TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

For purposes of debate, can transitionals be shown. Birds for example - are there real-life examples of dinosaurs to birds? The claim is evolution, originally, not the facts. The facts therefore have to show evolution. There has to be a progression if it is true.The popular answer is that fossilization is rare, and can only show us a small part of the picture. That seems like a fair but weak explanation rather than, "there are transitionals, you're a liar".There might be transitionals, but the question is; how many are missing, percentage-wise.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

The point is, if scientists within have doubts, but a person outside evolution has the same doubts, what is the difference?Yes - a lack of evolution doesn't prove a creator, the facts alone show design all by themselves. But the point is, that you seem to think that a scientist has to say something.If it's a creation scientist, then you conclude he isn't a real scientist. If it's an evolutionary scientist, it's out of context, therefore there what - are in-betweens, even though that scientist said there aren't?That's some fuzzy reasoning right there, folks!Let's just hear the darn truth - are there a massive amount of transitionals that exist or not?

I only say it's weak in that it doesn't convince mer personally, but I concede that you have to submitt something that would therefore qualify as a transitional. Therefore I will concede that you can class these as transitionals, for the purpose of honesty.The real question for me, is this; are there, honestly, a large amount of "missing" in-between progressional forms where you might expect to see them.I concede that given a large amount of time, they might not be expected to be there, but please, I really do only want to KNOW whether they are there or not.

I do however, know the logic that is problematic to the issue. If you are going to show me 10,000 species of frog, then, yes - I understand that you have shown me 10,000 transitionals(well, millions really I know I know). My problem is that if we only have evidence of frogs, and nothing going from something progressively to a frog, then the statement that things produce the same things, is factual.Fair enough - I know the hypothetics that don't make it that simple, BUT - is there a large amount of species of progression.Logically, the problem is that the CLAIM is that they are transitionals, WHEN what we actually see is things producing the same things.So logically, it's much more powerful to show a species that lead to a frog, for those logical reasons.i reiterate, I accept that you assume all and everything are transitional, but that does not satisfy me intellectually.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

It's true that over time I have evolved. This is because I have struggled to understand what the truth is on a personal level of struggling with doubts etc...having read about all of the issues, and there are seriously many, let me tell you, because I am genuinely in want of KNOWING the answers, then yes - my position changed.I was theistic evolutionist for about a year, but then I learnt new things that gradually changed my mind. but those things don't really define mike. You don't have to pigeon hole me. I'm just mike. mike who struggles to understand life like many people do. that's all.

Lots of people can't understand a God who would use evolution and death/suffering, and call it "very good".In reality, evolution is the only support for atheism, which is why it is dogmatically defended. You only "allow" a God, if there is an acceptance of evolution, because evolution makes Him look weak and atheism look strong.I mean come on, it's entirely obvious.

Okay - is that one species that relates to birds?I was hoping for a progression of species clearly outlining a lineage in part or full. Not particularly interest one species and an argument of relation based on similar morphology. Afterall, humans have eyes, and monkeys have eyes, but what would really convince me on a personal level, is a progression from a dinosaur to a bird, represented in many species. I believe it's fair to expect a few species, where we should expect hundreds.So - on a personal level, this doesn't satisfy me much.

That period was caused mainly by personal doubt rather than intellectual compromise. But obviously if beliefs change, reasonings do.But I never had answers concerning the bible, because like many atheists, I jumped to conclusions about bible, "nasties", without looking for an explanation. I went for the syntax-level interpretation because I didn't understand the old testament at all.

There are logical reasons as to why I would "qualify" a transitional.This doesn't mean that a species is a transitional. It means that for the purposes of being fair in debate, I will "allow" that something must be "able" to be a transitional.For example, if the homo genus doesn't have transitionals, what WOULD count as a transitional? Logically you CAN count them as transitionals, but that doesn't prove they are transitionals, logically.It takes some discerning thought. If you see a waxwork of me photographed from afar, and me photographed from afar, you might count that waxwork as human, afterall, if the photograph is all you will ever have, then for all purposes, you can conclude it is a human, if it LOOKS as you would expect it to.if we take a mummy of a human, and then look at me, we don't see an evolutionary transition. If we take a fossil of a frog, and a real frog, we don't see an evolutionary transition. If we take a real frog, and show a progression of frog-like species that lead "to" frogs and "from" another family, then you have CERTAINLY SHOWN a transition.Because of the logical problem of identification, one can't know if a transitional species, actually was part of a lineage.Even if you discount ONE previously accepted transitional, what are you saying logically? You are saying that even though the organism qualified as transitional, it could be defeated as an evidence very easily, because of the "belief" or JTB that it was a transitional.If the claim is evolution, then the evidence must be great, because the claim is very great. The evidence, to me, is not great. You can have thousands of species of bird, but to me, they don't show a transition, and in real life - technically, the induction does not show a transition, it shows a variety.The vast induction shows variation.You merely would have me assume that I am a transitional, even though all of the evidence in a vast induction, shows humans becoming humans, birds becoming birds, etc...FOR ME, it is not intellectually satisfying, because I have to satisfy a need for logical coherence.

I found drawings mainly, of bird-like things, "bird-like" in a very vague capacity ofcourse.I don't know their size obviously, or whether some aren't merely animals that don't exist anymore.For example, I could say that an ostrich is a transitional to a sparrow given enough time, but what is really needed is a clear progression in no uncertain terms, not just flying-dinos, as they were never in doubt. But I am open-minded, I concede that those species are interesting, but beyond coincidence? I don't see a full picture here. From their differences, there certainly isn't a progression, just a variety.And what assumption do we go with? If it's a biblical one, ALL creatures would have been there at the start, "owph", "flying things". So there's the problem of assuming a progression rather than an initial variety.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I agree. It's more powerful than evidence though, it's factual. Design is factual because, "what makes a design?"CONSTRUCTION.Organisms are constructed at the very highest level. The more "matter" can be manipulated, the greater the construction.All organisms are made from the same matter, yet you get teeth to a jellyfish. This is because it's all about how you construct and build the "matter".The construction in organisms isn't up for debate, as that construction is factual - you can literally look at it.Kind regards, mike.

you're correct because even if you do quote-mine, if someone clearly says something in a quote which is clear, then it's a diversionary tactic, to say, "you quote-mined".It is a moot point that you took quotes from someone evolutionist because the evolutionist you quoted still said those things, so i agree with you. That's true, because the construction in organisms is seemingly infinite in morphological variety and genius.Usually I see evolutionists use terms such as, "genius of evolution", such as on nature documentaries.It's not fair to acknowledge the brilliance of design yet state that it doesn't favour a designer.There is no appearance of design because the construction is what makes a design. Therefore there is an appearance of evolution.