I am stating that the citations I provided regarding whether or not the fossil record provides evidence of macro-evolution are true. Statements made by any of the authors I cited not referring to the topic at hand are irrelevant. Feel free to go that route if you wish.
In case this is not clear enough, proceed.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I am stating that the citations I provided regarding whether or not the fossil record provides evidence of macro-evolution are true. Statements made by any of the authors I cited not referring to the topic at hand are irrelevant. Feel free to go that route if you wish.
In case this is not clear enough, proceed. [/quote]
^ Otherwise known as: “My sources are only authoritative when I am cherry-picking them in support of my argument.”
This is where all cherry-picking ends, with this tosh. Yes, you are logically trapped. Authorities invoked in a series of appeals to authority (presented, without elaboration, on the solitary grounds of authoritativeness) do not slide in and out of validity on your whim. This is not my opinion.
(It will be easy for people to misunderstand me. What I am not saying is that no one can ever appeal to an evolutionist’s contradicting himself. What I am saying is that the most that an appeal to an evolutionist’s contradicting himself can do is discredit that particular evolutionist – that is, one half of the contradiction cannot be chosen, on whim, as the correct half.)
From there I would have to go through and take excerpts from their work in support of the veracity of the theory of evolution/fossil record/etc. (not hard, given that they are all of them evolutionists), and that’s it. In the best (and most common) cases for me, the contradiction will be revealed to be illusory. In the worst, that one evolutionist – of tens of thousands – is struck from the list of the credible.
If this seems cheap, well that’s because it’s easy to beat a bad argument.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I am stating that the citations I provided regarding whether or not the fossil record provides evidence of macro-evolution are true. Statements made by any of the authors I cited not referring to the topic at hand are irrelevant. Feel free to go that route if you wish.
In case this is not clear enough, proceed. [/quote]
^ Otherwise known as: “My sources are only authoritative when I am cherry-picking them in support of my argument.”
This is where all cherry-picking ends, with this tosh. Yes, you are logically trapped. Authorities invoked in a series of appeals to authority (presented, without elaboration, on the solitary grounds of authoritativeness) do not slide in and out of validity on your whim. This is not my opinion.
(It will be easy for people to misunderstand me. What I am not saying is that no one can ever appeal to an evolutionist’s contradicting himself. What I am saying is that the most that an appeal to an evolutionist’s contradicting himself can do is discredit that particular evolutionist – that is, one half of the contradiction cannot be chosen, on whim, as the correct half.)
From there I would have to go through and take excerpts from their work in support of the veracity of the theory of evolution/fossil record/etc. (not hard, given that they are all of them evolutionists), and that’s it. In the best (and most common) cases for me, the contradiction will be revealed to be illusory. In the worst, that one evolutionist – of tens of thousands – is struck from the list of the credible.
If this seems cheap, well that’s because it’s easy to beat a bad argument.
[/quote]
So you have no evidence contradicting my point. You don’t want to play now that you are unable to do the following: 1. Person A says the sky is blue (true) 2. Person A says the sky is blue because aliens paint it blue every morning before anyone is awake (false) 3. Since #2 is incorrect, #1 must be incorrect too and person A is unqualified to comment on the validity of #1 even though #1 is true. Or something closely along these lines.
Lest you forget or deliberately choose to ignore, we are debating specific known physical evidence that supports my claim that animal kinds appear suddenly in the fossil record as if created that way. Spare me the philosophical bullshit and show me physical evidence of macro-evolution that contradicts my evidence. Even the godfather of evolution, Charles Darwin, admitted the fossil record did not support macro-evolution.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I am stating that the citations I provided regarding whether or not the fossil record provides evidence of macro-evolution are true. Statements made by any of the authors I cited not referring to the topic at hand are irrelevant. Feel free to go that route if you wish.
In case this is not clear enough, proceed. [/quote]
^ Otherwise known as: “My sources are only authoritative when I am cherry-picking them in support of my argument.”
This is where all cherry-picking ends, with this tosh. Yes, you are logically trapped. Authorities invoked in a series of appeals to authority (presented, without elaboration, on the solitary grounds of authoritativeness) do not slide in and out of validity on your whim. This is not my opinion.
(It will be easy for people to misunderstand me. What I am not saying is that no one can ever appeal to an evolutionist’s contradicting himself. What I am saying is that the most that an appeal to an evolutionist’s contradicting himself can do is discredit that particular evolutionist – that is, one half of the contradiction cannot be chosen, on whim, as the correct half.)
From there I would have to go through and take excerpts from their work in support of the veracity of the theory of evolution/fossil record/etc. (not hard, given that they are all of them evolutionists), and that’s it. In the best (and most common) cases for me, the contradiction will be revealed to be illusory. In the worst, that one evolutionist – of tens of thousands – is struck from the list of the credible.
If this seems cheap, well that’s because it’s easy to beat a bad argument.
[/quote]
So you have no evidence contradicting my point. You don’t want to play now that you are unable to do the following: 1. Person A says the sky is blue (true) 2. Person A says the sky is blue because aliens paint it blue every morning before anyone is awake (false) 3. Since #2 is incorrect, #1 must be incorrect too and person A is unqualified to comment on the validity of #1 even though #1 is true. Or something closely along these lines.
Lest you forget or deliberately choose to ignore, we are debating specific known physical evidence that supports my claim that animal kinds appear suddenly in the fossil record as if created that way. Spare me the philosophical bullshit and show me physical evidence of macro-evolution that contradicts my evidence. Even the godfather of evolution, Charles Darwin, admitted the fossil record did not support macro-evolution.
[/quote]
No, I just prefer to use logic (also known as “the philosophical bullshit”) rather than citations of research, because creationists ignore citations of research. Unless, of course, those citations are cherry-picked for them by non-scientists and then filtered through websites run by hacks.
With logic I have done it. Authority is not invoked and revoked at your whim.
With evidence I could do things like this:
[quote]
Contrary to Creationist claims, the transitions among vertebrate species are almost all documented to a greater or lesser extent. Archeopteryx is an exquisite link between reptiles and birds; the therapsids provide an abundance of evidence for the transition from reptiles to mammals. Moreover, there are exquisite fossil links between the crossopterygian fishes and the amphibians (the icthyostegids). Of course, many other ancestor-descendent series also exist in the fossil record.[/quote]
That’s Futuyma, [u][i]your authority[/u][/i], in Science on Trial (190), which printed source was published more recently than the one you used. Moreover, the quote is contextually faithful to its author’s thesis and overarching argument, as evidenced here in Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology, (15):
[quote]
The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors–the historical reality of evolution–is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth’s revolution about the sun.[/quote]
Edited
The same thing could be done in each case, if you are interested in figuring it out yourself.
And I would respond that the Archeopteryx lost its place at the base of the evolutionary tree after the older Xiaotingia zhengi was found. It’s not even apparent they had feathers. X. Xu et al., ?An Archaeopteryx-Like Theropod from China and the Origin of Avialae,? Nature 475: 467. They will probably be classified as Deinonychosauria as recently proposed.
In re: crossopterygian- How can they be considered transitional if none of these fish are known to be capable of either walking or breathing out of water?
In re: Ichthyostega- A recent fossil found of one of these strongly suggests it had paddles not limbs. Again, not a fish like animal in the middle of a transition to tetrapod. Clack, J.A., Gaining Ground: The Origin and Evolution of Tetrapods, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 2002. p 119.
So Futuyma’s never ending search for a missing link continues.
Also, recent findings state the Archeopteryx had fully formed flight feathers and could fly.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Archeopteryx is an exquisite link between reptiles and birds
[/quote]
Downright laughable. Archeopteryx as a transitional species was abandoned quite some time ago.
Get outta here.[/quote]
Laughable indeed.
Go back and read the last page, because that is checkmate. By logical necessity.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Archeopteryx is an exquisite link between reptiles and birds
[/quote]
Downright laughable. Archeopteryx as a transitional species was abandoned quite some time ago.
Get outta here.[/quote]
Laughable indeed.
Go back and read the last page, because that is checkmate. By logical necessity.[/quote]
The misuse of Archeopteryx as a transitional species does not entitle you to even so much as move a pawn much less declare checkmate.[/quote]
You are really not getting this? What went on here?
Again, read the last page.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m not getting why someone would cite Archeopteryx as a transitional species when the scientific community which you obviously adore as your priests and priestesses have rapidly motored away from the cotton-pickin’ bird as fast as they can unless they don’t really understand what it is they are debating.
You’re not getting that, are you?
[/quote]
One of the two of us doesn’t know what’s going on here. Big time.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m not getting why someone would cite Archeopteryx as a transitional species when the scientific community which you obviously adore as your priests and priestesses have rapidly motored away from the cotton-pickin’ bird as fast as they can unless they don’t really understand what it is they are debating.
You’re not getting that, are you?
[/quote]
One of the two of us doesn’t know what’s going on here. Big time.[/quote]
Well, forget about it then. I have had to skim at times to keep up. Just not on the internet much. Too busy and have been using my data up on my phone – no wifi where I’ve been for quite some time.
[/quote]
I know you haven’t been following too closely. I just didn’t want to write it all up because I, too, have been too busy these days.
Many of the genes of birds’ antecedents are actually still present in their code; they’re just turned off. Geneticists have actually been able to turn these genes back on in experiments:
I’m sure creationists have some kind proof that this doesn’t happen or something but the scientists didn’t add any new genetic material. They merely switched on genes already in the chicken’s code.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Many of the genes of birds’ antecedents are actually still present in their code; they’re just turned off. Geneticists have actually been able to turn these genes back on in experiments:
I’m sure creationists have some kind proof that this doesn’t happen or something but the scientists didn’t add any new genetic material. They merely switched on genes already in the chicken’s code.[/quote]
Somebody is going to make a fortune at the cock fights.