Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Ryantology]

[quote='Revelation777' pid='657587' dateline='1398549195']
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Can't we learn from the artful rendering of Nebraska Man? So now I have to buy into every rendering made from fossils that are supposed to be the missing link or a proof of a transitional organism? No, sir, no.



Show me the precise point at which violet becomes green on this spectrum. If you can do that, your inquiries about 'transitional organisms' and 'missing links' are valid.

If AiG is soooooo disreputably, then why did Bill Nye bother wasting his time debating Ken Ham?

He shouldn't have. It was a mistake.

[Revelation777]

That is why it is unrealistic and deceptive to draw a rendering of an "transitional" organism when all you have is a tooth and a part of a jawbone.

---

Very good, you are capable of simulating a modicum of evidence evaluation, which means small as your powers of objective evaluation might be, it should still becapable of penetrating the howls of the parasites like your priests and pastors, and elaborate con of the frauds who wrote the bible, and the ramblings of cheap shabby low class hucksters at AIG (both the creationist website, and the so called investment bank, but that it a different story).

But mere simulation is not enough in any case, it is especially not enough when it is liberally debased and adulterated with your own personal dishonesty.

Your personal dishonesty is menifested by the fact that what you assert to be all that we have is NOT all that we have, and you surely know this because you surely have seen essentially complete recovered and mounted fossils that fits in known evolutionary lineage sometime in your life, and yet lied for your jesus without skipping a beat.

There are numerous cases where we have complete or essential complete skeletons that are still articulated in their original pre-mortum position. What is more, there are cases where we have even extracted DNA from the bone fragments to unambigiously identify the relationship of the original owner of the bones, with species that are related to it.

Now let us say, just to humor you, a jaw bone or some other fragmentary species ambigious remains is was really all that we have, it would only make particular species identification problematic, it would not hamper the observation of progressive changes through time of which the ambigiously identified species forms an unabigious part.

You see, it doesn't matter if there is doubt whether jawbone B belongs with the same species as Jawbone C. For there to be confusion species B and species C would already have to be pretty similar to the eyes of a trained paleontologist, in other words eyes infinitely better informed and better trained than yours, much less those of the blind idiots at AIG.

Therefore, it is overwhelmingly likely that, regardless whether jawbone B and jawbone C belong to the same species, or two closely related species, either jaw bone has enough characteristics to place them as transition between species A and species D.

It would be like if we discovered your bones, the bones of your mother, the bones of your mother's sister, and the bones of your grand mother.

It doesn't matter if we confused the bones of your mother with the bones of your mother's sister. It doesn't matter if we grafted your mother's skull onto the body of her sister. It doesn't matter if we might have though your mother's feet belonged to a different individual than your mother's hands.

We can tell, analytically, and quantitatively, the collection of bones containes both your mother's bones, and your mother's sister's bones, however grouped, contains a transitional form between you and your grand mother.

I would like you to provide for me from a scientific journal how through bone grafting and looking at DNA that they can link animals from different species and being transitionally connected.

---

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

If a museum makes up stuff and present it as real, it is sham.

That bullshit museum would be a sham even if it paid people to go visit.

---

God's Word is true,

If it were not, how do you find out?

however, if that were flawed, which it is not,

What did you do to ascertain this?

then I stand on sand. ,

And you pretend you are not because?

I have found it to be true and consistent in my life and in the lives of many.,

In science, whenever something is claimed to have been found true, The claim remains a mere hypothesis. For the hypothesis to be taken seriously, it is required that for the claimant to produce a rigornous analyze of the mathematical probability that if that thing was in fact false, it could still have produced the very same evidences which led the claimant to interpret it as being true. This is called the null hypothesis. The probability of the null hypothesis must be demonstrated, not merely asserted, to be very small, for the original hypothesis to be taken seriously.

If the claim refuse to do this, or is unable to do this, then "finding something to be true" is considered bullshit, because claimant failed to demonstrate the same evidence that had led him to believe something to be true could not have been produced even when that thing is in fact false.

The null hypothesis to your original hypothesis of "I have found it to be true and consistent in my life and in the lives of many" would be "Revs would have found it to be true and consistent even when it is not true, and/or not consistent." Analyze the probability of this null hypothesis, and demonstrate the possibility that the mathematical probability of this hull hypothesis is very small indeed, small enough to exclude the null hypothesis.

Do this, or else your hypothesis is indistinguihsalbe from bullshit, for the same reason as any claim made in science would be dismissed if its null hypothesis can not be excluded through probability calculation.

If you can't conform to basic standards of scientific integrity, what business do you have making claims before those who respects scientific integrity as the basis of truth finding?

You base your beliefs on science and theories. I base mine on the Scripture, my own personal experience, and science.

---

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?

For Revelation777

Crossless1 is right.

Francis Collins, who led the Human Genome Project, is a Christian while Richard Dawkins is an atheist. I've found the transcript of a debate they had - they disagree when it comes to whether or not God exists but they don't disagree about evolution itself.

God vs. Science - A debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins

DAWKINS: The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.

TIME: Dr. Collins, you believe that science is compatible with Christian faith.

COLLINS: Yes. God's existence is either true or not. But calling it a scientific question implies that the tools of science can provide the answer. From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in.

Atheists, who lack a belief in deities, aren't going to be persuaded that God exists by your posting misinformation from Answers In Genesis. Science, including evolution, cannot provide concrete proof that God doesn't exist so you don't have to reject evolution in order to stay a believer. How can people stay believers? The following quotes are from an interview with Francis Collins where he explains it.

Collins - Why This Scientist Believes In God

So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.

I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.

I don't disagree that evolution takes place in small but significant changes within species. I do take exception when you say a single cell organism eventually evolved into a human being. Sorry, I don't buy that.

---

REV... u post threads with all your unsupported nonsense and then when someone sincerely responds you dont answer their questions. You just start blabbing about your fucking ridiculous god that you still cant let go from childhood.. grow up! Its time to take the onezees off and put on big boy pants.. Its time for me to treat you like the rest of the people who are banned from the forum.. like your not here.. when I see that you have started a thread, I will just move along to the next.. by the way... find some salt and pound it... thank you..

I am sorry, as much as I would like to spend ten hours a day on this site taking the time to defend my position, I can't. I wish there were a few more creationist on this site to help me with the replies. I admire snowtracks posts.

---

That is why it is unrealistic and deceptive to draw a rendering of an "transitional" organism when all you have is a tooth and a part of a jawbone.

But you're asking us to accept a rendering (the Bible) when you don't even have a tooth or part of a jawbone.

I have numeral prophesies that have become fulfilled. Rather that than a big stained tooth.

---

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

If the goal is making disciples, you better stick to the tried and true method of mind fucking young impressionable children that have yet to develop reasoning capability. Not only are they your intellectual peers, but you are less likely to run into the foul language that distresses you.

Children are more open to the truth than adults. I wish adults had child-like faith.

---

So revelation did you read my explanation on a transitional fossil or was it ignored?

What you refer to as transitional fossils I consider non-transitional fossils.

[Godlesspanther]

If AiG is soooooo disreputably, then why did Bill Nye bother wasting his time debating Ken Ham?

I watched that debate between Bill Nye and some clown who made a complete ass of himself. Nye has talked about why he agreed to do that. Part of his reason is that he wanted to demonstrate just how divorced from reality creationists really are. Nye accomplished this. It also exposed what a lying sack of shit Ham is.

Outside of your little dogma bubble, Ken Ham is considered the bottom of the barrel of pseudoscience bullshit. He's a joke. Along with Ray Comfort, Eric Hovind, Kirk Cameron...

Although, if there is one fundie idiot who has me convinced that miracles do happen it is Kirk Cameron. How does something that dumb actually know how to breathe? Must be a miracle.

[Revelation777]

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

According to the story, we didn't even know right from wrong when we 'chose' to 'rebel'. And who leaves a couple of mental children alone with his worst enemy, and leaves magic fruit they're never supposed to eat around only as a test of whether they'll eat it if he knows what they're going to do in advance? It's a nonsensical just-so story, like other ancient people's stories on the origin of things: Why the chipmunk has stripes on its back (clawed by a bear), How the elephant got its trunk (stretched by a crocodile), How the snake lost its legs (cursed for tricking people into eating magic fruit).

Please don't compare a truthful account with a mythical account that has vague similiarities. Satan I believe did this to try to discredit the original account. However, though not everything of the Garden account and the fall makes sense to our finite minds, it doesn't take away that the event did indeed happen. I trust that God knew what He was doing.

---

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

I would lke someone to explain to me what happen to Gracebyfaith and Tor?

[Anomalocaris]

Their brains exploded when they realized they were being as dumb as you.

[Revelation777]

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

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Rampant.A.I.]

[Esquilax]

I also think Esquilax would become a great Biblical apologist if he becomes a believer someday. Him and Ken Ham probably would be friends and share the same accent.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one; biblical apologia strikes me as an unnecessary action if the bible were actually true. One doesn't need to apologize for true things, after all; they would just show the evidence that it's true and that would be sufficient. It's how every other segment of reality is demonstrated- we don't have heliocentrism apologists, after all- but when it comes to the bible, suddenly you need people to spin and interpret it so it still sounds realistic in the modern world. Sounds shady to me.

To be clear, if the truth of the bible was as clear and obvious as you feel it is, Rev, then we would all have the same lack of credibility as those who believe in a flat earth. The people who go against clear, obvious evidence aren't usually afforded the level of respect that those of other religions and atheists sometimes are.

Also, Ken Ham's accent is way broader than mine. I have trouble placing it, actually.

Not nearly as much holes as Darwinism.

Could you present some of those holes, rather than things you imagine are holes, but later turn out not to be because science has resolved them decades ago, as was the case in this first argument?

I know things got pretty muddy here, but your initial argument was that there were no transitional fossils, and we put that to rest pages ago.

I am learning that if I cite anything from AiG that you will instantly reject it. So I will try to incorporate other sources.

I will say this: if AiG got rid of that statement of faith, and started supporting their claims with real evidence that I could investigate independently and find that it's actually true, I would start believing AiG that day. The only reason I don't is that when I look at other sources I find that the things they say are untrue.

I don't disagree that evolution takes place in small but significant changes within species. I do take exception when you say a single cell organism eventually evolved into a human being. Sorry, I don't buy that.

Well, that's good, because that's not what evolution teaches. Evolution teaches that those small changes that you believe happen build up over time, making each organism a little bit different every generation, until eventually they're so different that we have to call them a different species to what they came from, because they're genetically and physically so different, and they can't interbreed with what they were before.

So far, you haven't demonstrated a mechanism for what would stop this from occurring and keep the changes within species boundaries, you're just saying it can't happen, which is like saying I can walk in one direction forever, but never walk a mile.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Can't we learn from the artful rendering of Nebraska Man?

I always find it interesting when people bring up these hoaxes, because it's clear that they've not bothered to look into them at all when they do. Here you go. Of particular interest, to me, is that there was significant doubt as to Nebraska Man's authenticity amongst the scientific community, to the point that it was labelled inconclusive. Also a fun read is the part where the scientist who initially examined the remains called the artistic rendering of the creature "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value," and the part where the drawing was done by an artist outside of the scientific community, and not within it.

You've been lied to again, Rev.

Oh hey, speaking of which! Can we get that retraction and acknowledgement that you were wrong about those quotes a ways back, now? And this Nebraska Man thing too, now that it's been demonstrated to be wrong too?

[Faith No More]

So because I believe in Intelligent Design I'm an imbecile? Then President Obama is one too I guess.

No, you're an imbecile because you don't critically analyze your beliefs, ignore and avoid all evidence that is contrary to your worldview, and believe that an ancient book is correct, even if all current knowledge and understanding shows it's wrong.

So, you see, Rev, you're not an imbecile for believing in intelligent design. You're an imbecile because of the traits that lead you to believe in intelligent design.

[Simon Moon]

What you refer to as transitional fossils I consider non-transitional fossils.

And yet when you have been asked by several people here, to define what you would expect to see in transitional fossils, you ignore the question.

So here it is again, what do you mean by transitional fossil?

You must have some idea, since you don't consider what we've posted as transitional fossils.