Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution to Him

Pages: (18) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,02:55    Quote Comment #98294 Posted by ben on April 25, 2006 07:49 AM (e) | kill     afdave:    why do you still not have a maj ority of people that believe your theory? Why don’t you have a majority of people who believe in your theory, i.e. that your christian god actually exists? Is your belief system really so poorly-supported by evidence and so poorly-taught that you can only convince 1/3 of people in the world that it has any validity at all? It’s such a stupid question, afdave. Why don’t a majority of people know that gravity bends light? Why can’t even 1/2 of americans find Iraq on a map? Why do so many people believe in ghosts (48% according to this poll, vs. a 45% minority saying they don’t)? Should we teach our children that gravity doesn’t bend light, that science can’t say for sure where Iraq is, and that ghosts are real? Who cares what polls say?

thurdl01 Posts: 99 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,03:03    Ahh, poll data.  The single most meaningless argument "against" evolution.  And that's saying something, considering the mounds and mounds of meaningless arguments against evolution.  My favorite way of looking at public opinion polls comes from the fine Penn and Teller production called "Bullshit!" Imagine a rabbit.  It's cute, furry, I believe the one on the show is black and white.  Now, let's all vote on the sex of the rabbit.  It'll probably end up about a 50/50 split, as ignorance of the subject leads to people making decisions based on their own preconceived predjudices.  But even if there was a clean majority one way or the other, it wouldn't actually affect the sex of the rabbit.  85% of the people voting could say it looks like a butch rabbit, so thus must be male, and be wrong.  However, a public opinion poll about the gender of the rabbit doesn't actually affect the fact of the gender of the rabbit. Public opinion polls that show the country being "against" evolution do nothing to change the simple fact of evolution.  They just go to show that a frighteningly large percent of the population is sadly ignorant of the facts, whether by fault of their education or are even willfully ignorant, and are thus bringing their own preconceived prejudices to the table.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,03:23    lol also from PT: Quote Comment #98297 Posted by afdave on April 25, 2006 08:15 AM (e) | kill Clarification for ben … All my references to the Creationist majority are applicable to the USA which is where the poll referred to was taken … This should have been clear in the original reference to the poll … Duh, Ben, obviously statistics only count when they support my belief, I mean duh...Ben, you just don't think very carefully.

thurdl01 Posts: 99 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,03:48    Oh, and... Quote Dorudon -- I was only able to find artist's RECONSTRUCTIONS of this fossil ... do you have any links to pictures of what was ACTUALLY found? Funny, took me very little search to find a link to this.  It's the University of Michigan paleontology site, showing the highlight of their collection: a quite complete Dorudon.

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,03:49    Quote (afdave @ April 25 2006,07:36) Sorry guys ... all this imaginitive artwork just isn't very convincing to me ... especially considering the other lines of evidence pointing to an Intelligent Creator. Ummm, what lines of evidence?  I have yet to see any.  Would you like to provide some?

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,04:40    So all I get is rotten tomatoes and eggs? Who is going to be manly enough to answer the obviously embarassing question of why most people in the USA are still creationists in spite of the evolutionists virtual monopoly over US schools, universities, publications and the media for at least 40 years?   It's a really simple question, guys ... Come on, you can do it ... Steve Story?  Moses? Lenny?  Anyone? -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,04:45    Quote Sorry guys ... all this imaginitive artwork just isn't very convincing to me ... especially considering the other lines of evidence pointing to an Intelligent Creator. Firstly there have been several finds to create these reconstructions, for exapmle for Ambulocetus when you say all we found is what you have shown, you fail to include we also have this fossil: You quote that these fossils could be ancestors on hippos and pigs, but this is because they share a common ancestor. Indeed molecular studies have shown that whales are more closely related to ungulates than they are to other mammals. The geographic evidence of the fossils also fits (the land dwelling creatures were more isolated than their aquatic descendants), and dating of the fossils shows that they started becoming aquatic just after the large canivourus aquatic reptiles died out. Modern whales have many vestigial trates including muscles for controling the outer ear, and whale embryos gain and loose many structures that their land dwelling ancestors would have had, including hind leg buds. The envirmonments in which these creatures would have lived transistions from fully terrestrial to fully marine, and the fossils contain oxygen isotopes consistant with transitioning from drinking fresh water to drinking salt water. A transitional fossil does not mean 'direct descendant of one species and driect ancestor of another', it means a fossil that shows transitional features between the two. This is why we say the evidence points to evolution, becuase all the different evidence says the same thing, so you need more than 'some of the fossils were partially reconstructed' to prove creation. I would love to see all the evidence pointing to a designer that isn't a negative argument from ignorance, but I have yet to be shown it. Perhaps you would be so kind. Ps. you can get all this stuff from googling it's not like it's locked away in dusty journals.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,04:51    Quote It's a really simple question, guys This is true, and the answer is equally simple. Superstition starts being taught MUCH younger than science. Even so, science is very much an acquired viewpoint, because it doesn't come easily to humans - science requires people to *admit error* and to *change their minds based on evidence*, something few people are willing to do. And I notice we happen to have Exhibit A right here in this thread. By clear illustration, he answers his own question.

thurdl01 Posts: 99 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,05:20    You've gotten some very reasonable answers over in PT to that question (evolution is a very difficult concept to fully grasp, and represents some advance biology, combined with childhood religious indoctrination beginning much earlier than biological study and a willing ignorance among the far right), so what reason do we have to think you'll listen to similar answers over here?  And did you go look at the Dorudon skeleton you demanded?  Seriously, I've seen the likes of you before.  You demand answers, then you ignore the answers, then you demand them again.  Then, when people stop answering demands that you've repeated, you say "aha!  So you have no answer!"

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,05:24    You understand, wrong answers aren't answers at all. Only right answers are answers. And the pattern follows the lawyer's dictum: Never ask a question if you don't already know the answer.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,05:43    Quote Who is going to be manly enough to answer the obviously embarassing question of why most people in the USA are still creationists in spite of the evolutionists virtual monopoly over US schools, universities, publications and the media for at least 40 years?   Same reason your evangelical buddies can't give a definition of molecule, or explain why it's cold in the winter and hot in the summer.

ToSeek Posts: 33 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,05:59    Quote (afdave @ April 25 2006,09:40) So all I get is rotten tomatoes and eggs? Who is going to be manly enough to answer the obviously embarassing question of why most people in the USA are still creationists in spite of the evolutionists virtual monopoly over US schools, universities, publications and the media for at least 40 years?   It's a really simple question, guys ... Come on, you can do it ... Steve Story?  Moses? Lenny?  Anyone? The "virtual monopoly" business is a creationist myth. High school and university teachers are intimidated into not teaching views that disagree with creationism by parents and the administrations. (See here if you don't believe me, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.)  Popular books abound on why evolution is wrong and creationism is right, while most scientist think it's too obvious to address. It is embarrassing that most Americans - unlike citizens of most other countries - are creationists, but only in the same way that it's embarrassing that only about three-fourths of them know that the Earth goes around the Sun, and that most of them can name more Simpsons characters than they can First Amendment rights.

Corkscrew Posts: 20 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,07:17    Huh, afdave may be right about a couple of my original links. I'd interpreted "reconstruction" as meaning only that the artists drew the bones in an anatomically-correct configuration rather than in exactly the configuration they were found, but on reflection I have no idea if this is correct. Can anyone with more knowledge confirm or refute this? Afdave: I'd note that your comments about the ambulocetus skeleton are totally irrelevant since the one you discussed was considerably less complete than the one I actually linked to. It'd be good if you'd actually read my points before responding to them, rather than assuming that the AiG page has already covered the material - apart from anything else, this approach presupposes that there haven't been any recent palaeontological finds in the relevant areas. I'd also prefer it if you left off the poll results. If your position is correct then they're irrelevant. If your position is incorrect then they're rubbing our noses in the fact that large numbers of our fellow human beings are credulous idiots. Either way, they come across as more snarky than helpful. Any thoughts on my comments about information? I'd be interested to get some feedback on that, since it's something that seems to come up rather a lot.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,07:29    Quote Who is going to be manly enough to answer the obviously embarassing question of why most people in the USA are still creationists in spite of the evolutionists virtual monopoly over US schools, universities, publications and the media for at least 40 years? I've generally found "afdave" eminently ignorable, but this really is amusing above and beyond the usual. Quick quiz: where do Americans get more of their information: supermarket tabloids or the college bookstore?  Which of these is more friendly to the creationist perspective? I suppose it's true, the "evolutionists" have a near-monopoly in the "intelligent and educated" segment of society. It's possible, however, that that suggests something other than bias and bigotry. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,08:03    Quote Any thoughts on my comments about information? Well all the definitions you gave we can show mutations can produce. Thats why they have to invent their own definitions of information.

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,14:15    Quote (Russell @ April 25 2006,12:29) I suppose it's true, the "evolutionists" have a near-monopoly in the "intelligent and educated" segment of society. It's possible, however, that that suggests something other than bias and bigotry. What was it Mummert said?  "We are being attacked by the educated segment of society"?? -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,15:06    Indeed, that was the reference I had in mind: Quote "Christians are a lot more bold under Bush's leadership, he speaks what a lot of us believe," said [pastor and school parent Ray] Mummert. "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," he said, adding that the school board's declaration is just a first step. A truly wonderful quote destined to hound creationists for generations to come. Illustrating the principle that many a true word is spoken in stupidity. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,16:06    Quote (Russell @ April 25 2006,20:06) Indeed, that was the reference I had in mind: Quote "Christians are a lot more bold under Bush's leadership, he speaks what a lot of us believe," said [pastor and school parent Ray] Mummert. "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," he said, adding that the school board's declaration is just a first step. A truly wonderful quote destined to hound creationists for generations to come. Illustrating the principle that many a true word is spoken in stupidity. Thank you - a quote for the ages that one   -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,16:34    Wouldn't a viable refutation of evolution (or at least its universality) require evidence of species of complex life arising without having recent nearby predecessors very similar to themselves? To me the lack of evidence of anything of that sort is a major part of the evidence for the current theory. Henry

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,00:44    Supposed Whale Evolution  Hopefully I got it right ... I'm actually trying to give you a fair shake. Corkscrew-- Thankyou for the information on supposed whale evolution.  While I agree with you that there are some similarities that could be construed from the evidence, the problem (not just for whales, but for human evolution and other supposed progressions) for me has always been that the evidence is just not conclusive enough, and certainly can never be proved enough to teach our kids that it is a fact.  It also can be argued just as easily that the similarities were designed because the Designer wanted them to have similar functions.  No one can "prove" either assertion. While it is obvious that some of these creatures are similar in form, just as it is obvious that a gorilla is similar in form to a human, there is just no way to prove that one is "more evolved" or "an ancestor or descendant" of the other.  Keep in mind also that fossils that can be considered "transitional" are very few in number. One glaring difficulty remains for both points of view -- Evolution and Creationism -- we cannot prove either one of them in the sense of the scientific method, i.e. you cannot put a Sinonyx in a lab and observe it evolving into a Blue Whale.  Similarly, I cannot go back in time and observe God creating the universe out of nothing in six days. However ... and this is VITALLY important ... You and I make extremely important life and death decisions on a daily basis WITHOUT formal scientific proof ... have you ever thought about that?  If you are like me, you got married to a girl that you are pretty sure is not a mass murderer ... but can you prove she is not?  Well, you could do a criminal background check, I guess, but I didn't on my wife and I don't think many guys do.  So what do you do?  You form a hypothesis that "this is a good girl worthy of marrying." Then you simply collect as much evidence as you can about her (dating) and you make a decision ... to marry her or not.  Driving across bridges is another good one.  I always wonder if those engineers that designed that thing were competent.  Can I prove that they had the proper credentials and knew what they were doing?  Maybe, but it would be a lot of trouble and I don't.  Have there been bridges that broke b/c of poor design?  Yes.  But I drive on it anyway ... going on "faith" if you will. And on and on we could go with examples of how we operate our lives by putting our "faith" in something or someone that we cannot prove all the facts about. This is how it is for me with God, and I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around.  Does it ultimately come down to faith?  Yes, but almost everything in life does too, so why should this be a surprise?  Evolutionists also exercise faith.  While their "Evolution Hypothesis" may have some support, no matter how much support they think it has, it ultimately comes down to faith also for reasons already mentioned.  Atheists also have "faith" that they will not burn in #### after they die. So the debate to me really centers on how well your hypothesis is supported.  My hypothesis comes from a "holy book" --- the Bible.  I freely admit this and am not embarassed at all by it.  I hear that being criticized alot around here, but I can't see that it matters WHERE your hypothesis comes from.  What matters is "How well is your hypothesis supported by the evidence we find?" In another post, I will outline the overwhelming  evidence from many different disciplines for my "Creator God Hypothesis." Stay Tuned! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

thurdl01 Posts: 99 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,01:12    Is it too soon to link to talk.origin's refutation of standard creationist claims, or do I have to wait for afdave to trot out all the standard old canards first? I mean, the canards he's promising for his next post, not the standard "evolution requires as much faith as creationism" canard, which I believe is CA612.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,01:59    Quote Atheists also have "faith" that they will not burn in #### after they die. Oh I don't have any sort of faith that I won't burn in #### for eternity. I just don't have any evidence of an evil supernatural entity. Only a fantastically evil being could allow an ordinary person such as myself to be tortured eternally. Not being aware of any evil being, I have no worry about such a thing.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,02:07    there is just no way to prove that one is "more evolved" or "an ancestor or descendant" of the other.  Keep in mind also that fossils that can be considered "transitional" are very few in number. Quote While I agree with you that there are some similarities that could be construed from the evidence, the problem (not just for whales, but for human evolution and other supposed progressions) for me has always been that the evidence is just not conclusive enough, and certainly can never be proved enough to teach our kids that it is a fact. We can't know that it's a fact with 100% certainty, but as I pointed out before when all the different evidence says the same thing its a pretty safe bet that its right. Quote It also can be argued just as easily that the similarities were designed because the Designer wanted them to have similar functions.  No one can "prove" either assertion. But the point is that we understand much about the mechanisms of evolution, and they certainly are able to produce the morphological changes that we see in the whale lineage, same goes for humans. So it will take some positive proof to show that they were in fact created. Quote there is just no way to prove that one is "more evolved" or "an ancestor or descendant" of the other.  Keep in mind also that fossils that can be considered "transitional" are very few in number./QUOTE]a transitional fossil isn't supposed to be "an ancestor or descendant" or "more evolved". It is supposed to show characteristics of both. [QUOTE]One glaring difficulty remains for both points of view -- Evolution and Creationism -- we cannot prove either one of them in the sense of the scientific method, i.e. you cannot put a Sinonyx in a lab and observe it evolving into a Blue Whale. If you don't think evolution lends itself to the scientific method you either don't understand evolution or the scientific method. It does not require that things be directly observed. It is a matter of competing hypothesis and making predictions amongst other things. See here for more information. Quote Evolutionists also exercise faith.  While their "Evolution Hypothesis" may have some support, no matter how much support they think it has, it ultimately comes down to faith also for reasons already mentioned. Quote This is how it is for me with God, and I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around. I disagree based on the evidence. I used to know a creationist, in the sense that she didn't believe in evolution and believed in a young earth. But she was a scientist and she knew that the evidence did not support her beliefs, no matter how much she wanted it to. Everyone sees the world through a lense but with the exception of creationists this is not thick enough to stop science from working. Quote In another post, I will outline the overwhelming  evidence from many different disciplines for my "Creator God Hypothesis." Before you do I would check talk.origins to see the evidence that we have already heard.

bourgeois_rage Posts: 117 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,02:14    Quote Driving across bridges is another good one.  I always wonder if those engineers that designed that thing were competent.  Can I prove that they had the proper credentials and knew what they were doing?  Maybe, but it would be a lot of trouble and I don't.  Have there been bridges that broke b/c of poor design?  Yes.  But I drive on it anyway ... going on "faith" if you will. I can see the bridge and observe the bridge's condition. If I wanted I could look up the previous inspection dates and engineering diagrams. And of course I can go and observe people crossing the bridge and make a judgment for myself on the safety of that bridge. I can also go out and stomp on the surface of the bridge to make sure that it is strong. Perhaps I could take smaples of the steel and concrete to analyse their strength. Show me something like that for God. Obviously we don't do this, but we could if we wanted. Because I drive over a bridge does not mean that I should worship your god. I think a more appropriate analogy would be driving off a cliff expecting to make it to the other side smoothly because the road map (Road Bible?) says that there is a bridge there, even though you cannot clearly see a bridge. Quote This is how it is for me with God, and I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around.  Does it ultimately come down to faith?  Yes... Stop right there. It is the best supported hypothesis around? Then you say that it is supported by faith. I actually think that is the opposite of support. You have faith because there is no support. -------------- Overwhelming Evidence: Apply directly to the forehead.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,03:28    Steve Story said-- Quote Not being aware of any evil being, I have no worry about such a thing. Sort of like all those people in WW2 that didn't think Hitler was a threat? -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,03:32    Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,08:28) Sort of like all those people in WW2 that didn't think Hitler was a threat? Yes, it's EXACTLY like all of those people in WW2 who thought Hitler was a mythical creature from a fairy tale. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,03:53    Chris Hyland said-- Quote But the point is that we understand much about the mechanisms of evolution, and they certainly are able to produce the morphological changes that we see in the whale lineage, same goes for humans. You are correct that "micro-evolution" which I prefer to call "Programmed Adaptability" can produce morphological changes such as long beaks/short beaks, dark skin/light skin, straight hair/curly hair, flat nose/pointed nose, fat body/thin body, hairy body/smooth body, etc. etc.  Indeed, my hypothesis --strongly supported by my observation -- is that God designed creatures with this ability to help them survive in varying environments [no space here to prove this, just hold the thought, OK].   But to my knowledge no one has ever observed a gorilla evolving the ability to speak French, German and English.  I've never seen a female chimpanzee evolve to the point where a red-blooded, male college student would say "hubba-hubba" and ask one out on a date [actually, I've known some college students that just might be desperate enough to ask out a chimp, but that is beside the point].  I don't know of a single case where someone has observed legs dissappearing off a whale's body or wings being formed from scales.  And yes, I can conceive of this possibility theoretically, which is what I think evolutionists do, but it just seems incredibly unlikely, and I don't know of anyone who has observed it, all of which is part of why I don't believe it. Quote Is it too soon to link to talk.origin's refutation of standard creationist claims, or do I have to wait for afdave to trot out all the standard old canards first? I would prefer that you give me YOUR arguments in YOUR own words.  I am learning that you guys don't like me to refer you to AIG, and in the same way I don't like to just be shoved off to TalkOrigins.   -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,04:28    When I say 'understand' I don't mean 'have observed'. I don't expect to observe something occur that takes thousands or millions of years, unless someone discovers a way to speed up time. I am not talking about small 'traits' that people generally ascribe to particular alleles. No one expects gorillas to evolve the ability to speak (insert planet of the apes joke here), but we have some good ideas how it happened, and can think of functional intermediates, for example some tribal languages that have a reduced number of vowel sounds would require a 'less evolved' larynx, and a language with just one less evolved still. Quote I don't know of a single case where someone has observed legs dissappearing off a whale's body or wings being formed from scales. As I pointed out in a previous post whale embryos start to develop legs and then loose them. I assume you mean feathers evolving from scales, in which case evolutionary scenarios have been proposed, which fit in directly with recently found fossil intermediates. Quote I don't know of anyone who has observed it, all of which is part of why I don't believe it. I will explain the difference again, we can concieve of how these things can be done by evolution. It does not require the generation of entirely novel genes (ie not duplications), it is mostly to do with the change in expression of genes during development. So large changes such as uses of limbs etc, we can now understand how evolution could have accomplished them. I am pretty sure that no one has observed God creating these things either.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,04:35    Quote I would prefer that you give me YOUR arguments in YOUR own words.  I am learning that you guys don't like me to refer you to AIG, and in the same way I don't like to just be shoved off to TalkOrigins. And I would prefer that motorists invent their own wheels rather than sponging off the work of anonymous prehistoric inventors. Hey, if AiG states your case, I have no problem with your linking to it. It saves me the trouble of finding out you don't have anything new to say. The TalkOrigins site is a great repository of well stated, well documented information. You'll notice, too, this key difference between the two sources. The information on TO is continuous with the rest of science: what you might call consilient with the fabric of observations and theory you find in current university textbooks, professional journals, academic conferences, across all scientific disciplines. The AiG information is pretty much the opposite: you have to carefully avoid current research and entire disciplines in order not to see the obvious contradictions. Sure! Go ahead and cite AiG, if that's your best case. Just don't be all hurt when everyone laughs. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,04:42    Quote But to my knowledge no one has ever observed a gorilla evolving the ability to speak French, German and English.  I've never seen a female chimpanzee evolve to the point where a red-blooded, male college student would say "hubba-hubba" and ask one out on a date Buried in here is the ever-underlying presumption that evolution is the morphing of some existing organism into another existing organism. In this case, afdave is complaining that gorillas haven't evolved the human ability to speak, or that chimpanzees haven't evolved human sexual cues. But humans are NOT the "evolutionary model" which gorillas and chimps have so far failed to achieve. Creationists have difficulty with more than the slow rate of evolution (few clearly new species have evolved since humans have even existed at all; that's MUCH too short a time to see any extensive biological change). They also seem unable to comprehend that all lifeforms that have ever existed (including all those existing today) are evolving into something never seen before, entirely novel. They NEVER evolve into one another.

Pages: (18) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard