Interview with an evolutionist

[Hellbender]

ARCHAEOPTERYX-is a lie.

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html

This link happens to work for me; although I almost wish it didn't. I can see we will never convince you of Archaeopteryx's authenticity' date=' as you are quite the waffler (and an untalented one at that). Then address the "transitionals" I provided in the links I posted earlier, or did you not read them as I suspected?

This same science used to make all our comforts actually prove ID.

No it doesn't. I dare you to present one logically-sound argument that ID is supported by science. Please. Humor me.

The more that science discovers, the more intricate we realize our world and our universe is.

True, although that is by no means proof-positive it was created somehow. If you believe that, fine. But thats the realm of metaphysics, not science.

And the more we discover, the more unlikely it is that all things came about by chance.

No one said chance is the only way things can happen. Certain laws govern the universe and nature, and again, if you believe this is the handiwork of a divine presence, fine. But that cannot and will not be an empirically-based assumption.

Does that make sense?

If this was the philosoophy and religion forum, sure.

[Hellbender]

To many people the very word 'fossil' causes about as much excitement as watching grass grow.

So every time a new and interesting fossil is discovered, it is reported in numerous magazines, newspapers and websites because people find it "boring", huh? (off topic, I know, but this statement irked me.)

The fossil of the Archaeopteryx is said to be the paleontologist's "Rosetta Stone" providing irrefutable evidence that evolution of the species actually occurred.

We have far more evidence than that. Its foolish to think that the evolutionary biology and paleontology communites would put all their eggs in one basket like this. Archaeopteryx, however, is strong evidence supporting that birds are a side branch (or even a part of) the coelurasaurian theropod group.

Darwinian enthusiasts began to speculate on what some of these transitions should have looked like; the alleged transition between the reptiles and the birds was based upon the fact that the bone structure of certain extinct dinosaurs and that of the birds have some similar features.

And this is illogical, how? Please enlighten me. How is this bad science?

The great bird expert, Professor Ostrom, writing before the 1988 specimen was assigned said of these latest specimens: ...these specimens are not particularly like modern birds at all.

Well duh.

[Hellbender]

Not off the top of my head, but Gould mentions it in one of his essays. Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, iirc, in a collection of his essays by the same title. I'm pretty sure he mentions who did it in there, an then you could find the original source. I think he also includes pictures.

Sounds good, thanks.

[Hellbender]

You are becomming redundant and boring due to your neglect of others comments and then pressing your own down our throats. *walks away shaking his head*

I don't know if you are familar with the legendary creationist "WILLOWTREE", but I almost like him better than this guy. At least he responded to everyone's posts, and didn't make you feel like you wasting your time with him. *Follows Peon de*

[swansont]

You should know by now--never challange my credibility! NEVAAAR!

 

Here's that Arthur Keith quote put out by Mississippi State Universersity:

http://www.msstate.edu/org/sacs/quotes.html

 

 

 

 

Uuuuuh...right. You can't challenge what hasn't been demonstrated to exist - you have no credibility' date=' having done nothing to establish any. SACS is "The Society for the Advancement of Creation Science," which you'd know if you had bothered to check the specifics of the site. i.e. checked the site's credibility. Mokele's objection still stands.

 

[i']Actual evidence[/i] would be obtaining a copy of the book and finding the quote, and photographing or scanning it in.

[LucidDreamer]

I don't know if you are familar with the legendary creationist "WILLOWTREE", but I almost like him better than this guy. At least he responded to everyone's posts, and didn't make you feel like you wasting your time with him. *Follows Peon de*

I will repeat the question to him that I asked in my really voluminous post earlier, which probably nobody read. Why are you covering your ears and yelling ”nany nany booboo?” *Follows Hellbender*

[Hellbender]

One last comment, then I am really done with this

 

there are plenty of people here that will probably post step-by-step responses that you will completely ignore.

Your foresight is amazing, zyncod.

 

I would advise everyone to follow Peon, me and Lucid. This thread is going nowhere fast, and my advice would be that we all should apply our valuable insights elsewhere, where it could potentially construct a valuable discussion. I see good posts all around, posts that are mostly ignored by this shinbits fellow. What a shame.

[Mokele]

You should know by now--never challange my credibility! NEVAAAR!

 

As swansont pointed out, what credibility? Everything you've said here has been shown to be wrong.

 

Here's that Arthur Keith quote put out by Mississippi State Universersity:

http://www.msstate.edu/org/sacs/quotes.html

 

Did you ever *read* the post solidsquid made?

 

The one that points out Sir Keith *died* many years before the 100th aniversary of the Origin's publication?

 

So, are you going to admit you were wrong, or claim Sir Keith was a zombie/vampire/both? Because those are your only two options.

 

Mokele

[Martin]

Ok' date=' a few pics will show what I mean about archaeopteryx.

...

...

...

And here's an Archaeopteryx fossil, the Berlin specimen:

http://www.oucom.ohiou.edu/dbms-witmer/images/Archaeopteryx%20Berlin.JPG

 

Look at the arms, look at the legs. In *both*, Archaeopteryx displays more length than compsognathus. Furthermore, both are articulated, indicating that the Archaeopteryx fossil could not have been made from a Compsognathus fossil. And a 100% forgery would have been easily detected.

 

Look, it's called "evidence".

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

this Archaopteryx

is one of the most beautiful pictures I have ever seen on any science discussion board---or anywhere maybe

I took off the symbols so that it wouldnt insert the picture again, but otherwise just quote the Mokele post.

fantastic, as I imagine an ancient angel, fallen and fossilized

 

the original post was #92 in this thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=207335&postcount=92

 

the disgusting thing about creation/ID people is an almost sacrilegeous lack of respect for nature

actually for the universe as a whole

a special place in Hell should be reserved for those who insist on talking about "God"----as if the whole wonderful show resulted from interference by a smart technically advanced alien

 

people like that have no decent feelings of reverence and should be dropped down a black hole

[shinbits]

As swansont pointed out, what credibility? Everything you've said here has been shown to be wrong.

People accused me of making stuff up. Everything I've said I've backed with a link. I've even gone so far as to back up my links with other links.

 

That's credibility, baby.

 

Sir Keith *died* many years before the 100th aniversary of the Origin's publication?

Many years, huh? Sir Keith died in 1955. The Origin Of Species was published in 1959.

If you're going to mass produce publications of a hardcover text--in the 50's-- you need to do things years ahead of time.

 

Many years. Pfft.

That's not credibility, baby.

 

Some one asked: "Why do whales have pelvic bones?"

Well HERE!

I'll even paste it for ya:

"In males, this small pelvic bone serves as an anchor for the muscles of the penis."

 

Intelligent design, baby.

 

Scroll to the middle of the page and read it for thyself.

 

You know what the beautiful thing is? This link is from an evolutionist web site.

 

None of the links in this post are from creation sites.

[Tetrahedrite]

There really should be an IQ test for people posting on this site!

 

Some one asked: "Why do whales have pelvic bones?"

Well HERE!

I'll even paste it for ya:

"In males' date=' this small pelvic bone serves as an anchor for the muscles of the penis."

 

Scroll to the middle of the page and read it for thyself.

 

You know what the beautiful thing is? This link is from an evolutionist web site.

Wow. You guys are good for something.[/quote']

Did you even read your own link? The author's clearly state the pelvis is a remnant of the whales' previous form ie it has evolved

 

I'm really starting to think there is something seriously wrong with creationists' brains, a fault that doesn't allow them to understand logic.

[shinbits]

First off, I'd like to apologize for making that "good for something" crack.

I'm sorry.

It's just that so many people have thrown insults my way, when I've tried to be nice, that it got to me.

But that doesn't make what I did right. Sorry.

 

 

Did you even read your own link? The author's clearly state the pelvis is a remnant of the whales' previous form ie it has evolved

I'm making the point that even evolutionists are admitting the pelvis has a purpose.

 

This also clearly shows that evolutionist views conflict. Which is it? Are pelvic bones in whales are vestigial, or do they have a purpose?

 

This link just shows that ID is everywhere, even in pelvic bones of whales.

 

I love you all.

[AzurePhoenix]

This also clearly shows that evolutionist views conflict. Which is it? Are pelvic bones in whales are vestigial' date=' or do they have a purpose?

 

This link just shows that ID is everywhere, even in pelvic bones of whales.[/quote'] That has absolutely nothing to do with ID. Evolutionary theory has long shown that certain parts of the body eventually change to suit new purposes. A perfect example is that of the mammalian ear. As reptiles evolved, a part of their jaw "broke" away and migrated into the inner ear to become the ear bones. That part of the physiology simply adapted to fill a new role, just as the species itself will eventually adapt to exploit a new niche, or at least fill it more effectively. Examples of this are countless, and nearly every anatomical feature evolves from something that once served some other purpose. But this is all covered in the most basic explanations of evolution (which explains why you're so utterly clueless about them, considering your utter lack of familiarity with the subject from a scientific outlook), but none of this supports ID, which is odd, considering that nothing else supports it either, which is even more odd, because if ID were a valid theory, something out there under some rock would show even an inkling of support for it.

 

---------------------

 

And excuse me, but why do you find it so important that Archaeopteryx be deemed as a hoax? Even if somehow you could rewrite reality to make such allegations true, there would still be many other tansition fossils filling the same exact role, some represented "missing links" even more effectively. Why do you and others ignore that fact? You aren't claiming all fossils are hoaxes, are you? What about living animals that represent bridges between less and more highly derived organisms? Are they elaborate hoaxes as well?

 

And why does the fossil even have to be fake? How does that help your cause? ID doesn't say evolution deosn't happen, it just claims that it is guided by the hand of someone who "we're being very carfeul not to call God". Inwhich case, every non-hoax fossil is valid and supporting of both theories. You aren't an IDist, and you know it, because the fight you're waging here (the one regarding ol' archaeopteryx) seems to focus more on denying evolution at all than it does on evoltutionary processes, in which cse you're fighting for outright-creation.

 

Here's an idea Shinbits. It's a very modest, rational, reasonable request

 

Rather than try to discredit our theory by fabricating imaginary flaws irrational accustations, try to act like a person who actually comprehends science and show support for your delus...er... ideas. Show us supporting evidence of your theory. Maybe tell us how it actually works, explain to us the actual processes involved, such as what this intelligence is, what signs exist that indicate the existance of such an intelligence, and how this intelligence actually is able to influence your so-called "version" of evolution. Oh, and you should probably explained where this intelligence came from, and how it came into being. Did it require Proto-Intelligent Design?

 

--------------------------------

 

And think about this. Say a higher intelligence was guiding it all. Wouldn't such a being be infinitely more complex than a simple eye? Are you claiming that such a force would come into being naturally? Or that it always existed right from the start since eternity? It's illogical, and contradictory to you're whole basis of rationale, because if something as simple as a whale's hips needed a helping hand, then surely a being of such complexity couldn't just randomly exist or spontaneously generate from the ether.

[shinbits]

 

Rather than try to discredit our theory ......

I wasn't trying to discredit anything. I was just answering a question asked by one of your fellow evolutionists.

 

Someone said that I'm avoiding questions. Look how many posts are on this thread.

I couldn't possibly answer them all, I'm just one guy. So instead, I try to answer the most representitive question.

 

But when I answer a question, you acuse me of just trying to discredit everything you say.

If I don't answer the question, you say that I'm dodging because I can't answer it.

That's not fair. You've put me in a lose/lose situation.

 

And I don't mind if you ask me questions because you are genuinely looking for answers. But this is what everyone's doing:

 

I answer the question about the pelvis--it was asked because they thought it was vistigial--then I answer it, and someone comes and says "it's evolved a purpose."

 

See, all this that I've mentioned just makes it seem like you really aren't looking for answers. This makes it seem like you just hate God no matter what, regardless of what anyone says.

[AzurePhoenix]

I answer the question about the pelvis--it was asked because they thought it was vistigial--then I answer it, and someone comes and says "it's evolved a purpose."

I explained it in simple terms yes, but you fail to comprehend that though as a limb, yes the bones are vestigial, it doesn't mean that they must be useless. And yes you dip, everything evolves into a role, otherwise it wouldn't evolve in the first place.

 

But no, as far as we can tell, things do not actively evolve towards a set purpose. There Are no goals. Eventually, random shifts and changes accidently fall into place in such a way as to create an advantage. Such advantages will be kept, and slowly this is built upon by equally random factors leading to a moderately to fairly complex state. Even this sounds simple. And it doesn't happen over night, It takes thousands upon thosands of years just to make little changes such a stance, size, the mass of one particular organ, or teh loss of hair.

 

See, all this that I'v mentioned just makes it seem like you really aren't looking for answers. This makes it seem like you just hate God no matter what, regardless of what anyone says.

We are responding with answers that were born from looking for the "answers" and actually represent real "answers," whereas your ideas don't even attempt to use actual answers, but instead wild speculations based on one thing alone, that being that you don't comprehend how an eye could evolve. And you don't even really have that.

 

And try to keep your nose out of the dirt, this has nothing to do with God. Remember, it's ID we're talking about, a "non-deity specific scientific theory". And whether or not God exists isn't the discussion, especially considering that not every one of us is stereotypical atheist. This is just about evolution and ID, not God, not Allah, not even the FSM.

 

Don't try to turn it into a would-be Holy War in a petty attempt to cause a distraction, which is obvious that rather than quoting a legible portion, you chose a snippet that cannot stand alone, and rather than arguing that snippit, you decided to take the "i don't have to answer you" route and presumptuously called me a god-hater

 

Try to address the actual points as they come, rather than whine that the questions "aren't fair". These are the questions that have to be addresed. If you aren't prepared to address them, you simply shouldn't be here.

 

I challenge you to rationally answer just one of the questions posed in my previous post, directly answering the actual question without sidestepping, and without relying on one of your precious, oh-so-effective links. Remember, if you can't provide support, or in this case, the least bit of clean, logical rationale, then you haven't even tried to answer it

[insane_alien]

Also i think people are being a bit hostile because we have seen people make posts like this and turn out to be total morons this happens around 99.999999999999999999% of the time so excuse them. (i find it fun arguing with morons, there is something about the futility of it that appeals to me)

- me

 

Alas you have turned out to be in the majority and not, as i previously thought, in the minority. I currently do not have the time to be bothered arguing so i'm leaving this alone.

[swansont]

People accused me of making stuff up. Everything I've said I've backed with a link. I've even gone so far as to back up my links with other links.

 

That's credibility' date=' baby.

 

 

[/quote']

 

 

You're linking to stuff that other people made up, and you don't evaluate the quality of the information. That's intellectual dishonesty, baby.

 

It's one thing to crib from the objections to evolutionary theory listed on a creationist website, but it is not credible to link to so-called facts or evidence listed on a creationist website. They are not a valid source of information on evolution. Just as it would not be credible to rely on an anti-theist for factual information about religion or the Bible.

[Phi for All]

See, all this that I've mentioned just makes it seem like you really aren't looking for answers. This makes it seem like you just hate God no matter what, regardless of what anyone says.

You seem to be deliberately going out of your way to create strawmen for us to tilt at. It's been stated before that evolution and a belief in God are not mututally exclusive. More strawman fallacies will incur warning points.

 

Don't be just another *IDiot^TM. If you're going to post here credibly, listen to what is being said. Your arguments have been given so many times most members can refute them in their sleep. You are bringing up NOTHING that hasn't been brought up before. Your links to sites that have also been refuted ad nauseam also drags your credibility down.

 

You seem much more likeable than most of the *IDiots^TM we usually get. You are visibly tring to be pleasant and I particularly appreciate your non-preaching attitude. But you've got to realize that you are now hearing the other side of the debate from people who have studied thousands of experiments and tests to back up what they know. And you have your fingers in your ears, dancing around a poorly constructed straw effigy singing "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!" at the top of your lungs.

 

 

 

* Many thanks to Skye Marketing & Australian Reasoning Terminology (SMART)

[john5746]

Some one asked: "Why do whales have pelvic bones?"

Well HERE!

I'll even paste it for ya:

"In males' date=' this small pelvic bone serves as an anchor for the muscles of the penis."[/quote']

 

And whales use their lungs to breath. Doesn't mean that was the most intelligent thing to do - give an animal that lives in the water lungs that can only breath in air.

[bascule]

People accused me of making stuff up. Everything I've said I've backed with a link. I've even gone so far as to back up my links with other links.

 

That's credibility' date=' baby.[/quote']

 

No, credibility is linking to peer reviewed papers, not BULLSHIT

 

Some one asked: "Why do whales have pelvic bones?"

Well HERE!

I'll even paste it for ya:

"In males, this small pelvic bone serves as an anchor for the muscles of the penis."

 

 

You know, pretty much everything you've said has been straight out of that Chick tract...

 

Debunked here...

 

...and here..

 

...and here...

 

This guy wonders if he's satirizing his own followers...

[hellhammer]

You should know by now--never challange my credibility! NEVAAAR!

 

Here's that Arthur Keith quote put out by Mississippi State Universersity:

http://www.msstate.edu/org/sacs/quotes.html

 

And Mazarashi: Chiyo-chan rocks!

 

 

Once again your credibility goes down the drain. That quote was not put out by Miss State University but by a creationist group at Miss. I find it funny that all your evidence against evolution comes from web sites that are either creationist web sites, or are web sites detailing the arguments that creationists use to attempt to debunk evolution, which you use as evidence against evolution. A little bit of research (i.e., clicking links) would reveal jsut what I am saying.

[LucidDreamer]

I can't believe we have been arguing against a Jack Chick track. LOL, the joke is on us.

[bascule]

I can't believe we have been arguing against a Jack Chick track. LOL, the joke is on us.

 

This guy seems to be quoting this Chick tract (almost word for word) left and right...

 

What evidence is there?

 

--Well....There's Lucy that was found' date=' and Neanderthal Man.

 

Lucy was later found to be just a three foot tall chimp. Neanderthal Man was the skull of an old man who suffered from arthritis.

 

--Oh.

 

In fact, some were delibrate hoaxes made to prove evolution, like Nebraska man, who had an entire skeleton constucted by people who found a tooth of an extinct pig. Why do you think evolutionists would do that?

 

--I don't know.

 

Compare to Chick!

 

 

 

I think the funniest thing is that his link for Nebraska Man goes to talkorigins...

[bascule]

ATTENTION SHINBITS!

 

Will you please answer Mokele's question?

 

If we are the result of intelligent design, then why is our retina on backwards? All the nerve fibers are on the front, and the rods/cones are on the back. Because of this, we have a blind spot where all the nerves come together and have to pass through the retina. Plus all the light has to go through a ton of nerves/other crap before it actually reaches the cells that do the sensing. That's just dumb.

 

Can you imagine a CCD manufacturer wanting to put all the circuitry for transferring information off of the CCD on the top, and then having to drill a hole in the middle of the CCD to run all the wires through? They'd get fired in a heartbeat for their stupidity!

 

And yet there are creatures in nature who have their retinas on the right way around, so all the sensory elements are on the front and all the nerves are on the back. If our retinas worked this way then they'd stick better to the back of the eye than they do to the vitreous humor. As we're "designed", it's really easy for trauma to the eye to detach or tear the retina.

 

Why is our visual cortex in the back of the brain? Wouldn't it make more sense to put it up front, next to the eyes, rather than running cabling all the way from your eyes to the back of the brain? Aren't you more likely to hit the front of your head than the back considering we walk forwards, not backwards, and thus shouldn't the frontal lobe, center of reason, be in a place where it's less likely to get hit, not more?

 

Why do we have hangnails? Was that another side effect of the fall of man?

 

If there is an intelligent designer, he must've flunked out of college...

[ydoaPs]

and things like down syndrome..............maybe God should have used a CAD program