The debating skills of evolutionists

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Carico, Oct 10, 2008.

  1. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    I share your frustration. Evolutionists claim transitions where none exist. It isn't just creationists who have trouble recognizing them, evolutionists do as well. This is why guys like Gould finally admitted that very few of these things really exist (actually, the number is zero). This is why all of the major curators admitted the same thing. It just isn't possible to build an iron clad case for any of them. The fossil record, with its sudden explosion of vertabrates and invertebrates during the "cambrian era", everywhere testifies to a creation, followed by a world wide catastrophy. If offers nothing in support of a molecules to man evolutionary history.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    Go ahead and put your fingers in your ears and go "la,la,la,la". Your willful ignorance is not conducive to a proper debate on the subject.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    "Moron, a transitional species between bird and dinosaur would defy clear classification."

    This issue here is that all indications are that this is a bird, by evolutionists own admission. There is nothing ambiguous about it. Some birds had teeth, some did not. Some birds fly, some do not. The only issue here is the supposed date of the find. Wait a few years and this will be thrown out and something new added.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    You mean that disagreeing with you is not conducive to "proper debate" don't you?
     
  8. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    Ignoring evidence in favor of an argument from incredulity doesn't count as a debate in my book.
     
  9. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    nobody has ignored evidence. You have simply gone way beyond the evidence and attempted to establish proof where none exists.

    Here is the deal. You seem to feel the purpose of debate is to change the mind of the opponent. It isn't. In some situations it changes the minds of observers. And it sharpens the skills of those debating. What you also fail to understand is that both of us are utimately arguing from two axiomatically held positions. I have known this all along about my position, you fail to understand this about your own. As I have debated the evolution controversy over the years I have found that the strongest argument in favor of evolution is the presumed evolutionary time scale and the misinterpretation of the geologic record. Since these are "givens" now it is virtually impossible for someone like yourself to see the serious flaws in your viewpoint.
     
  10. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    It's not an axiomatic position, it is based on overwhelming empirical evidence.
     
  11. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    so in short then the addition of a new morphogenic feature - a new phenotype if you prefer - is evidence of new information. Thanks for the definition

    here's the example:

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=80923

    new information proved


    Next!?
     
  12. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    I didn't say a new phenotype. There are known mutations with phentype effects. But no information gaining mutations which lead to the development of new organs such as eyes, feathers or wings where none existed before.
     
  13. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    you are elephant hurling again. Everytime we examine the "overwhelming evidence" it turns out to be overwhelmingly weak. Arranging fossils in sequence of presumed ancestry isn't evidence. Demonstrating that organisms speciate is not evidence. Providing examples of gene duplication is not evidence. Telling just-so stories about the presumed past is not evidence.

    Providing clear undisputable examples of information gaining mutations in the genotype and phenotype is evidence.
    Providing evidence of new organ development where non existed before is evidence.

    Providing clear undisputed examples of transitional forms (where most of the evidence is not missing and thus only presumed) where new organs can be seen to be transitioning to the new organism is evidence.
     
  14. Betrayer0fHope MY COHERENCE! IT'S GOING AWAYY Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,311
    You claiming the evidence is wrong is still ignoring it, dipshit(sorry, mods).
     
  15. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Becoming enraged at intransigent stupidity should not require an apology.
     
  16. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    Ok so we'll stick with addition of a new morphogenic feature like feathers wings, or peacock feather appendages attached to supraoccular tentacles that previously didn't exist.

    the link to the paper demonstrates a new feature that did not previously exist - it fits your own definition- its that simple.
    Your point is dead in the water
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2008
  17. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    sorry, I am far too lazy to go to other threads and read your blather. If you want to put forth an example, do it here and we can discuss.
     
  18. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    of course you are - why bother to educate yourself when you have a preacher to tell you what to think every sunday.

    Bye Bye dan
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2008
  19. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    No you got overwhelmingly nothing. It was a species between dinosaur and bird. A transitional species. You asked for one, I gave you one. Now you just seek to redefine what a bird actually is! What is it with creationists, that when given evidence, they just make up more bullshit so they can hang onto their dogma?

    This was not a fossilised bird. It was a transitional species, and that blows your stupid arguments right out of the water, as do the other examples of transitional species.

    Hey, why don't you show us the evidence in the fossil record for all the biblical stories! You know, there should be evidence in the fossil record for the extinction Noah evaded. You got that? Have you? No? Why not?
     
  20. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Because that niche is already occupied, ... by whales.

    If you don't understand how evolution works, stop arguing, it makes you look ignorant.
     
  21. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    well, well, we have come down to attacks only. Now mind you, I like attacks and am not above indulging in them on occasion myself. But SkinWalker has made it very clear that attacks only will not be allowed, so I have been on my best behavior. It appears that skinwalker, being an atheist evolutionist believer, cannot be trusted to be fair and balanced however when the attacker is coming from his own camp.
     
  22. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    "No you got overwhelmingly nothing. It was a species between dinosaur and bird. A transitional species. You asked for one, I gave you one. Now you just seek to redefine what a bird actually is! What is it with creationists, that when given evidence, they just make up more bullshit so they can hang onto their dogma?"

    Actually, I quoted evolutionists who acknowledged that this is a bird in every respect. The only reason it is believed to be a dinosaur is because of its position in the strata. And remember, you offered "dinobird" in reference to my challenge to provide an example of an observed mutation which brought about a new organ. No mutation was observed in this example at all. It is nothing more than the presumption of evolution becoming the evidence for evolution.

    "This was not a fossilised bird. It was a transitional species, and that blows your stupid arguments right out of the water, as do the other examples of transitional species."

    What does this bird possess that other birds, living and extinct, do not, which convince you that it is a dinosaur and not a bird???

    "Hey, why don't you show us the evidence in the fossil record for all the biblical stories! You know, there should be evidence in the fossil record for the extinction Noah evaded. You got that? Have you? No? Why not?"

    Surely you understand the difference between paleontology and archeology, do you not? There is ample evidence in archeology for the biblical narrative. And the entire fossil record is evidence for the Noahic Flood.
     
  23. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    "Ignorant" is commonly applied to those who disagree with established views. Ignorance in the last Century was disagreeing with evolutionists in America and Germany that eugenics was wrong. Ignorance in Germany was disagreeing with scientists who felt that Jews were an inferior race. Ignorance in the 19th century was disagreeing with Darwin and his followers over the subject of racism. Today Creationists are of course villified and declared "ignorant" by folks such as yourself who will eventually be considered the ignorant ones once the truth is generally known.
     

Share This Page