It is a problem. Far from a death knell for evolution, but it is a problem. Based on current understanding you should find a lot of transitional critters and there are very few borderline ones. Maybe we haven’t turned over right rock, or maybe something else is in play. I am not saying evolution is wrong by any stretch. I am saying the lack of evidence for transitional creatures is a problem in need of either more evidence or a different solution.[/quote]
And creation has its problems as well. And they are not death knells either.
It’s all about your faith in your presuppositions. You can run with your ball of twine regardless of your preferred theory.[/quote]
Don’t even begin to pretend that evolution and creationism are of rough parity. This isn’t an ideological battle between equals, but one of empirical science against unsubstantiated Bronze Age mythology. Creationism is not a theory, but a belief system.
…There isn’t a modicum of evidence to support the creation account given by Genesis.[/quote]
You wouldn’t know. You’re just winging it. You’re guessing and trying to sound intelligent and informed. You’re not. I can see it from a mile away.[/quote]
Let’s hear this supposed evidence. You purport that it does exist. SMH’s initial question posed pages and pages ago goes unanswered. Why is that?
I think I won the debate because you made an argument from authority…
[/quote]
This is essentially all you’ve done here. Ever. On this subject.
“Lots and lots of scientists tell me evolution is true and I believe them because, well, lots and lots of them say so.”
That’s your entire argument, smh.
[/quote]
Yes, except the aforementioned scientists have provided observable and replicable empirical evidence derived from years of arduous research, which then goes through an intellectual gauntlet via the peer review process before becoming part of the literature. Any nut with internet connection can become a creationist “theorist”.
If this is anything like the Iraq thread, you’ll make some snarky remarks that do not adequately address the articulated arguments that afflict you with cognitive dissonance and proceed to scurry away.
[quote] Pushharder wrote: You haven’t rigorously, or even casually for that matter, studied creationism. Don’t dare be disingenuous and try to convince me you have. It’s plain as day. . . I was studying creationism before you were born; I can tell you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re simply arguing to be arguing.
[/quote]
How did you come to study that particular pseudo-science, in lieu of alchemy, astrology, flat-earth ism, or numerology?
I myself have a problem with gravity. Advocates of the amoral and random theory of gravity argue that their approach is scientific, but it is just as dependent on faith as Intelligent Falling (IF), if not more. The scientific explanation of gravitational force cannot explain all aspects of the phenomenon, so credence should be given to the idea that things fall because a higher intelligence is moving them. Theories explaining gravity are not internally consistent nor mathematically reconcilable with quantum mechanics, making gravity a theory in crisis. Gravity is only a theory. IF should be taught in school along with the theory of gravity so students can make an informed decision. What are these dogmatic gravity acolytes afraid of, besides the judgement of the god of the Bible, he who pushes down on every airborne object, now and forever?
The second link details how there has not even been chemical reactions in the universe to even begin to approach the the chances needed to assemble one protein molecule.
The Daily Mail is merely reporting the experiment. They did not fabricate this experiment nor did they falsify the results or convey any misleading information. The “source” I’m referencing is the scientists themselves and the results of their experiment. If you’re reduced to dismissing the experiment on the grounds that it was reported in the Daily Mail then you clearly don’t have any serious response to evidence.
[/quote]
Yes indeed. It’s what this debate is, really: One side grasping at every possible straw, as furiously as possible.
The publication:
“Two developmental modules establish 3D beak-shape variation in Darwin’s finches.”
Ricardo Mallarino, Peter R. Grant, B. Rosemary Grant, Anthony Herrel, Winston
P. Kuo, Arhat Abzhanov and Marc W. Kirschner. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
Vol. 108, No. 10 (March 8, 2011), pp. 4057-4062[/quote]
Excellent! Seriously. You did SM’s job for him.
Now study the study and tell me what an alternative explanation might be. Since you have claimed a significant amount of knowledge about creationism [cough] tell me how a creationist might view this evidence.[/quote]
There is what you could call an “alternative explanation” - namely, that the dinosaur genetic material in birds doesn’t necessarily imply that birds evolved from dinosaurs. It could merely show that birds and dinosaurs are made from the same “stuff” like a Meccano set. This is not something I rule out entirely but the evidence is against species being suddenly created all at the same time.
…There isn’t a modicum of evidence to support the creation account given by Genesis.[/quote]
You wouldn’t know. You’re just winging it. You’re guessing and trying to sound intelligent and informed. You’re not. I can see it from a mile away.[/quote]
Let’s hear this supposed evidence. You purport that it does exist. SMH’s initial question posed pages and pages ago goes unanswered. Why is that? [/quote]
And it, poor thing, will continue in its neglectedness.
I have posed the question to Push 4, 5, maybe half a dozen times before. In each case he does the same thing: Ignore it, ignore it, ignore it, and then, if I really press him into a corner, he says he doesn’t have time, and vanishes. Nothing will change, because he has identified in the question his argument’s risible vulnerability. (I say “argument” for lack of a more precise term, but there is really no argument here.)
Thing is, he can’t help but return. He must have posted 10, 11 times in a row on the previous page – 10 bloviating and overflowing posts in which essentially nothing was said. This is not intended as an exaggeration: I literally mean that nothing was said. Nothing, that is, beyond empty insult – of people, not positions – and straw-made accusations: “you haven’t studied creationism” (which is A] bullshit and B] a libel of the venerable word “study”); “get outta here;” “cult member.”
The term “flail” comes to mind, and the term “cognitive dissonance” never really left.
As for my appealing to authority – every one of us who is not a biologist or paleontologist (etc.) is by definition appealing to authority in these debates. Let us not pretend that you’ve gone out with your magnifying glass and your detective’s notebook and inspected the physical fossil record, double-checked the latest evolutionary genetics work they’re doing at Harvard, ran all the relevant models yourself. (Why do I have to make such embarrassingly obvious points?)
The reason that cwill’s appeal to authority failed is that he was forced, a single step later, to impugn the authority of the very sources to which he’d just appealed. I have explained this a few times now. This is a structural flaw in creationist argumentation, which relies on arbitrary, selective, cherry-picked (i.e., illegitimate) appeals to authority. If I can make you attack your own argument in a single step, your argument needs re-evaluation.
More generally, the fact that all factions necessarily appeal to some or another authority is great for us and terrible for you. Look at the state and reputability of our respective appellate groups/traditions.