New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

[hayatewillown]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

It sounds funny to me. Well, it COULD be a good approach, but I think it's hilarious that the speech said that there were no observations made for evolution. This is why religion and science clash so often.

As far as I see it, it looks completely brainwashing and it's making the children somewhat ignorant.

[purebloodtexan]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

The thing is, though, evolution has much more proof than religion does, which is why most stick to the evolution theory or some mixture of evolution and divine powers.

[hayatewillown]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

Hence the clashing. It may have more evidence, but I have seen better theories than evolution.

[purebloodtexan]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

Hence the clashing. It may have more evidence, but I have seen better theories than evolution.

Such as.........

[jewpinthethird]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

Such as.........

Magic. I mean, billions of people read Harry Potter...so magic must be even realer than God.

[lord_carbo]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

I don't understand the improbability argument, i.e. that the chances of life happening are very unlikely, therefore a god was probably involved. While I disagree that it's totally unlikely, even if it is, doesn't the anthropic principle rule this out as a reason to be skeptical?

Here, got a quote:

"... the book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle ... This book argues that even if there is a very high improbability of the universe existing with observers, the properties of the universe that allow us to exist are also what allow us to observe the universe with properties compatible with the existence of observers. If the universe did not have these properties, then we would not exist to observe the incompatible properties."

Wait... Creationists. Gotcha.

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

One Question-

- Why is there no fossil evidence of any life form in an intermediate stage between 2 distinct species? (ie. Flying Dinosaur--[Insert Here]--Bird)

I've read about how millions of years have passed and we only see a small fragment of fossil record, however, if this has been going on for such a long time, shouldn't we able to find at least one?

Another example is the whole whales have little t-rex hands theory, what about finding the remains of a beached whale that have legs big enough to support its weight?

A big problem for evolution is the fact that nowhere in the fossil record are found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the beginning of a new feature. For instance, there are fossils of various types of flying creatures—birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found. There is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks two thirds or three quarters as long as at present? Are there any fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw? Is there any fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is, looking for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a fruitless quest.

New Scientist noted that evolution “predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” But it admitted: “Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by known intermediate forms. . . . known fossil species do indeed appear not to evolve even over millions of years.” And geneticist Stebbins writes: “No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants.” He speaks of “the large gaps which exist between many major categories of organisms. “In fact,” The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.”

This agrees with the extensive study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: “Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.” Moore added: “No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred."

Wheres the Bones?

[devonin]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

You'll notice perhaps, that the total number of fossils doesn't quite equal the total number of all things that have ever lived ever. Only a very small, even miniscule number of things die in the exact way needed to leave fossils we can recognise and identify, and rarely do these things leave full perfect preserved skeletons.

How can you say that when all that survived is one giraffe neck vertebrae, precisely how long its neck was when it was alive? There's a sizable variation in final adult neck length of giraffes -now- to say nothing for "over a span of thousands of years"

You appear to be saying "Because the fossil record doesn't provide a 100% incontrovertable step-by-step proof of the transition of species, it is -necessary- that no such transition occured" which frankly, is rediculous.

When you consider the scope and scale of the Big Five mass extinctions, and the overwhelming geological and biological evidence that such events occured, and yet the biosphere continued to grow and develop, something as silly as "The fossil record doesn't perfectly spell it out beyond all possible disagreement" falls far short of a reasonable objection.

Tell me Philpwnsyou, can you provide for me the bones of every single human that has ever lived? If not, why not? Does that mean I can argue that those people didn't exist? Where are -their- bones?

[lord_carbo]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

Dawkins states (yeah, I jack-off to Dawkins a lot) that the whole fossil record could be a complete gap and it wouldn't matter so long as we can look at the DNA of modern or recently extinct creatures and find a huge connection, but we are "blessed with both."

Plus, questioning evolution on one mere gap is silly because of what devonin said.

I don't particularly agree that evolution and Christianity can share a common ground because of Eve being made from Adam's rib, but you should seriously look into Ken Miller. He tries, at least! I'm actually going to be looking into Finding Darwin's God later on.

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

Tell me Philpwnsyou, can you provide for me the bones of every single human that has ever lived? If not, why not? Does that mean I can argue that those people didn't exist? Where are -their- bones?

One set out of the billions that are claimed to have existed would be sufficient.

[devonin]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

The fossil record has thousands upon thousands of bones for your perusal. I'm sorry that you demand pristine, untouched by the ages full skeletons that clearly beyond any doubt demonstrate a creature existing exactly halfway between two distinct states, but that's not how evolution is even suggested to operate, nor is that how fossilization is even suggested to operate.

Perhaps you could tell me where I might find the pristine skeleton of Moses?

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

The fossil record has thousands upon thousands of bones for your perusal. I'm sorry that you demand pristine, untouched by the ages full skeletons that clearly beyond any doubt demonstrate a creature existing exactly halfway between two distinct states, but that's not how evolution is even suggested to operate, nor is that how fossilization is even suggested to operate.

Perhaps you could tell me where I might find the pristine skeleton of Moses?

If there were billions of fossilized Moses' just waiting to be unearthed (quick sand, clay pits etc), I'm sure we would stumble onto a couple. It wouldn't have to be pristine, just in good enough shape to make out that the skeleton meets the requirements of being a Moses.

I'm also not saying the fossils have to be exactly
between two distinct states, anywhere between a and b would be fine.

[devonin]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

Do you have enough understanding of the path of evolution of these species to know a "between a and b" when you see one? I certainly don't.

Unless you can phrase a precise request for such data (A giraffe skeleton dated X years old, whose neck is between exactly M and N inches long) nobody can possibly provide you information you will accept.

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

Do you have enough understanding of the path of evolution of these species to know a "between a and b" when you see one? I certainly don't.

Unless you can phrase a precise request for such data (A giraffe skeleton dated X years old, whose neck is between exactly M and N inches long) nobody can possibly provide you information you will accept.

It doesn't have to be that technical, just any alternate fossilized form of any modern species. That is significantly different.

For Example, any of the 3 hypothesized forms of a pre-evolutionary whale in this picture





Shouldn't there be billions more of the previous forms to find than the "current" one?

Alas, we have yet to find one.

Maybe I should start digging in my back yard for a fossilized whale-possum.

[Tokzic]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

You act like fossils are all over the place, all completely intact, willing to be found.

Most fossils are embedded within ridiculous amounts of rock, and are often just single bones, and only occur if conditions are absolutely perfect.

You really shouldn't be trying to make an argument about something you know jack shit about.