Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Mister Agenda]

What about what these scholars have said?

Quote-mining is a form of lying. Why would the people who hold your position choose to lie if the evidence is on their side?

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

Perhaps you should learn why an argument from inappropriate authority is or explain what makes Darwin an appropriate authority to cite on the existence of God?

---

Answer this, Rev.

You have been caught cherry picking a quotation out of context.

I doubt he knew what he was doing. Most likely he trusted one of his sources to not be dishonest and merely regurgitated what they chose to let him think was an honest quote.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Evolution deals with the adaptation of existing life and speciation.

Abiogenesis deals with the production of life from inert matter.

1. Life is unlikely to have arisen from inert matter. It is likely to have arisen from highly reactive matter through many intermediate stages in a chemically protracted process.

2. These stages undoubtely saw multiple intermediate forms that possesses some, but not all, of the characteristic structures, processes, and functions of what we might definitely call life. This would be the gray zone in the progress of abiogenesis where things are produced that are not quite inanimate matter, but may not be quite full fledged life either.

3. What drove these intermediate form towards full fledged life is undoubtedly an evolutionary process involving natural selection.

Evolution and abiogenesis may be separate theories, but the process of abiogenesis dependents intimately upon the process of evolution process by natural selection to complete.

Abiogenesis would be impossible without the process behind evolution.

I agree with you, but this tactic of "Well I reject Abiogenesis, therefore evolution is false" drives me crazy. Abiogenesis requires evolution, evolution doesn't require that abiogenesis happened.

[truthBtold]

O god, I pray to you, that one day REVs name will have a line thru.... amen and pass the mashed potatoes!!!!

[Jackalope]

Don't you think you should retract these statements of yours, and apologize if it turns out that you were just so lazy that you took your creationist source as gospel without bothering to research?

What do you expect? He's not expecting to convert anyone, he's looking to bolster his own position through confirmation bias by only looking at sources that are in agreement with what he already believes to be true.

The significance of what you said won't even get through his bias filters.

[Mister Agenda]

I agree with you, but this tactic of "Well I reject Abiogenesis, therefore evolution is false" drives me crazy. Abiogenesis requires evolution, evolution doesn't require that abiogenesis happened.

Exactly, God could have poofed the first microbe into existence and nothing significant about evolution would change.

I don't think it will be so long before they start claiming that 'dust' was an analogy for microbes and the Bible was talking about evolution all along, therefore, God.

[Revelation777]

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).

Okay, now you've gone and made my blood boil. This is nothing more than a lazy con job, or a deliberate lie, Rev. The Gould quote is a fairly common creationist quote mine, and it's horrendously dishonest on its own, but I'll admit, I actually had to go and check out the Schwartz one myself, something you should have done before you posted it. Do you know what I found? Do you know why he said that?

I do, because I bothered to look.

Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh professor of anthropology in the School of Arts and Sciences, is working to debunk a major tenet of Darwinian evolution. Schwartz believes that evolutionary changes occur suddenly as opposed to the Darwinian model of evolution, which is characterized by gradual and constant change. Among other scientific observations, gaps in the fossil record could bolster Schwartz's theory because, for Schwartz, there is no "missing link."

Schwartz might disagree on certain aspects of evolution, but he does agree that it happens. Would you not agree that attempting to characterize is as though he thinks otherwise is dishonest, Rev? Don't you think you should retract these statements of yours, and apologize if it turns out that you were just so lazy that you took your creationist source as gospel without bothering to research?

And if that's the case, what does it say about the source you used, that it really did outright lie like that?

Oh, and just to cut you off ahead of schedule, you might be tempted to focus on the last line of that quote I posted here, about there not being a missing link. Don't. For one, it says that for Schwartz there is no missing link, and the opinion of one guy- who's already going against the scientific consensus- is not automatically reality. In fact, there's numerous transitional forms on the path toward humanity, more than enough, and I posted a link to all of them way back at the start of this thread. Don't lie again by saying you've not been shown them.

*Drops the mic.*

---

Hold on just one cotton pickin' minute! You guys are putting me in a no win situation here.

1. I present an argument and it is ok for everyone to quote any source they want. I use AIG and I get lambasted.
2. I put down a link with info to address an issue and I get a warning.
3. I use quotes from Darwin and other scientists and I'm quote mining and called a liar.
4. I share my beliefs and I'm called a nut and a ignoramus
5. I make a slight joke and I get raked over the coals
6. One of your atheist buddies tears me down and they get kudos and high fives

what gives?

[Rampant.A.I.]

The argument and sources have been shown invalid, and you won't let it go.

[Simon Moon]

1. I present an argument and it is ok for everyone to quote any source they want. I use AIG and I get lambasted.

Yes, because it is provable that AIG lies, misinterprets evidence, ignores other evidence, quote mines, and other dishonest tactics.

3. I use quotes from Darwin and other scientists and I'm quote mining and called a liar.

Yes, because you used partial quotes by Darwin and other scientists that, given the rest of the quote, do not show what creationists believe they do.

4. I share my beliefs and I'm called a nut and a ignoramus

When it comes to YEC, yes, because not a single field of science, nor any of the demonstrable evidence supports YEC claims.

6. One of your atheist buddies tears me down and they get kudos and high fives

If you don't want to get torn down for your reality denying beliefs, get better beliefs that map closer to reality.

Sometimes (not with you, I'm afraid) ridicule is a viable method to get people to see how ridiculous some of their beliefs are. Obviously, demonstrable evidence isn't working with you.

[truthBtold]

Ur jokes are not funny.. So become an atheist and u will be treated like royalty. .. I swear.. no hell needed..

[Cyberman]

Hold on just one cotton pickin' minute! You guys are putting me in a no win situation here.

1. I present an argument and it is ok for everyone to quote any source they want. I use AIG and I get lambasted.
2. I put down a link with info to address an issue and I get a warning.
3. I use quotes from Darwin and other scientists and I'm quote mining and called a liar.
4. I share my beliefs and I'm called a nut and a ignoramus
5. I make a slight joke and I get raked over the coals
6. One of your atheist buddies tears me down and they get kudos and high fives

what gives?

1. Everyone else is quoting from reliable, unbiased sources with no agenda. Your source is infamous for being selective with its honesty and has as its fundamental principle a statement declaring that anything running counter to the bible story will be ignored.

2. Stop lying. You put down link after link - not just one - without adding your own views and which forms your entire argument. This is a violation of Forum Rule #1, our Prime Directive.

3. You posted snippets of quotes, carefully edited to make them appear to say the opposite. If there is another word to describe a person not telling the truth, please tell me what it is.

4. If your beliefs can't stand up to criticism, and instead attract mockery, I suggest you need to rethink your approach to those beliefs.

5. Welcome to the internet.

6. One? I think we'll need a link so we know which one rubbed your rhubarb.

Any help to you?