Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Esquilax]

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

You're being put in a no-win situation because your beliefs cannot win when you're required to provide evidence for them. The fact that you're incapable of winning doesn't mean we're all being unfair, it means you're playing with a lackluster hand.

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

No, actually, it's not okay to use any source you want. If I was arguing for the existence of magic and quoted Harry Potter as my source, telling me that that's a fictional source isn't being unfair. It's simply true; in that case, as in yours, the sources being presented aren't conducive to the discussion being had. If you want to talk science, use a science source. If you want to talk lies and equivocations, as you have been so far, use AiG. But you don't get to pass the latter off as the former, and you don't get to cry foul when people note that the only sources you've seen fit to present are known liars, actively in the process of lying in the sources you present.

2. I put down a link with info to address an issue and I get a warning.

This is a discussion forum, which means you have to discuss. If you don't, then you've broken rule one, which is what you did when you filled this thread with link upon link of spurious lies told by detestable men and women. You got what you deserved.

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

When you cut a full quote in half to make the person you're quoting look like they're saying literally the exact opposite of what they said, then yes, you are lying. If that makes you uncomfortable, perhaps you should stop doing that, or re-evaluate the sources you are using, where they lie to you.

If I quoted the bible by skipping through the entire text until I made the sentence "there is no god," out of individual words, would you say I was being honest in representing that as the actual intention of the book?

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

I'm sorry your beliefs are nutty and ignorant. We've all offered to help you get better ones; it's not our fault you haven't accepted that offer.

5. I make a slight joke and I get raked over the coals

When your jokes aren't funny and come on the back of a steadfast refusal to talk amidst a flurry of lies and glib half-truths, you bet your attempt to dodge the issue with humor will be met with unpleasantness. Telling a joke doesn't make all the shitty stuff you've done disappear, it just makes it seem like you're not taking it seriously.

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

Refuting your nonsense, over and over, is not unjustified, given the raw content of your posts thus far.

what gives?

Actually, yeah, we do need to stop for a moment and deal with an important issue; it's really very hard to get creationists to take responsibility for the things they do and say, so I'm not going to let up on this until we get an answer from you.

You presented us quotes from Stephen Gould and this Schwartz fellow. Did you look them up yourself, or did you get them from a creationist source? If it's the latter, which source did you use?

When we looked up those quotes, what did we see, Rev? We found, in the former case, that the quote was part of a larger paragraph of text that represented a complete thought, and what you posted was that thought torn in half so that it said the opposite of what Gould meant. There was no way for the person who took that quote to avoid seeing that he wasn't finished talking, Rev. They had to have known that they were misrepresenting what Gould said.

With your Schwartz quote, it took me only a few seconds on google to find that he does accept evolution, which means that your quote, attempting to make it seem as though he was a creationist was wrong too. You posted two quotes that had been manipulated into saying exactly the opposite of what those quoted actually meant.

So what I want you to do is admit that those quotes you posted were wrong. If they came from a creationist source that isn't you, I want you to admit that those sources lied to you, and to us.

Shouldn't be hard for you, since that's what did happen. Just observe where you were in error and were misled, and we can move on. You are genuinely here to find the truth, right? Well, you've just been shown that something you posted wasn't that, so it's time to retract what you said and take responsibility for that.

Well?

[Jackalope]

Don't hold your breath, Esq.

[Esquilax]

Don't hold your breath, Esq.

I'm not, but if we have this conversation as the text, rather than the subtext, then we can all just establish outright that Rev is lying and okay with it, rather than going through another forty pages under the pretense that he's actually got something to say.

Or he might surprise me and admit to being wrong and using dishonest sources, so either way, it's a win for the reasonable people.

[Simon Moon]

You presented us quotes from Stephen Gould and this Schwartz fellow. Did you look them up yourself, or did you get them from a creationist source? If it's the latter, which source did you use?

When we looked up those quotes, what did we see, Rev? We found, in the former case, that the quote was part of a larger paragraph of text that represented a complete thought, and what you posted was that thought torn in half so that it said the opposite of what Gould meant. There was no way for the person who took that quote to avoid seeing that he wasn't finished talking, Rev. They had to have known that they were misrepresenting what Gould said.

With your Schwartz quote, it took me only a few seconds on google to find that he does accept evolution, which means that your quote, attempting to make it seem as though he was a creationist was wrong too. You posted two quotes that had been manipulated into saying exactly the opposite of what those quoted actually meant.

So what I want you to do is admit that those quotes you posted were wrong. If they came from a creationist source that isn't you, I want you to admit that those sources lied to you, and to us.

Shouldn't be hard for you, since that's what did happen. Just observe where you were in error and were misled, and we can move on. You are genuinely here to find the truth, right? Well, you've just been shown that something you posted wasn't that, so it's time to retract what you said and take responsibility for that.

Well?

I think we should all just continue to quote and repost the above, so when Rev777 comes back, he will not be able to avoid it, or say he missed it.

Come on, Rev777, respond to this.

Admitting that you were wrong, or being intentionally lied to, is the intellectually honest thing to do.

So, the question is, do you have any intellectual honesty?

[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.*

Dear Sir,
1. I didn't know what quote mining was.
2. I got both of those quotes from someone who was debating online with someone else. These were isolated quotes. I didn't fish them out from a website and just grabbed what I wanted and left the rest.
3. By having the names of who said that quote I thought I was fulfilling my obligation
4. If you think I have the time to create some cunning stunts to defend my points when I am up to my eyeballs trying to respond to these replies, please pardon me I do have responsibilities to tend to outside of this place.
5. You guys are quick to make judgments and put labels on people. You don't know Ken Ham from Adam, no pun intended. You guys also do not know me, yet make me out to be this complete deluded religious fanatic with the IQ of a common house fly. Then just ignore my posts then? Why are you wasting your time on an imbecile such as myself?

---

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.

You should not attempt to tackle a subject you clearly have absolutely no understanding of. I've read your Bible, at least show me the courtesy of reading a decent reference book on Evolution before attempting to comment. If you are not prepared to read one then just don't say anything, because your ignorance is making you look extremely foolish.

What kind of a god would want his followers to misrepresent knowledge on his/her/their behalf? That is what you have turned your god into.

MM

God is all knowing and powerful, I am a servant in training. hock:

[Foxaèr]

Why are you wasting your time on an imbecile such as myself?

You are a theist on an atheist forum. If anyone's time is being wasted here, I daresay it is yours.

[Revelation777]

Really? God did it? ... How did he do that?

We don't know how it happened, therefore it's impossible, therefore there must be a being that can do the impossible.

How did he do it?

Magic.

Why don't you ask Him how He did it or just read Genesis 1 & 2.

---

You should not attempt to tackle a subject you clearly have absolutely no understanding of. I've read your Bible, at least show me the courtesy of reading a decent reference book on Evolution before attempting to comment. If you are not prepared to read one then just don't say anything, because your ignorance is making you look extremely foolish.

I even tried warning him what was going to happen I'd he took this approach in one of his other threads when he announced his intent to post his 7 arguments.

Can't say I'm surprised.

Thank you for your perspective.

---

You kidding me? He doesn't read anything that might challenge what he knows to be true. That little thing in the back of your mind that clues you in when something's not right? He has systematically destroyed that thing, and is proud of it. What it must be like to live in a world of constant cognitive dissonance. Leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

I thought you didn't believe in the supernatural. Apparently you have the power to see what I do and have done in my life.

---

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.

I might be dumb, but I ain't stupid. I knows when things be creation or not, das fo shur.

[Anomalocaris]

You are even stupider than you are dumb.

[Revelation777]

Yes, God took dirt and made man.

And you believe that, based on a weight of evidence far lacking on that which we can deliver.

Selection bias. It's a remarkable thing to observe. Sad, but remarkable.

I believe it because God said so.

---

Listen, we refer to a God that is not just floating mysteriously in space. He has revealed Himself to mankind through His Son.

Given that you can't prove even an iota of that claim, then I'd say "floating in space" is a safer bet.

Jesus said He is coming back and every eye will see Him.

---

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

That would imply that you're actually willing to take on board what we're saying, when your clear lack of research and continued references to Answers in Genesis display nothing but contempt for us and what we're trying to tell you.

If you want to start contemplating what we're saying, could you start with the repeated theme of this thread, which is that your understanding of evolution is deeply limited, and that relying on Ken Ham to teach you what evolution is will never resolve that issue?

Start from there, and maybe try to fill the gaps in your understanding from people who don't proudly display that their investigative method begins with "evolution is always wrong"?

No one has proven to me that "molecule to man evolution happened" a lot of smoke and mirrors though.

[Godlesspanther]

Dear Sir,
1. I didn't know what quote mining was.
2. I got both of those quotes from someone who was debating online with someone else. These were isolated quotes. I didn't fish them out from a website and just grabbed what I wanted and left the rest.
3. By having the names of who said that quote I thought I was fulfilling my obligation
4. If you think I have the time to create some cunning stunts to defend my points when I am up to my eyeballs trying to respond to these replies, please pardon me I do have responsibilities to tend to outside of this place.
5. You guys are quick to make judgments and put labels on people. You don't know Ken Ham from Adam, no pun intended. You guys also do not know me, yet make me out to be this complete deluded religious fanatic with the IQ of a common house fly. Then just ignore my posts then? Why are you wasting your time on an imbecile such as myself?

I wouldn't be surprised if you still don't know what quote mining is. Nobody expects you to come up with "cunning stunts" (stunning cunts?) actually all we expect is for you to understand some very basic and simple principles of logic.

I don't know Ken Ham, but I know what he says and he's obviously a fucking liar.