How can evolution be true if there are no between-stage fossils? (+ 1 more question)

quote:

---

Originally posted by izoakl:
i.e. lets say a girraffe came from a zebra, then why dont we have... quote 'Girrebra' fossils? We have girraffe and zebra fossils... but no 'girrebra'. (this is just some in-between form i made up).

​

And this goes for everything...

​

anyone have an answer?

​

--------
my next question is...

​

why do people argue over creation and evolution if evolution gives you NO destiny , and creation does.

​

---

Why on earth do you think that giraffes came from zebras?If this is a "let's suppose" that you just made up, then I think that you might be interested to know that the Theory of Evolution NEVER "supposes" anything resembling your scenario.Perhaps you might want to familiarize yourself with what the ToE actually does claim, and the evidence which supports it, before continuting to waste time destroying false versions of it (strawmen). Here is a good place to start:TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
I have one thing to say about the Garden of Eden topic...

​

Eve was framed.

---

Which just proves that if God DID exist, she's female, in spite of the historical revisionism of patriarchal Middle Eastern goat herders. After all, women often tend to be MUCH more vindictive towards other women...

Originally posted by gene90:Uh yeah Nos. I mentioned that.Then the any warning would have been totally meaningless.I don't see it that way. The fall was a good thing. The warning was just that, a warning, not a commandment.Now you're starting to sound like Wordswordsman. One of our peculiar Scriptures: "Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy."Then why not let them eat of the apple in the first place? Or do you believe that in order to get anything you have to steal it?If you don't understand it.If I didn't know any better I'd swear that I was talking to Wordswordsman.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

Originally posted by izoakl:
i.e. lets say a girraffe came from a zebra, then why dont we have... quote 'Girrebra' fossils? We have girraffe and zebra fossils... but no 'girrebra'. (this is just some in-between form i made up).

​

And this goes for everything...

​

anyone have an answer?

​

--------
my next question is...

​

why do people argue over creation and evolution if evolution gives you NO destiny , and creation does.

​

---

​

Why on earth do you think that giraffes came from zebras?

​

If this is a "let's suppose" that you just made up, then I think that you might be interested to know that the Theory of Evolution NEVER "supposes" anything resembling your scenario.

​

Perhaps you might want to familiarize yourself with what the ToE actually does claim, and the evidence which supports it, before continuting to waste time destroying false versions of it (strawmen). Here is a good place to start:

​

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

​

---

I already gave him that link, but I doubt that he'll bother to go there.

[QUOTE][B]Then any warning would have been totally meaningless.[/QUOTE][/B]No, it wasn't meaningless because Eve was able to state the consequences of eating the fruit to the serpent. [QUOTE][B]Then why not let them eat of the apple in the first place? [/QUOTE][/B]They were allowed to eat the apple in the first place. It was their own agency. God did not stop them from eating it. He could have but didn't. [QUOTE][B]Or do you believe that in order to get anything you have to steal it?[/QUOTE][/B]Red herring.

Originally posted by gene90:No, it wasn't meaningless because Eve was able to state the consequences of eating the fruit to the serpent.That is a contradiction, and another sign of the flaw since she wouldn't have understood the concept in the first place. Plus, this is just a means of blaming women for the pain and suffering of Mankind. Unless you also believe that women are wicked by their very nature as this myth seems to be implying? Afterall it must be true since it is in the bible.They were allowed to eat the apple in the first place. It was their own agency. God did not stop them from eating it. He could have but didn't.Even after he/she/it told them not to because they would die? Another contradiction.Red herring. You sure like fish.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-19-2002]

[QUOTE][B]That is a contradiction[/QUOTE][/B]Yeah it's a contradiction. It contradicts your position.
Now you need to either support your position or concede defeat. [QUOTE][B]Plus, this is just a means of blaming women for the pain and suffering of Mankind.[/QUOTE][/B]Irrelevant. Silly also. [QUOTE][B]Unless you also believe that women are wicked by their very nature as this myth seems to be implying?[/QUOTE][/B]Red herring. [QUOTE][B]Even after he/she/it told them not to because they would die? Another contradiction.[/QUOTE][/B]No, they were told that the consequence of their action would be death. Not a contradiction. [QUOTE][B]You sure like fish.[/QUOTE][/B]There's another useless, err, "contribution". Canada needs to teach epistemology.

Originally posted by gene90:Yeah it's a contradiction. It contradicts your position.
Now you need to either support your position or concede defeat.No, it contradicts the entire myth.Irrelevant. Silly also.Of course it is silly, but far too many believe that sort of nonsense.Red herring.Would you like a side order of rice with that?No, they were told that the consequence of their action would be death. Not a contradiction.Consequence is a meaningless concept to one who doesn't understand the concepts of right/wrong or good/evil as well. But since you believe in the bible I can see why you would see no problem with contradicting concepts since the thing is nothing but. If you use this as an example of how to raise your children I would only have pity for them and maybe put a call into a child protection agency.There's another useless, err, "contribution". Canada needs to teach epistemology. At lease we are taught something.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-19-2002]

(Irrelevant Crap Deleted) [QUOTE][B]Consequence is a meaningless concept to one who doesn't understand the concepts of right/wrong or good/evil as well.[/QUOTE][/B]Consequence is relevant to any entity capable of the most basic problem solving. A mouse can learn that by pressing a button in its cage food will pour out of a trap door. That is consequence. The mouse doesn't have any concept of right or wrong or good and evil but it has some grasp of cause and effect. [QUOTE][B]At lease we are taught something.[/QUOTE][/B]What and by whom? The TV?

Originally posted by gene90:(Irrelevant Crap Deleted)That is basically everything you wrote.Consequence is relevant to any entity capable of the most basic problem solving. A mouse can learn that by pressing a button in its cage food will pour out of a trap door. That is consequence. The mouse doesn't have any concept of right or wrong or good and evil but it has some grasp of cause and effect.Irrelevant. There was no pain or suffering in the garden before they ate of the apple. So consequences of any kind have no meaning. There would be no such thing as a mousetrap of anykind, because the lamb laid down with the lion.Take any three year old and leave them alone in the yard, with the gate open, and then see just how long it will take them to get in to the middle of traffic, even after you told them not to. Are you going to toss the kid out after you find out (If they don't get killed that is)?This is one reason why we also don't prosecute very young children as adults (Well, not those of us who are civilized that is.) They don't have the "software" to understand the consequences of their actions.What and by whom? The TV? Har har, you made a funny. Too bad that is all you have.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-19-2002]

[QUOTE][B]There was no pain or suffering in the garden before they ate of the apple. So consequences of any kind have no meaning. There would be no such thing as a mousetrap of anykind, because the lamb laid down with the lion.[/QUOTE][/B]I'm not talking about mousetraps, I'm talking about consequences. Pay attention. I flip a light switch and the light comes on, that's a consequence. The concept of consequences is independant of knowledge of good and evil. [QUOTE][B]Take any three year old and leave them alone in the yard, with the gate open, and then see just how long it will take them to get in to the middle of traffic, even after you told them not to.[/QUOTE][/B]Adam and Eve understood that there were consequences in eating the apple. They were not like young children, they were reasonable adults, with the exception that they could not tell the difference between good and evil. They *knew* there would be changes if they ate of the tree.Your problem is that you do not understand the difference between cause and effect and good and evil.I don't understand how that is considering it is a painfully easy concept to understand. I think you are just incapable of accepting that you are wrong. [QUOTE][B](Well, not those of us who are civilized that is.)[/QUOTE][/B]Canada is civilized? Probably so, I guess you're just a very bad representative.

Originally posted by gene90:I'm not talking about mousetraps, I'm talking about consequences. Pay attention. I flip a light switch and the light comes on, that's a consequence. The concept of consequences is independant of knowledge of good and evil.Not in this context. What are negative consequences when there is no pain or suffering? And this is what is meant by consequences in this situation. There was no real insentive to obey.Adam and Eve understood that there were consequences in eating the apple. They were not like young children, they were reasonable adults, with the exception that they could not tell the difference between good and evil.Wrong. They were children, of mind and experience if not body. There was no need to be at any other level of understanding since there was no need to know of survival either.They *knew* there would be changes if they ate of the tree.Who told you this? Are you speculating?Your problem is that you do not understand the difference between cause and effect and good and evil.Irrelevant in this context. I also said right/wrong.I don't understand how that is considering it is a painfully easy concept to understand. I think you are just incapable of accepting that you are wrong.You are not getting the context here. You are going by what things are like now. None of this was suppose to have existed BEFORE they ate of the apple. Haven't you read the myth, or at least have someone read it to you? Life was suppose to be "perfect" before the so-called "fall". Do you understand perfection?Canada is civilized? Probably so, I guess you're just a very bad representative. Har, another funny. Someone give you a joke book? Must be one with more pictures than words.But what can I expect, you believe in fairy tales as if they were real.BTW, I'm being quite civilized since I'm not swearing or cursing at you. [This message has been edited by nos482, 10-19-2002]

[QUOTE][B]What are negative consequences when there is no pain or suffering?[/QUOTE][/B]I personally, have never been run over by a steam roller but I can use some pretty simple reasoning to figure out that I would rather
*not* endure that kind of pain.Negative consequences are negative consequences, you don't have to
already have familiarity with them to comprehend them. [QUOTE][B]Wrong. They were children, of mind and experience if not body. There was no need to be at any other level of understanding since there was no need to know of survival either.[/QUOTE][/B]Mere assertion. You don't even believe they were real, so how do you think you're going to support this? [QUOTE][B]Who told you this? Are you speculating?[/QUOTE][/B]No I'm not speculating, I've actually read Genesis.You might try it sometime if you want to actually have some simple understanding of what we are discussing. [QUOTE][B]Irrelevant in this context. I also said right/wrong.[/QUOTE][/B]Your claim that they did not understand right and wrong and good and evil is irrelevant to whether or not they understood cause and effect. [QUOTE][B]You are going by what things are like now. None of this was suppose to have existed BEFORE they ate of the apple. Haven't you read the myth, or at least have someone read it to you?[/QUOTE][/B]I've read multiple versions of it, versions you do not even know exist.I'm wondering you have read even one. [QUOTE][B]Do you understand perfection?[/QUOTE][/B]Do you understand the concept of cause and effect? [QUOTE][B]Must be one with more pictures than words.[/QUOTE][/B]I liked Jet better. His insults were of far higher caliber than yours. He was a self-righteous YEC though, as opposed to a self-right "agnostic". [QUOTE][B]But what can I expect, you believe in fairy tales as if they were real.[/QUOTE][/B]Another ridiculous ad-hominem.When are you going to learn how to debate? I thought you
had potential in the beginning but you're not progressing.[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-19-2002]

I was right, talking to you is like talk with Wordswordsman.

[QUOTE][B]I was right, talking to you is like talk with Wordswordsman[/QUOTE][/B]As I said, you don't know how a debate works and you aren't showing
any signs of progress.Did you suddenly get tired of our little discussion of Japan?