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?

What about what these scholars have said?

"transitional fossils have not been found because they don't exist" (Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh professor of anthropology).

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution" (Stephen J. Gould, evolutionary paleontologist of Harvard University).

---

Is it your job to change my mind? I doubt I can change yours. However, we can contemplate what each other has to offer.

Your declared goal to be here is to convert some of us.

I can't convert a tadpole. I deliver the message and the ball is in your court, you have a free will.

---

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.

Don't even care: Darwin isn't a prophet and none of us follow what he says because he says it. A lot of what he thought about evolution was wrong too, but we accept that it happens because it does and we have evidence of that.

That's the difference between a real argument and the arguments from authority you're attempting to make.

Wow, now your even throwing Darwin under the bus. Perhaps if he were alive today he could get a job at AIG.

---

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.

Yeah, they have a model of the triceratops with a SADDLE on it, are convinced not only that dinosaurs lived alongside humans but the T-rexes were VEGETARIANS.

And we're to take these people seriously?

How do you know what they ordered on their menu? Maybe they shopped at WHole Foods for all we know?

[Weewah]

Fossils are soo rare to begin with, so many things have to happen for a fossil to form. There are a lot of species that there aren't any fossils for.

I also second the argument that you're thinking in terms of final forms, you think every fossil is a final form when in reality it is all transitional.

[Rampant.A.I.]

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?

What about what these scholars have said?

"transitional fossils have not been found because they don't exist" (Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh professor of anthropology).

A Google search of this quote only results in three Creationist blog posts.

Source?

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution" (Stephen J. Gould, evolutionary paleontologist of Harvard University).

Hey look, you forgot the rest of the text your creationist blog post quote-mined that from:

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189)

[Following right after]

"Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms -- that is, viable, functioning organisms -- between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no, and I invoke two recently supported cases of discontinuous change in my defense.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/m...rt1-3.html

Gould isn't arguing against evolution, he's arguing against gradualism.

Rev, why do you not think "thou shall not steal" and "thou shall not lie" do not apply to you?

[Revelation777]

Why do you call them conmen?

Because they're conning you and many others, perhaps? They're misrepresenting what science actually claims to people like you - and not so coincidentally, raking I'm some dough while they're at it. Have you seen what they charge for admission to their sham of a "museum"?

So if a museum charges for admission so they can pay their bills, and staff, it is a sham? Come on now.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Because they're conning you and many others, perhaps? They're misrepresenting what science actually claims to people like you - and not so coincidentally, raking I'm some dough while they're at it. Have you seen what they charge for admission to their sham of a "museum"?

So if a museum charges for admission so they can pay their bills, and staff, it is a sham? Come on now. :consoling:

If a museum deliberately misrepresents facts, and is chaired by a well known fraud and con man (who has been sued for fraud by other creationist organizations he stole money from) the term "sham" is inaccurate to you?

You should really research who you're throwing in with!

[Revelation777]

I hope I get the chance but I have a feeling I'm about to be lynched.

No lynching, just no special pleading. You seem like a nice guy to me as well, but have made some pretty outlandish claims, and thrown out some dubious sources in support of those claims.

This is less an attack on your person than it is on your claims, and if it has seemed otherwise, apologies.

Thank you for your kindness. I can exclude you from being a part of the angry mob that wants me tarred and feathered and forced to listen to Richard Dawkins lectures.

[Minimalist]

Sounds like a great idea!

[Crossless2.0]

What about what these scholars have said?

"transitional fossils have not been found because they don't exist" (Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh professor of anthropology).

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution" (Stephen J. Gould, evolutionary paleontologist of Harvard University).

Misquoting scientists and/or taking their statements out of context is practically a creationist hobby. Before tying yourself further to their lies, you might want to do a bit of research:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/m...oject.html

Don't even care: Darwin isn't a prophet and none of us follow what he says because he says it. A lot of what he thought about evolution was wrong too, but we accept that it happens because it does and we have evidence of that.

That's the difference between a real argument and the arguments from authority you're attempting to make.

Wow, now your even throwing Darwin under the bus. Perhaps if he were alive today he could get a job at AIG.

Throwing Darwin under the bus? Hardly. The point is that Darwin's belief in a deity or lack thereof is irrelevant to the question of evolution and its mechanisms. You are aware that the overwhelming majority of mainstream Christian congregations have long since made their peace with modern biology, aren't you? You do know that there are Christians who work in the biological sciences and who don't have a problem with accepting the evidence for evolution and common descent, right?

[Jackalope]

Because they're conning you and many others, perhaps? They're misrepresenting what science actually claims to people like you - and not so coincidentally, raking I'm some dough while they're at it. Have you seen what they charge for admission to their sham of a "museum"?

So if a museum charges for admission so they can pay their bills, and staff, it is a sham? Come on now.

Way to mispresent what I said. Good job - I'm sure Jesus would be proud of your lack of integrity.

[Cyberman]

---

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.

Nope; only towards those who come here and judge me on why I don't share their belief. I don't go out of my way to target them. See, that's what "seems" gets you.

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.

And that's the bit you and your friends fall down on - you never, or rarely ever, demonstrate any of these bald assertions and presuppositions and merely assume them to be true reflections of reality. Which is fine by itself, but it's when you leap about like a judgemental kangaroo from one pious platitude to another that I start getting pissy.

Again, you might not agree but can you respect that?

Respect what - the person, the self-justification of superiority or the belief? Be it noted that not all of those things are worthy of automatic respect.