. kudos. I have hope for you though and what a day it will be if you get saved.

---

Rev, we have already explained why your links are unreliable and just so you can't use the excuse of not seeing our requests to stop, i'm going to write it in really big text:

Stop linking to answersingenesis! They no nothing of the theories they try to refute. The only way to refute science is with more science. These people do not practice science and neither do you. I repeat: stop posting those links!

please stop yelling at me

---

Just because a source has Christian beliefs doesn't mean that the source should be disregarded.

I hope that means you'll be taking a look at the Old Earth Ministries website, then.

The people who run this website are Christians so they aren't out to turn visitors into atheists. On the contrary, they're hoping that visiting atheists will convert to Christianity because they have this page -

How To Become A Christian

Yes, you can believe in an old earth, and become a Christian. Yes, the Word of God is inerrant, and its account of the creation story in Genesis is perfectly in line with the scientific record. God created the world, and the doctrine of salvation has nothing to do with the age of the earth. The Bible does not say, “Believe in a young earth, or be condemned to hell.

Out of curiosity, why did you decide that Answers In Genesis has the real answers? Did you look at different viewpoints from other Christians and decide that AIG had the right interpretation or was it the first site you came across?

I have looked at several sites

[The Valkyrie]

It doesn't really matter what Ham's qualifications are, and environmental biology is quite different from animal biology.

The guy has been shown to be wrong numerous times but will lie and ignore the facts to promote his own agenda.

And if someone blocks dissenting opinions on their websites and Facbook - as he has done to me, when I simply questioned him - then one must question his integrity.

[Revelation777]

Just because a source has Christian beliefs doesn't mean that the source should be disregarded. I can do the same with atheistic sources.

No, Rev, you're right. If a source is written by a Christian, even a Young Earth Creationist, it is worthy to be read, if they are looking at, testing, and interpreting the available evidence objectively.

If the source is starting out from the standpoint that no other viewpoint but the one they are espousing can possibly be correct, that is what makes it an unreliable source. The very mission statement from AiG is that evolution cannot be true, before they even look at the evidence.

How can you possibly think this is a reliable method for testing the evidence that we see around us?

ETA: If you see any of us post a source from a site with a mission statement along the lines of "Our mission is to disprove religious claims, because no matter what, there are no gods and we seek to prove that through our research and bring people to atheism. Atheism is inerrant truth, and everything we look at will be through that lens." Feel free to disregard that source. Just get in line.

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

---

That's not what they do, SC. This is what those creatard douchebags are all about.

If evolution isn't true then why does ken ham look like a monkey?

That's just not right.

---

If the bible got it right we wouldnt need science, if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle..

Profound but we believe science and the Bible are in harmony.

---

Thank you for your recommendation. Make ya a deal, I'll read that and you read the Bible?

If you come here asking questions about transitional forms, why is it unreasonable to expect that you should have to learn more about transitional forms? Why should we have to learn more about Hebrew mythology to "balance out" you looking into your own questions about evolution?

If you're not interested in actually learning about evolution and are only asking these questions to prove us wrong, then you're being dishonest. Before Easter, you said you would be asking seven questions, and that if you got good answers, you'd leave. Not that I'm telling you to leave, but you gave the impression you were willing to learn.

I said I would present 7 arguments and leave if I felt that have been addressed satisfactory. I would like to present Argument #2.

[The Valkyrie]

No, Rev, you're right. If a source is written by a Christian, even a Young Earth Creationist, it is worthy to be read, if they are looking at, testing, and interpreting the available evidence objectively.

If the source is starting out from the standpoint that no other viewpoint but the one they are espousing can possibly be correct, that is what makes it an unreliable source. The very mission statement from AiG is that evolution cannot be true, before they even look at the evidence.

How can you possibly think this is a reliable method for testing the evidence that we see around us?

ETA: If you see any of us post a source from a site with a mission statement along the lines of "Our mission is to disprove religious claims, because no matter what, there are no gods and we seek to prove that through our research and bring people to atheism. Atheism is inerrant truth, and everything we look at will be through that lens." Feel free to disregard that source. Just get in line.

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

---

If evolution isn't true then why does ken ham look like a monkey?

That's just not right.

---

If the bible got it right we wouldnt need science, if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle..

Profound but we believe science and the Bible are in harmony.

If the science and the bible are in harmony, why do you deny the fundamental science of evolution?