Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah typical of someone with no evidence to declare "never mind the evidence". You got nothing.
Sure the blind man can not see anything. That is my point. But we can evidence sight to him. And we can evidence the existence of the things he can not see. So we can actually evidence to him that he is blind to something.
You. Well you can not. At all. Even a little bit. You are simply making it up. Sorry facts and evidence are not your friends here.
It would appear so. But if at any point you want to evidence the existence of the things you are merely asserting I am blind to, then I am all ears. Until that point however, assertion is of no use to me.
It would appear so. But if at any point you want to evidence the existence of the things you are merely asserting I am blind to, then I am all ears. Until that point however, assertion is of no use to me.
I already watched this and debunked it. They do not know what they are talking about. And I already know there are 'Intermediary fossils' I have referred them to you. You dismissed them. To demand intermediaries to the intermediaries is shifting the goalposts. The vid is debunked without me needing to sit through the whole thing.
Sure you debunked it. Just like you said you had tons of intermediary evidence. LOL.
This is from the video:
At 2:19 in the video Dr. Leo Hickey, Director of the Yale Peabody Museum states:
"There are myriads of transitional forms. Really, there is no problem finding transitional forms."
At around 2:30 Dr. Luis Mussel (sp?) said:
"It is completely false to say there is a lacking in transitional forms. We have plenty of them, more than sometimes we can cope with."
At 3:25 Mussel stated:
One of the problems with the fossil record . . . there are short transitional bursts . . . it doesn't leave many transitional forms behind.
At 2:34 Preston Cloud stated:
"In fact there are so many transitional forms between species, that we must often fall back on statistical analysis to separate one from the other.
Later at 3:01 he stated:
"The problem with transitional forms is one that all honest paleontologists have a problem with. The geologic record is imcomplete because of erosion that has eroded things away.
At 2:44 Dr. Tim White, Professor of Anthropology stated:
"So the claim that there are no intermediates is simply a false claim."
At 3:43 Dr. Colin Patterson who has 7 million fossils in his museum stated:
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustrations of direct evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any fossil or living, I certainly would have included it in my book."
Later he said "I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument
Darwin admitted his theory was worthless speculation without invaluable fossil proof for transitional forms.
Archaeopteryx was the first of a number of deceptive schemes by evolutionists to promote evolution, who claimed this bird was a transition between birds and lizards. Today, however, paleontologists say it is a true bird, not a reptile/bird intermediary. And some paleontologists still make the false claim it is an intermediary. If you pick up any book on evolution you will still see this bird as the best evidence. There is no any evidence of any fossil showing an inbetween structure between a scaled bird or lizard and a feathered bird.
Quote:
You got beat in the Civil war and the Right side in your own country is beating you hollow once again. See the post below Shame on you for misrepresenting me and denying the Gospels yourself. I don't believe the gospels are reliable. You do. You have no excuse.
Um, I live in the North. The North won the Civil War. So, LOL, no, you are wrong about me getting beat in the Civil War just as you are about evolution.
You called Jesus Christ a liar by what you wrote. How is that misrepresenting you.
I have never denied the Gospels myself.
At 2:19 in the video Dr. Leo Hickey, Director of the Yale Peabody Museum states:
"There are myriads of transitional forms. Really, there is no problem finding transitional forms."
At around 2:30 Dr. Luis Mussel (sp?) said:
"It is completely false to say there is a lacking in transitional forms. We have plenty of them, more than sometimes we can cope with."
At 3:25 Mussel stated:
One of the problems with the fossil record . . . there are short transitional bursts . . . it doesn't leave many transitional forms behind.
At 2:34 Preston Cloud stated:
"In fact there are so many transitional forms between species, that we must often fall back on statistical analysis to separate one from the other.
Later at 3:01 he stated:
"The problem with transitional forms is one that all honest paleontologists have a problem with. The geologic record is imcomplete because of erosion that has eroded things away.
At 2:44 Dr. Tim White, Professor of Anthropology stated:
"So the claim that there are no intermediates is simply a false claim."
At 3:43 Dr. Colin Patterson who has 7 million fossils in his museum stated:
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustrations of direct evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any fossil or living, I certainly would have included it in my book."
Later he said "I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument
Darwin admitted his theory was worthless speculation without invaluable fossil proof for transitional forms.[/quote]
Pre p.s I must thank you for at least presenting some points for consideration.
So far as I can see, everything above is saying there are transitional fossils. Quite a lot. I have said heaps of evidence, but transitional ...of the kind you are demanding, anyway..are just numbered in the dozens for the reason given in your quote 3. In the periods of rapid evolutionary change over a relatively short period, there are far less fossils that during the periods of stasis. That is not very difficult.
The 'watertight' argument is just like the Henry Gill remark, often taken out of context by anti -evolutionists. We have evidence of the general lines of evolution. We cannot point to a definite fossil and say 'ancestor'. It isn't 'watertight' but is is very good evidence.
And Darwin did mention the lack of transitional forms. He also said that he predicted they would turn up. His prediction was dead right, and you and that video are dead wrong.
Quote:
Archaeopteryx was the first of a number of deceptive schemes by evolutionists to promote evolution, who claimed this bird was a transition between birds and lizards. Today, however, paleontologists say it is a true bird, not a reptile/bird intermediary. And some paleontologists still make the false claim it is an intermediary. If you pick up any book on evolution you will still see this bird as the best evidence. There is no any evidence of any fossil showing an in between structure between a scaled bird or lizard and a feathered bird.
If it is correct that it is considered a true bird, (I have never heard that claim before, but I can see how it could apply) it is still a bird with markedly dinosaur features and that makes it one of the intermediaries to the transitionals - of which many now exist. To claim it as a fake when the feathered dinosaurs are some of the better evidenced examples of a transitional line - not form - a couple of evolutionary lines - shows how utterly uninformed and denialist you are being.
P.s I recognize some of those quotes or objections and I know they had been checked and they were definitely misrepresented. Patterson - if I am recalling the right person - protested that his remarks had been seriously misrepresented by antievolutionists.
..I was. It is a convoluted matter but summed up here
"Note that not only does Patterson confirm that the creationist representation of the quote is false and that my interpretation is correct, but he goes on to point out that another quote which appears in the RQB has been misrepresented."
Expose of the gobsmacking lie about Preston Cloud by the infamous Galloping Gish - correction ..a gobmacking misrepresentation of Gish's remark that there were no identifiable Pre Cambrian fossils (there were identifiable Pre-cambrian rocks) but now many of them have been found, and he knows it.
"Gish's response during his 10-minute rebuttal period
Now, furthermore, Dr. Plimer quoted from my book, or little "Brainwashed" booklet, written 17 years ago. It's a little, ah, book, you might call it a comic-style book, it's not written in comic terms at all, but it was written 17 years ago.
And at that time, according to Dr. Preston Cloud, one of the world's leading evolutionary geologists, there were no undoubted precambrian fossils. [crowd noise] That's what he said. [More crowd noise] And I quoted, many years ago, Dr. Cloud to that effect. Because he said, first of all, you would not know, you could not establish whether these rocks were precambrian or cambrian... some of these rocks [oops! -CS]. And furthermore there were many pseudo-fossils that had been discovered.
Now, since that time, as I described in my debate, there are many published reports of micro-fossils in precambrian rocks. And furthermore, the Ediacaran which I did describe in my talk, is supposed to be precambrian. I discussed all of them in my book, "Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record," which was published two years ago.
[Note here that Gish is saying that he knows now that there are precambrian fossils, and that he has known it for at least a couple of years.] "
Now, that video appears to be an old one, so I won't accuse anyone pf perpetuating falsehoods. But please do not present it again as evidence of anything.
Quote:
Um, I live in the North. The North won the Civil War. So, LOL, no, you are wrong about me getting beat in the Civil War just as you are about evolution.
Aren't you glad I gave you the chance to play am irrelevant quibble to enable you to score one minor point?
Quote:
You called Jesus Christ a liar by what you wrote. How is that misrepresenting you.
I have never denied the Gospels myself.
No, shame on you.
Yes you have. I pointed up what the gospels say. You are denying what they say in favour of your telling Jesus what he can and can't say and do - jut to suit your Genesis literalist beliefs.
Last edited by june 7th; 11-30-2015 at 02:38 PM..
Reason: additions..and corrections.
Yes..that's right. You Materialists are tunnel visioned to only that...while some Religionists allow contradictory dogma to mess them up.
But the wise Theists, like me...gain knowledge through not just material data, but through other means, such as perception and intuition.
Nozz erroneously thinks you cannot compare Theists and Atheists to Sighted and Blind because there are perceptions some Theists have that cannot be objectively evidenced.
I had to explain to him that the difference between being sighted and blind is not determined by whether the sighted could ever provide evidence for what they were seeing to the blind person...but that they were simply capable of sight in a way the blind person wasn't.
The difference between Theist and Atheist does not fall to whether the Theist can give evidence for the actual material existence of their perception...but that they simply can perceive in a way that an Atheist can't.
I've always said...you guys are too bogged down with "evidence" and demands to "prove it"...and miss out on the great value of things like ad populum and all the other cool appeals that have such great mojo with the humans in this world.
Facts and logic are okay...but if you REALLY wanna wield power and influence, you are gonna have to work on popularity and emotion.
Feelings will trounce Facts almost every time. And THAT'S a fact!!
Yes, I know There was a long thread with Mysticphd and MissionImpossibru aerguing for the validity of divine revelation.
They got clobbered. But that doesn't mean they are wrong about what they beleive - but they -and you -are wrong - utterly wrong - in pretending that it is what you claim it to be - something more than mere human fantasizing.
There are two bods on the Religion debate whose have been sussed and credibility -trashed. You are going the right way to join them.
Eusebius, you are the one supposed to be abiding by the terms of providing objections to evolution. That does not apply to the rebuttals.
And - yes, generally we are quite happy with the job we have done on your arguments.
Pre p.s I must thank you for at least presenting some points for consideration.
So far as I can see, everything above is saying there are transitional fossils. Quite a lot (I have said heaps of evidence, but transitional ...of the kind you are demanding, anyway..are just numbers on the dozens for the reason given in your quote 3. In the periods of rapid evolutionary change over a relatively short period, there are far less fossils that during the periods of stasis. That is not very difficult.
The 'watertight' argument is just like the Henry Gill remark, often taken out of context by anti -evolutionists. We have evidence of the general lines of evolution. We cannot point to a definite fossil and say 'ancestor'. It isn't 'watertight' but is is very good evidence.
And Darwin did say mention the lack of transitional forms. He also said that he predicted they would turn up. His prediction was dead right, and you and that video are dead wrong.
If it is correct that it is considered a true bird, (I have never heard that claim before, but I can see how it could apply) it is still a bird with markedly dinosaur features and that makes it one of the intermediaries to the transitionals - of which many now exist. To claim it as a fake when the feathered dinosaurs are some of the better evidenced examples of a transitional line - not form - a couple of evolutionary lines - shows how utterly uninformed and denialist you are being.
P.s I recognize some of those quotes or objections and I know they had been checked and they were definitely misrepresented. Patterson - if I am recalling the right person - protested that his remarks had been seriously misrepresented by antievolutionists.
..I was. It is a convoluted matter but summed up here
"Note that not only does Patterson confirm that the creationist representation of the quote is false and that my interpretation is correct, but he goes on to point out that another quote which appears in the RQB has been misrepresented."
Aren't you glad I gave you the chance to play am irrelevant quibble to enable you to score one minor point?
Yes you have. I pointed up what the gospels say. You are denying what they say in favour of your telling Jesus what he can and can't say and do - jut to suit your Genesis literalist beliefs.
There are no transitional fossils in the fossil record. Darwinism falls. Creationism wins. Tada!
Jesus said God created Adam and Eve. Jesus never told a lie.
From your link you provided on patterson whom I quoted, here is Patterson's letter about was he wrote about the missing links in evolution:
Quote:
Dear Mr Theunissen, Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.
That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else. I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.
Yours Sincerely,
[signed]
Colin Patterson
And yet, even though Patterson said there is no way to know if archaeopteryx is the ancestor of all birds, they still maintain it is.
The last 2 bolded statements shows Patterson screwed up in letting the cat out of the bag in front of a creationist who was in the audience. Yea, Patterson from now on is going to not tell creationists what he really thinks about evolution being a load of bull dung.
You called Jesus Christ a liar by what you wrote. How is that misrepresenting you.
I have never denied the Gospels myself.
No, shame on you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Yes you have. I pointed up what the gospels say. You are denying what they say in favour of your telling Jesus what he can and can't say and do - jut to suit your Genesis literalist beliefs.
You are going to new lows.
I have never denied what the gospels say. Please post your proof. I'm sure your proof is about as much as the proof you have for evolution.
I have never told Jesus what He can and can't say. He's the Lord. I'm just His brother.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Shame on you for misrepresenting me and denying the Gospels yourself. I don't believe the gospels are reliable. You do. You have no excuse.
How very...Theist...is that reasoning.
There was a long thread with Mysticphd and MissionImpossibru aerguing for the validity of divine revelation. 
