Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Revelation777]

Revelation777 Wrote:
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."

Fair enough. I've come up with some perplexing questions to which 'God' is a better answer than 'We're working on it':

1. Why, even with the healthiest of parents, are some infants born with birth defects so severe that they die within minutes or hours of birth? Preferred answer: God.

2. Why are old ladies so often robbed and beaten for their pension money? Preferred answer: God.

3. How is it possible, given the vast advances in agricultural and food distribution technologies, that so much of the world's population hovers between malnutrition and starvation? Preferred answer: God.

4. Why does the genital butchery known as female circumcision continue to be practiced? Preferred answer: God.

Any others?

Boru

#1 - welcome to a world that we chose by rebelling and introducing sin, chaos, unfairness, and disorder

#2 - Thou shalt not steal. Disobey?

#3 - The reason for starvation in the world is poverty. If the 1% of the world's wealthiest gave a mere fraction or a fraction of their wealth to feeding the world's hungry there would be no problem here. The problem here is not God who gave us a planet that easily can produce enough food for everyone, but greed.
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Lear...202002.htm

#4 - When did God ever tell us to do that? He said be fruitful and multiply

[The Valkyrie]

In other words, "stop thinking for yourselves and I'll let you into 'paradise' and worship me forever"

Jesus also reputedly said that you have to hate your family before you can be one of his followers. I say "reputedly" because there's no actual evidence for his existence.

---

Bible quotes to atheists, the last resort of the desperate theist who has run out of arguments.

To be fair -- ALL loony cults operate exactly that way.

Very true.

Still as effective as a catflap in an elephant cage.

[Anomalocaris]

Yes, you are. So am I and so is every other human being on the planet. Humans, gorillas, chimps and bonobos are taxonomically identical down to the Family level (Hominidae).

To claim that human beings are not apes is precisely akin to claiming that Chihuahuas are not dogs because they don't look exactly like mastiffs.

When you deny the basic precepts of biological evolution (common descent, speciation, natural/sexual selection, and so forth) and do so in the face of overwhelming evidence for evolution, you're simply displaying a willful, deliberate ignorance. This is the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, squinching your eyes shut, and shouting, 'Nyah, nyah, nyah, I can't hear you!!'

You've lost this one, Rev. Evolution is a fact, as little in doubt as gravity. When you claim the opposite, you look as foolish as someone doubting that gravity is real.

Boru

My beef is with "Molecule to Man" evolution.

Exactly do you know about real biochemistry, organic chemistry, and geological history that qualifies you to have any "beef"?

What would you think about someone who can barely add two and two, but claim he really has a beef about the a solution to a differential equation? And how about if the same ignoramus then cite as support some other "work" whose author also can't add two and two, and who furthermore claims he would never recognize any evidence of his own error that might ever be produced in the past, present or future?

Do you recognize the similarity between yourself and this ignoramus; and between the so called work that claims to be correct by the simple expedient of proclaim all evidence to the contrary to be inadmissible, and the aig christain bible clown site?

You are as ridiculous in this as you would be in having a "beef" with anything else that has vast substance to understand, but which you totally don't understand.

[Esquilax]

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.

They're upfront about their intentions, it's just that those intentions represent an inexcusable bias that prevents anything they present from being at all truthful where it disagrees with the position they've taken before examining the evidence.

Put it this way: if I told you that I was beginning from the position that the bible is always wrong, and that's how I interpret the evidence, would you take anything I said seriously? If the answer is no, why would you expect us to do otherwise?

As for holes in the science... what would you think if I told you that all of the holes that AiG claims exist have been answered and refuted by science for years, and yet they're still up there on the AiG website? Because, you know, you can find out whether or not that claim I just made is true: you've just got to look at proper, mainstream science sources.

We can point you to some, if you like. You've just got to take that first step to see if how AiG is representing science matches with the actual discoveries. Are you willing to do that, and hence be truthful in your investigation?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If a kind or basic type of animal over a long period of time has evolved into a different kind of basic type of animal, then it is reasonable to expect a plethora of transitional forms in the fossil record. However, this is not the case, rather, the fossil record shows the original diversity of animal and plant forms.

Evolution models of the fossil record predict the following:
- wholesale transitions in organisms over time
- primitive forms evolving into complex forms
- gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms

We do not find any of these to be true based on our fossil record.

Trilobites are an example of an organism appearing suddenly in the fossil record void of any evidence of transitions. Furthermore, trilobites have an organized complexity comparable to modern day invertebrates.

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.

Even the Bible teaches evolution.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Yes, you are. So am I and so is every other human being on the planet. Humans, gorillas, chimps and bonobos are taxonomically identical down to the Family level (Hominidae).

To claim that human beings are not apes is precisely akin to claiming that Chihuahuas are not dogs because they don't look exactly like mastiffs.

When you deny the basic precepts of biological evolution (common descent, speciation, natural/sexual selection, and so forth) and do so in the face of overwhelming evidence for evolution, you're simply displaying a willful, deliberate ignorance. This is the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, squinching your eyes shut, and shouting, 'Nyah, nyah, nyah, I can't hear you!!'

You've lost this one, Rev. Evolution is a fact, as little in doubt as gravity. When you claim the opposite, you look as foolish as someone doubting that gravity is real.

Boru

My beef is with "Molecule to Man" evolution.

No, it's rather apparently with evolution on the whole.

Unless you're content to announce the goalposts are now moving from "transitional forms" to attacking cell division, or abiogenesis.

Which would be ludicrous, since abiogenesis has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

[DarkHorse]

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.

They're upfront about their intentions, it's just that those intentions represent an inexcusable bias that prevents anything they present from being at all truthful where it disagrees with the position they've taken before examining the evidence.

Put it this way: if I told you that I was beginning from the position that the bible is always wrong, and that's how I interpret the evidence, would you take anything I said seriously? If the answer is no, why would you expect us to do otherwise?

As for holes in the science... what would you think if I told you that all of the holes that AiG claims exist have been answered and refuted by science for years, and yet they're still up there on the AiG website? Because, you know, you can find out whether or not that claim I just made is true: you've just got to look at proper, mainstream science sources.

We can point you to some, if you like. You've just got to take that first step to see if how AiG is representing science matches with the actual discoveries. Are you willing to do that, and hence be truthful in your investigation?

Rev, pay careful attention to what Esquilax wrote above. You seem to miss all the important stuff, or you choose to ignore it, whatever.

There are more holes in your beliefs than any thing else on this planet.

[Ryantology]

#1 - welcome to a world that we chose by rebelling and introducing sin, chaos, unfairness, and disorder

Yeah, it's not God's fault Rev777 was born without half of a normal, functioning brain. It's ours.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Fair enough. I've come up with some perplexing questions to which 'God' is a better answer than 'We're working on it':

1. Why, even with the healthiest of parents, are some infants born with birth defects so severe that they die within minutes or hours of birth? Preferred answer: God.

2. Why are old ladies so often robbed and beaten for their pension money? Preferred answer: God.

3. How is it possible, given the vast advances in agricultural and food distribution technologies, that so much of the world's population hovers between malnutrition and starvation? Preferred answer: God.

4. Why does the genital butchery known as female circumcision continue to be practiced? Preferred answer: God.

Any others?

Boru

#1 - welcome to a world that we chose by rebelling and introducing sin, chaos, unfairness, and disorder

#2 - Thou shalt not steal. Disobey?

#3 - The reason for starvation in the world is poverty. If the 1% of the world's wealthiest gave a mere fraction or a fraction of their wealth to feeding the world's hungry there would be no problem here. The problem here is not God who gave us a planet that easily can produce enough food for everyone, but greed.
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Lear...202002.htm

#4 - When did God ever tell us to do that? He said be fruitful and multiply

So then God is NOT the answer you prefer?

Boru

---

Yes, you are. So am I and so is every other human being on the planet. Humans, gorillas, chimps and bonobos are taxonomically identical down to the Family level (Hominidae).

To claim that human beings are not apes is precisely akin to claiming that Chihuahuas are not dogs because they don't look exactly like mastiffs.

When you deny the basic precepts of biological evolution (common descent, speciation, natural/sexual selection, and so forth) and do so in the face of overwhelming evidence for evolution, you're simply displaying a willful, deliberate ignorance. This is the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, squinching your eyes shut, and shouting, 'Nyah, nyah, nyah, I can't hear you!!'

You've lost this one, Rev. Evolution is a fact, as little in doubt as gravity. When you claim the opposite, you look as foolish as someone doubting that gravity is real.

Boru

My beef is with "Molecule to Man" evolution.

Who the hell are you to tell God how to accomplish his miracles? If God chose to have molecules evolve into human beings, isn't that a much greater achievement that simply creating life ex nihilo? Double Check the scripture you claim to love so much. Particularly Genesis 1:24.

'And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.' (and before you pounce on the inconsequentiality of the term 'kind', nowhere does Genesis say or imply that these 'kinds' are immutable).

Even according to the Bible, God didn't simply create life, he did something much more impressive - he had the inanimate earth create life. And yet you come in here, with your stupefying ignorance of basic science (not to mention basic theology) and proceed to limit what your all powerful God can do.

Boru

[Rampant.A.I.]

#1 - welcome to a world that we chose by rebelling and introducing sin, chaos, unfairness, and disorder

Yes yes, desire, ignorance (hatred, envy, anger) have brought a world full of suffering. 4 BCE, Buddhism.

Religious wars directly attributable to Christianity:
http://godandwar.wikispaces.com/List+of+Religious+Wars

Well over 100 religiously based wars since 1 CE. Not including the inquisition, crusades, and more.

Religious wars directly attributable to Buddhism:

I'm not aware of any. Now, there are Buddhist countries that go to war, but I can't think of a specific instance of Buddhists deciding they need to wipe out the Christians.

It's not as if anyone disagrees with you in spirit: things aren't always great, because people are assholes and behave like them. It's that your religious tradition and explanations for why suffering exists, while maintaining we live in a perfect creation under a perfect creator deity who sometimes gets really pissed, and kills everyone, or has continued to punish us for 7,000 of years because he created a woman who happened to like apples: it's just not particularly compelling.

Your religious tradition brings forth nothing new, it causes hatred, bigotry, idolatry, shame for being biological beings, and basic facts of life, and generally requests that everyone shut their "god given" capacity for reason off and unplug their brains so we can tell this supposed eternal, perfect, omniscient, benevolent creator/BDSM fanatic in the sky how much we love and worship him, and deny any knowledge that might contradict a set of a 2000 year old book, and a 3-4000 year old book that is only accepted as canon when convenient.

There's nothing particularly compelling in either book, except as antique legends and folklore of history, thoroughly embellished to the point that there are 33,000 unique "Christian" denominations who all disagree on the greater meanings behind the contradicting stories in the books.

So you tell us, as someone who has promised a set of seven arguments that will make those of us who have read and examined this body of work critically reconsider, and join you in denying empirical scientific facts about the world around us out of deference to your specific interpretation out of 33,000 sects in your particular religion, discounting the other 4,200 separate religions, each with their own number of sects who disagree on the exact canon of their beliefs and explain to us why your specific sect deserves special consideration above all others, so extensively as to refute the most basic scientific facts of the 21st century; because "I strongly believe this is true" is just not compelling.

If you find yourself unable to provide a cogent reason without biblical scripture, or waxing poetic about how your reborn messianic figure deserves special consideration out of countless others, even contemporarily [ http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m..._claimants ] can we please move on to argument #2?