Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Esquilax]

I respectfully disagree. When I presented my side instead of addressing the issue you attack the source.

In your case Rev, attacking the source is addressing the issue, insofar as the issue concerns whether or not the people feeding you information are educated or unbiased enough to be able to accurately represent the science involved with this subject. In every source you've presented, there have been lies, misinformation and half truths presented by people who demonstrably do not have the qualifications to be able to make the conclusions they have, especially where those conclusions disagree with those of the people who do have the relevant knowledge.

You are aware of the concept of credibility, right? As I've asked before, and you've failed to answer every time, if I showed you a source that said upfront that it presupposes that the bible is wrong and every aspect of christianity untrue, would you accept that source as unbiased and capable of rendering an appropriate conclusion about the world? What if it then turned out that this source was written by someone who has never even seen a bible? Oh, and the source is a conman with a history of lying to propagate his views, and owns a business selling products that rely on all this religion bashing. Is he credible, to you?

Chances are, you answered no, and why wouldn't you? Yet you continue to expect us to accept the views of uneducated, biased men and women with histories of lying and businesses built on the backs of the views they're propagating. Why should we, when you wouldn't do the same?

Not to mention... oh yeah, we haven't just been attacking your sources. Multiple times you have been given the work and findings of actual scientists working in the field that have demonstrated that the sources you have given us are demonstrably, objectively incorrect, and your only response is "I don't feel like this is the case."

Rev, this is a dishonest way to conduct yourself.

I currently am concluding in this thread that the "so-called" transitional forms presented and arguments for that case are far from convincing as proof for macroevolution. My mind right now is on A#2, please be patient as I am struggling on how to word things. Thanks.

Like right here: "I disagree" is not an argument, Rev. It's you being intractable, and frankly, a liar. You have no reason to discount the findings of actual, educated scientists, and yet you are, simply because of your own biases and refusal to educate yourself.

Frankly, it's pathetic, and deeply unchristian of you to be this dishonest in the face of verifiable facts. That's why you won't even bother to extend a little accountability and define what you would accept as a transitional fossil: so long as you don't state criteria you can continue to move the goalposts and just reject everything.

[Foxaèr]

deeply unchristian of you to be this dishonest in the face of verifiable facts.

I could have sworn it was normal for theists to ignore the facts; ergo, Faith.

[Esquilax]

I could have sworn it was normal for theists to ignore the facts; ergo, Faith.

Ostensibly though, lying is supposed to be a sin, and he should at least give the appearance of shying away from that.

Oh, and by the way Rev, you complain that I attack the source rather than the argument, but stop to consider the fact that the source is the majority of what you've presented. If you wanted us to hit up arguments, you should be making them, rather than just copying urls or large swathes of text presented without comment. What else do you expect?

If you want our responses to be more than "this person's fantasy does not impact the demonstrably real facts of evolution," then perhaps you should start formulating arguments for us to respond to.

[Foxaèr]

Ostensibly though, lying is supposed to be a sin, and he should at least give the appearance of shying away from that.

You also have to understand from his perspective that he is not lying, because he genuinely believes that his viewpoint is substantiated by his theistic beliefs. Some theists are so far separated from reality that they cannot accept fact as fact unless it has the word god attached to it.

[Confused Ape]

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 tried to prove evolution wrong in hope that everyone will believe that there's an intelligent designer for life on Earth. Why bother when millions of Christians believe that evolution is the way God did it?

I don't know what you're planning for your other arguments but don't bother trying to disprove other scientific theories which millions of Christians have accepted. For example -

Christians And The Big Bang Theory

Many Christians have no problem in accepting the Big Bang theory. They see the cosmologists helping them to understand how God brought the world into being - the Big Bang could have been the mechanism God used. And there is nothing in the theory itself which proves that there is no such being as God.

[Mister Agenda]

To me this is not a waste of time. You appear to feel differently. You also appear to feel you have superior intellect over such a person as I. To me this isn't about who is more knowledgeable. We are discussion eternal matters here and is of much more value in my opinion than speaking on sports or weather. That's just my 2 cents.

Judging from your appeals to 'Darwin and Obama are smart!', you seem to think the IQ of the persons whose authority you appeal to is of vital importance. If you've changed your mind, I trust we won't be hearing any more idiotic remarks to the effect of 'Person X agrees with me, do you think you're smarter than Person X?'.

---

Rev, macroevolution is a term invented by creationists, not scientists. There is only evolution.

It's a valid scientific term hijacked by creationists, they didn't invent it. 'Darwinism' is a perfectly cromulent word too, but creationists have managed to hijack it to such a degree that in America you can almost count on someone using that term being a creationist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolut...f_the_term

[Esquilax]

Judging from your appeals to 'Darwin and Obama are smart!', you seem to think the IQ of the persons whose authority you appeal to is of vital importance. If you've changed your mind, I trust we won't be hearing any more idiotic remarks to the effect of 'Person X agrees with me, do you think you're smarter than Person X?'.

[SteelCurtain]

This thread should be preserved in perpetuity as a blueprint for every stereotype that creationists use.

[Anomalocaris]

deeply unchristian of you to be this dishonest in the face of verifiable facts.

I could have sworn it was normal for theists to ignore the facts; ergo, Faith.

Chritian never deny facts. They just redefine the concept of fact on the fly whenever they feel corner by the last definition they appear to give the impression of having used, so they needn't deny it.

[Revelation777]

I respectfully disagree. When I presented my side instead of addressing the issue you attack the source.

In your case Rev, attacking the source is addressing the issue, insofar as the issue concerns whether or not the people feeding you information are educated or unbiased enough to be able to accurately represent the science involved with this subject. In every source you've presented, there have been lies, misinformation and half truths presented by people who demonstrably do not have the qualifications to be able to make the conclusions they have, especially where those conclusions disagree with those of the people who do have the relevant knowledge.

You are aware of the concept of credibility, right? As I've asked before, and you've failed to answer every time, if I showed you a source that said upfront that it presupposes that the bible is wrong and every aspect of christianity untrue, would you accept that source as unbiased and capable of rendering an appropriate conclusion about the world? What if it then turned out that this source was written by someone who has never even seen a bible? Oh, and the source is a conman with a history of lying to propagate his views, and owns a business selling products that rely on all this religion bashing. Is he credible, to you?

Chances are, you answered no, and why wouldn't you? Yet you continue to expect us to accept the views of uneducated, biased men and women with histories of lying and businesses built on the backs of the views they're propagating. Why should we, when you wouldn't do the same?

Not to mention... oh yeah, we haven't just been attacking your sources. Multiple times you have been given the work and findings of actual scientists working in the field that have demonstrated that the sources you have given us are demonstrably, objectively incorrect, and your only response is "I don't feel like this is the case."

Rev, this is a dishonest way to conduct yourself.

I currently am concluding in this thread that the "so-called" transitional forms presented and arguments for that case are far from convincing as proof for macroevolution. My mind right now is on A#2, please be patient as I am struggling on how to word things. Thanks.

Like right here: "I disagree" is not an argument, Rev. It's you being intractable, and frankly, a liar. You have no reason to discount the findings of actual, educated scientists, and yet you are, simply because of your own biases and refusal to educate yourself.

Frankly, it's pathetic, and deeply unchristian of you to be this dishonest in the face of verifiable facts. That's why you won't even bother to extend a little accountability and define what you would accept as a transitional fossil: so long as you don't state criteria you can continue to move the goalposts and just reject everything.

please don't try to incite by using false accusations