Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[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.

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.

[SteelCurtain]

Your source is wrong. Creationist sources lie.

Perhaps that is supporting the flood account?

Wow. You read all that and still got flood account, huh? Nevermind the shear superficial nature of that argument. Nevermind if there were a year long worldwide flood catastrophe, you'd expect there to be evidence of it literally everywhere. Nevermind the idea that literally all of these fossils would be in the same strata, having all been buried at the same time. Nevermind the mountains and mountains of contradictory evidence for a worldwide mass extinction and repopulation of the earth 4,000 years ago. Nevermind all this, because you found a sentence that said "burial in sediments from a local river flood." Honestly...

[Revelation777]

Just sayin'.

Well that wasn't giant bold font.

Jesus told us to go out to the world and make disciples.

[Rampant.A.I.]

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?

---

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.

[The Valkyrie]

Well that wasn't giant bold font.

Jesus told us to go out to the world and make disciples.

So, then get yourself married and make some disciples.

Have the decency to take "we're not interested" literally and stop trying to convert us. It isn't going to happen with your levels of claims, counterclaims, and pseudo-science.

[Revelation777]

Yo Rev, this is how completely unwilling Answers in Genesis' loathsome paymaster is to even consider opposing viewpoints: he won't even accept creationism from a christian school. It's his specific brand of young earth, literalistic creationism, or it's nothing.

This is a man who is so opposed to anyone believing something that isn't exactly what he believes that he'll chastise the people who believe the same wrong things as he does, for not believing it enough. How can he possibly be trusted to honestly represent a view that is directly opposed to what he wants to be true?

They are standing firm on what they believe to be true. True to the Word of God and what the evidence is showing them. I commend them for that.

[SteelCurtain]

I believe that Creationists are open upfront about their beliefs and intentions. Yet, this site is still explaining their stance, why they believe what they do, and challenging some claims that scientists have made that have holes.

You know what happens when creationists tackle the most robust scientific theory science has posited, Rev? They have to make up "holes", and prey on your ignorance and willingness to believe whatever they spout because you have to or else you would have to face reality and question the foundations of your belief.

Can you appreciate how ridiculously suspect it is when a religious group tries to challenge science because if the science is true, their claim can't be true? You cannot appreciate what not having a vested interest is, I think. I have no vested interest in evolution, it just happens to best reflect reality. You, on the other hand, would have to question things you'd rather not question if it were true, so you will do whatever you need to do to make yourself believe it isn't. This, extrapolated, is why AiG is a ridiculous source for scholarly science.

[The Valkyrie]

I believe that Creationists are open upfront about their beliefs and intentions. Yet, this site is still explaining their stance, why they believe what they do, and challenging some claims that scientists have made that have holes.

You know what happens when creationists tackle the most robust scientific theory science has posited, Rev? They have to make up "holes", and prey on your ignorance and willingness to believe whatever they spout because you have to or else you would have to face reality and question the foundations of your belief.

Can you appreciate how ridiculously suspect it is when a religious group tries to challenge science because if the science is true, their claim can't be true? You cannot appreciate what not having a vested interest is, I think. I have no vested interest in evolution, it just happens to best reflect reality. You, on the other hand, would have to question things you'd rather not question if it were true, so you will do whatever you need to do to make yourself believe it isn't. This, extrapolated, is why AiG is a ridiculous source for scholarly science.

And every year the god-of-the-gaps has fewer gaps to hide in.

[Revelation777]

This seems to be a common reply to those who reject God and don't have an answer to perplexing questions. "We don't yet but we are working on it." The problem is that the answer is, "God." Because some don't like that answer they keep searching in vain.

Can you demonstrate that the answer is god, or is this another one of those "bald assertions that I expect you to take on faith," deals? Because if that's the case, then the answer really is still "I don't know, but we're getting there," and you're just being dishonest and arrogant in asserting that you have an answer.

Are you being dishonest and arrogant, Rev?

My intentions are not be dishonest nor arrogant. Sorry if I am coming across that way.

[The Valkyrie]

Yo Rev, this is how completely unwilling Answers in Genesis' loathsome paymaster is to even consider opposing viewpoints: he won't even accept creationism from a christian school. It's his specific brand of young earth, literalistic creationism, or it's nothing.

This is a man who is so opposed to anyone believing something that isn't exactly what he believes that he'll chastise the people who believe the same wrong things as he does, for not believing it enough. How can he possibly be trusted to honestly represent a view that is directly opposed to what he wants to be true?

They are standing firm on what they believe to be true. True to the Word of God and what the evidence is showing them. I commend them for that.

No, not what the evidence is showing them. They're completely ignoring the science to spread their own dogma.