Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[SteelCurtain]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I respect everyone's views. However, please consider mine as well. If you are not interested in Argument #2, I understand.

No. Oh no you don't.

You have been lying about all sorts of things, Rev, but this don't you dare lie about.

You haven't shown anyone's views here any respect. Your claims have been demonstrated to be false, and yet you continue to not address this fact. You have been asked to apologize for outright lying and misrepresenting facts---you haven't. You haven't shown one iota of respect for us. So don't you dare claim you have.

You continue on like the everyone's just got opinions and everybody's opinion is valid. Except that over and over again, you have been shown to be objectively wrong. Your sources have been shown to be lying or misrepresenting facts, and you have acted like that doesn't matter.

What good is "Argument #2" if you've already made up your mind about it? Don't call it an argument, lest you be shown to be lying yet again.

[pocaracas]

First, rev is shown the actual science:


And then he goes on to show just how he didn't read, much less understand, that science...


And this, ladies and gentlemen, was only argument #1.... I wonder how open to research rev777 will be for the other 6 arguments...

Such seems to be the creationist model: spew faulty arguments and refuse to listen and acknowledge the corrections made.

My desire to participate in debunking the other arguments is waning...

I'm sorry you feel that way. I respect everyone's views. However, please consider mine as well. If you are not interested in Argument #2, I understand.

Your view has consistently been
- misrepresent science
- plagiarize from creationist lying sources
- disregard actual evidence presented
- use unreasonable doubt of scientific endeavors
- assume one very unscientific book provides the correct answer to these questions.

Tell me, why should I (or anyone) consider your view?

I'll check out argument #2, but if you come back with the same line of reasoning, I'll be the first to repeat this list where your behavior is outlined.
If I were you, I'd revise this behavior, as it is not conducent to rational thought.
- Pay attention to your sources of information. Investigate them. Don't accept what one person says about a field that person is mostly ignorant of... (like a lawyer talking about evolution)
- Try to find the original discovery of the effect you are arguing against/for. What has the scientific community done about it and how?
- Avoid using fallacies, like the famous god-of-the-gaps, or argument from ignorance... also, the fine tuning argument has been done to death and it will be beaten once again, if you come up with it. There's no point in it.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Is argument #2 the argument from stalling and never presenting an argument?

[Crossless2.0]

Your view has consistently been
- misrepresent science
- plagiarize from creationist lying sources
- disregard actual evidence presented
- use unreasonable doubt of scientific endeavors
- assume one very unscientific book provides the correct answer to these questions.

Tell me, why should I (or anyone) consider your view?

I'll check out argument #2, but if you come back with the same line of reasoning, I'll be the first to repeat this list where your behavior is outlined.
If I were you, I'd revise this behavior, as it is not conducent to rational thought.
- Pay attention to your sources of information. Investigate them. Don't accept what one person says about a field that person is mostly ignorant of... (like a lawyer talking about evolution)
- Try to find the original discovery of the effect you are arguing against/for. What has the scientific community done about it and how?
- Avoid using fallacies, like the famous god-of-the-gaps, or argument from ignorance... also, the fine tuning argument has been done to death and it will be beaten once again, if you come up with it. There's no point in it.

With such restrictions in place, poor Rev would be reduced to nothing more than impotent preaching. Oh . . . wait.

Anyway, I can't wait for Argument #2. Keep up the good work, Rev! You have so far provided dozens of pages of evidence that your brand of religion is contemptible and dangerous. That is certainly the verdict of my children, who have loosely kept up with your inane bullshit, and who have a hard time believing that an adult can be this fucking stupid. You and people like you do more for atheism than I ever could.

Thank you.

[Cyberman]

Or the stars are just pretty lights in the sky?

Don't be so silly.

They're for signs and for seasons and for days and years.

---

I'm sorry you feel that way. I respect everyone's views. However, please consider mine as well.

We have been considering them; that's the problem. Not everyone's views are equally valid. Some people can just be plain, out-and-out, factually wrong.

Germs no, but their is a devil and he has his minions. I hope you aren't influenced by them? Well, He might not be worried about you since you don't believe in Him but could very well be keeping to his agenda.

Bolding mine, to highlight the bits you keep falling short on. What you think and/or believe is irrelevant. What you can demonstrate to be true is the key you keep handwaving away.

Not to mention that the word you want is 'there', not 'their'. Grammar may not be your strongest suit, but Google can be your best friend there.

[Mister Agenda]

Are you telling me that if God could be proved you would be more than happy to believe in Him?

If God were proved, it would be irrational not to believe.

Or, if evidence showed evolution is wrong that you would change your original beliefs?

If someone who accepted evolution did not change their mind upon learning evolution is wrong, that would be irrational.

Maybe we get into the worldwide flood account in a future argument?

Why does it have to be worldwide? Mesopotamia is pretty much a flood plain, it's entirely possible that the whole world the authors knew was flooded without it having to be actually global.

---

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

The appeals to authority are more likely to make people here think you're an imbecile than believing in ID would. What the President believes is irrelevant. Intelligence doesn't make you right or wrong, being right or wrong makes you right or wrong.

---

OK,,, let me say, as Jesus even warned, many would come in His name saying they were doing His Will, using His Name, and yet He will tell them when they are judged that "I NEVER KNEW YOU." So the title Christian is thrown around like the word love but to me the consistent obedience to the teaching is the best indicator to the authenticity of the label.

Have you considered the possibility that you may be mistaken and are one of the ones who think they are doing his will, using his name, but are actually working against him?

Yes, there are a lot of denominations and Jesus gave a parable of the birds nesting in the branches in predicting this would occur. If you look at all these denominations one thing is common. A governing body that has either added or taken away from the original Biblical text. The addition of man made rules which the Lord never intended. Just because someone is a true believer doesn't mean they are not capable of sin or error. I being the one exception.

There is no original Biblical text, only copies of copies of copies.

The message is one of love and forgiveness. I hope you don't choose to be in a place of separation from the source of love, life, and grace. It is not a place He desires anyone to choose.

The message I'm hearing from you is that you can't be a good Christian unless you're a young earth creationist.

---

I don't disagree that evolution takes place in small but significant changes within species.

Yet you do not accept a single case of speciation, which makes me wonder why you keep saying this.

I do take exception when you say a single cell organism eventually evolved into a human being. Sorry, I don't buy that.

Every human being begins life as a single celled organism that eventually develops into a human being.

---

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

Children are more open to believing anything they're told than adults. The faith involved is the faith that adults will be truthful to them. Children have no special powers to tell if something is true, if anything, the opposite holds.

---

It think it may be time for you to watch Ben Stein's "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed" Very eye opening. I like the scientist who says life started on the backs of crystals. Sounds more appealing than cosmic foam or gel.

Without having seen it, I bet that scientists actually said life may have started in crystal formations.

The main thing I remember about when that 'documentary' came out is how many people who were interviewed in it squawked about how their interviews were edited to make it sound like they hold positions contrary to what they actually think. In other words, it was a quote-mine in documentary form. A lie.

---

There are many Christians who are brilliant. There are scientists and college professors who believe in God and question what they were taught but are scared to share this in fear of being ostracized.

And there are many nonChristians who are brilliant. There are as many Christians who are idiots as for any other large demographic. This has nothing to do with anything you're talking about.

There's no rule says scientists and professors can't believe in God, almost half of them do. And again, this has nothing to do with anything. Most of the scientists in fields relevant to evolution who believe in God still don't believe evolution is some kind of hoax the way you do.

[Mister Agenda]

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?

Possibly due to the fact that you seem to have been reduced almost entirely to quips instead of substantive replies to posts.

[Anomalocaris]

Christians thinks wishfully, and as a result feel a mere pigheaded refusal to acknowledge that they have no valid argument is equivalent to their actually having valid arguments.

[Mister Agenda]

1. If anything is pro intelligent design some posters here judge it as deceitful, bias, slanted, a piece of rubbish.

It's not the pro intelligent design part that's the criteria for coming to that conclusion.

2. If Richard Dawkins passes gas it is held as doctrine.

Dawkins gets plenty of criticism when he says something stupid, which is not terribly infrequent. A man his age probably shouldn't be allowed to have a Twitter account. And this objection is irrelevant.

3. If I suggest a movie some of you guys ferret through the internet looking for negative reviews.

No ferreting required. Particularly in the case of Expelled, it was quickly infamous when it came out, and heavily discussed around here. Maybe you shouldn't have assumed we're not familiar with it.

4. I get a pro-creation perspective and I am using unreliable unqualified sources

Your whining seems to be getting repetitive at this point. Again, it's not the perspective that leads to the conclusion, it's the demonstrated mendacity.

5. Wake up folks, Jews and Christians historically have been the most persecuted people ever.

And the most persecuting. Except for Quakers.

6. Hitler tried to push forward eugenics which was developed by Francis Galton - his half cousin was Darwin. Surprise, surprise - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

It doesn't take evolution to arrive at eugenics, a basic understanding of animal husbandry is sufficient.

7. Ben Stein is an absolutely brilliant man, and I don't say that because of his views.

Ben Stein is well-educated and has a good memory, but if he's so brilliant, why did he make such a profoundly bad documentary?

[Tonus]

I have numeral prophesies that have become fulfilled.

No, you don't.

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

Children are likely to believe anything that they are told. They're not "more open" to the truth, they're supremely gullible. Or are you claiming that they readily believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy because those are actually real?

But it does make more sense that this is what Jesus was referring to when he advised his followers to be like children: gullible, unquestioning people make the best "disciples" for con men.