Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Duke Guilmon]

Intelligence has little to do with whether someone is an atheist, a theist, or an agnostic, you blithering fool. Being smart doesn't make you right, only being right makes you right, and shouldn't you be an agnostic if people so much smarter than you are? AND most of us are AGNOSTICS anyway, you cretin. How much do we have to dumb it down for you to get that we don't claim to know that no God or gods exist, which makes (most of) us AGNOSTICS, it's not BELIEVING any God or gods exist that makes us ATHEISTS, and there's no contradiction between being an agnostic atheist, or, for that matter, an agnostic theist.

I just don't have it in me to keep being impersonal about this. Congratulations on raising your level of idiocy to a point where I can't stand it anymore. I like to think I'm one of our more patient contributors, but I have my limits.

I hear what you have to say and get your point. Please don't leave, I appreciate your posts. Would like you around to hear your views on Argument #2.

---

What characteristics must a fossil have in order for you to consider it a transitional fossil? You've implied you're looking for specific things. What are they?

I answered that already.

If this is your idea of a transitional fossil then you are playing a game where only you can win. How? Because to you if said animal is never found evolution is wrong. However if said animal is found then evolution would be dis-proven, meaning you don't have to accept evolution.

[Revelation777]

If I went to a local graveyard, dug up every ones bones, and lined the various bodies just so, I could create a convincing lineup showing evolution

Only convincing to the spectacularly easily convinced idiots like christains, Rev, not to the paleontologists.

A paleontologist might note that out of the whole jumbo of bones there are about 206 distinctly different varieties. They might date all of the bones of a similar variety and notice although no two bones are exactly alike, there is no clear trend in how they change over time.

They might compare the bones with bones of similar live animals like chimps and note certain bone features like the suture in skulls change in a predictable way as the animal age, and they might notice the same age related variation exist in bones produced but idiotic christain grave robbing hucksters. They might arrange those bones in sequence of age, and conclude some of the difference is age related, and not a progression of evolutionary change.

They might look at the same bone from different individuals, and observe the range of variation is no larger than what is observed in a living breeding population of another species, and conclud these bones all belong to one specie.

They might observe hip bones clearly show two different minimumally overalapping morphologies, and also observe these differences in morphologies are also seen between different sexes of similar living population, and conclude they represent not transitional forms, but different sexes.

Basically, when the likes of you second guess people with real PhDs from real university that teach real since, it would be like a cockroach challenging an elephant. The powers of scientists in truth finding are not superhuman. But they vastly surpass what the likes of you can imagine, nor indeed what your jesus could have imagined, because otherwise he might not have ran around full of himself and thinking his balony story of his own peternity could never be descisively penetrated.

You make is sound like scientists are infallible or if you have a PhD that you have superior intelligence. Jesus and the apostles were considered common folk but they religious intelligentsia of the day was amazed at what they shared.

---

Tonus,
You don't have to buy a ticket if you are not interested.

The Creation Museum is in my state. It exists because of my tax dollars. I don't have a choice but to pay for it.

Wow, I'm surprised they used tax dollars to be honest.

---

The Creation Museum is in my state. It exists because of my tax dollars. I don't have a choice but to pay for it.

It's amazing the tax concessions that place has received, isn't it?

I wonder if a museum of natural history would get the same concessions?

I also wonder if, after 49 pages, we can rename this thread "Failed Argument #1"?

Please don't be rude.

[orogenicman]

For the 100th time, I am going to step in and present a challenge. When I see such intransigence in a creationist with regard to such things as transitional fossils, I make this challenge. My challenge is for you to go on a geological field trip with me. I make this offer because only by seeing the evidence in the field first-hand, is there any possibility that such intransigence can be addressed. Rev, if you truly believe in the rule of evidence, I challenge you to go on a one-day geological field trip with me and anyone else who wants to attend. I am disabled, so it has to be in the vicinity of where I live (Louisville, Kentucky). But not to worry, there are lots of outcrops and a myriad of fossil treasures to ponder here. I know you won't take me up on my challenge. I've been offering to do this for almost six years now, and only two creationists have taken me up on the challenge (local friends who where convinced by me that they were wrong about what the evidence shows, but are still believers in Christianity, which is fine). I'm not asking you to give up your faith. I'm asking you to join me in the field to see the evidence first hand. How that influences you afterward is entirely up to you. What say you, Rev. Got a pair? Or will you run away like the rest have?

[Esquilax]

Kangaraccoon would be a nice start.

Ha ha, nailed it.

Hey Rev, would you like to have a proper debate on evolution, in the debate section? It'd give you the time to construct proper, detailed arguments against a single opponent, and concentrate without all these other people around to divide your attention, not to mention it'd be fun. I think I'd enjoy that.

It'd also give me an opportunity to address this idea that creationists are crowded out of science if they speak up about their views, because that's... kinda ridiculous, in a lot of ways.

[Duke Guilmon]

Heck debate me rev. I can show you every question you have on biological evolution, without the use of theism or atheism.

[Revelation777]

there is no such thing as an unbias reliable source. If you think your avg. scientist or professor is not bias, HA!HA!HA! Do you know that most universities if a professor even hints that they believe in creationism that they will be brow beaten to the point where they will be forced to resign. Watch Ben Stein's movie Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed.

I've said this to you in a thread before, but this line of reasoning is completely ridiculous; science works on evidence and demonstration, and the kind of demonstration that would prove or even hint at creation would overturn so much of modern science that it would be Nobel Prize material, not to mention all the money and fame one would receive from religious organizations. Look back though the history of science, Rev; the people who propose and prove revolutionary theories are lauded, and the only censure comes from the church, who used to burn such heretics...

It is possible that the so-called evidence is deemed evidence because of how one perceives it? What might be overwhelming evidence for one scientist is very questionable to another. I am sure I know which one you would refer to.

[orogenicman]

Debating these guys is useless. Rev, go on a geologic field trip with me if you truly want answers.

[Revelation777]

Rev lost this argument pages ago so why is it rumbling on.
Time to move to the next one.

Did you get this verdict from the kangaroo court?

[orogenicman]

For the 100th time, I am going to step in and present a challenge. When I see such intransigence in a creationist with regard to such things as transitional fossils, I make this challenge. My challenge is for you to go on a geological field trip with me. I make this offer because only by seeing the evidence in the field first-hand, is there any possibility that such intransigence can be addressed. Rev, if you truly believe in the rule of evidence, I challenge you to go on a one-day geological field trip with me and anyone else who wants to attend. I am disabled, so it has to be in the vicinity of where I live (Louisville, Kentucky). But not to worry, there are lots of outcrops and a myriad of fossil treasures to ponder here. I know you won't take me up on my challenge. I've been offering to do this for almost six years now, and only two creationists have taken me up on the challenge (local friends who where convinced by me that they were wrong about what the evidence shows, but are still believers in Christianity, which is fine). I'm not asking you to give up your faith. I'm asking you to join me in the field to see the evidence first hand. How that influences you afterward is entirely up to you. What say you, Rev. Got a pair? Or will you run away like the rest have?

Bump

[Esquilax]

It is possible that the so-called evidence is deemed evidence because of how one perceives it? What might be overwhelming evidence for one scientist is very questionable to another. I am sure I know which one you would refer to.

So when one sees evolution happening in front of them, that comes down to opinion? When we find evidence of religions that are older than creationism claims the earth it, that's just down to opinion?

This is a common creationist tactic, trying to devalue evidence down to just another opinion, but sorry, it's not. When you can see something in front of your eyes, that's objective, not subjective. It's not just my opinion that the sky is blue.