|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
This is all truely sad and surely a waist of time, still I will reply because I have the time. Missing links and or transitional fossils are and can be deemed a non cause and effect for both evolutionary theory and creational theory. I think that both evolutionary and creational theories are just that theories and that when one realizes that both are factually the same thus being theories we can all rest from our own convictions of acceptance. And this is what creationism has come down to. You have to insist that looking at the actual evidence is a waste of time, that it is impossible to prove anything, that all belief is a matter of "our own convictions of acceptance" ... You have to insist this, because the facts prove that you're wrong --- and you know it. That's the remarkable thing. You know perfectly well that the facts destroy creationism, so instead of admitting that creationism is wrong, you take refuge in pretending that we can't learn anything by studying the facts. Why don't you just get the words "I'M KNOW THAT THE FACTS PROVE THAT I'M WRONG" tattooed on your forehead? You know perfectly well that the facts destroy your faith. That's why you have to go about telling people that looking at the facts is "truly sad" and "a waste of time".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And given that -at any given time- they could be looking at the same species taking several forms, or a single form representing several species, their claims of establishing an unbroken evolutionary progression are laughable. Wouldn't it be great if you could establish that by argument rather than by confident assertion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
no i shouldn't because it is relevant to this thread. cyote said he wanted animals that disprove evolution, i gave him three websites. Looking at the first of them, I see that it states:
the bombardier beetle shows evidence of evolution and seriously challenges the concept of design The second attributes the neck of the giraffe to, and I quote:
survival of the fittest ... and gives no hint of a reason to suppose that it did not evolve. And the third is explicitly devoted to debunking dumb creationist arguments. Would you like to shoot yourself in the foot a fourth time? Only we now have a thread explicitly devoted to your brand of flagrant nonsense. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
And on that clearly partisan note, I shall quit the forum. Bye everyone, it's been nice interacting with you. It's been fun watching you squirm and whimper when you've been called on your lies. It's been fun to watch you run away crying when the moderators ask you to produce evidence for your lies. And the best fun of all is watching you cry and whine as you run away from your pathetic lies. You are a failed liar. You tried to lie to us, we caught you, we laughed at you, you failed. You have tried to do something utterly contemptible, namely lying. You failed. You are a contemptible failure at something that no decent person would even think of trying to do. You have failed at being a liar. Goodbye.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I won't hear a word said against Dickie Dawkins, Foxdog. This man has provided Creationists with more ammunition than the rest of the evolutionary fraternity combined. So you pin your faith principally on the words of just one man? Out of all scientists (or "the evolutionary fraternity", as you dub them in your quaint jargon) you derive your faith mostly from the words of Dawkins alone? Just this one man? Haven't you ever considered the possibility that however devoutly you worship Richard Dawkins, he might be wrong? Please try to answer this question objectively. Perhaps you are shocked that I blaspheme against your chosen Messiah, but I think it's a fair question. I should also be interested to hear which particular words of your guru give you faith and comfort. I've read some of his books, and I must have missed the passages that give you so much religious certitude. Perhaps you could quote from his own words to demonstrate whatever it is he says that has made you take him as your spiritual leader. It must be powerful stuff. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh yes. Yes, yes and a thousand times yes. Which means that, if you are identifying species by morphology alone (a la Parker, Arnold and their microphotography) you've got Buckley's chance of establishing a concrete, inarguable, specific evolutionary progression. At any given moment you may be looking at a range of morphologies that may all be the same species. They may not be, of course. The point is you can never know. And here was I thinking that I knew that aardvarks and zebras were different species. Thanks for putting me right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh, and a word to the wise. If you have come to this forum hoping to win an argument, forget it. I have never seen anyone, Creationist or evolutionist, concede defeat. Not once. When the dust settles on any given subject, both sides believe they have won. Well of course you haven't seen anyone concede defeat on any subject. How could you? That would require you to be right about something. I, on the other hand, have. If you wish to share in this delicious experience, you could admit that you were wrong when you pretended that marsupials aren't mammals. But I'm not holding my breath.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Hardly surprising when we have 101 posts, with the term "foraminifera ecophenotype" appearing in many of them (sometimes more than once). Don't you feel even slighly embarrassed that this is the best argument you can put forward, RAZD? Of course he doesn't, because it isn't. He didn't even put it forward as an argument relevant to the OP, merely as an interesting observation; a trivial sidebar to Percy's proof that you were not telling the truth about foraminifera. With your peculiar difficulties in comprehension, don't you think you should take up some hobby other than debate? Or at least make it easier for yourself by arguing for something less flagrantly wrong? The burden of having to argue for creationism, of all things, has crippled the arguments of much better men than you. Now, I might ask you if you're even slightly embarrassed to pretend that this is his "best argument", but in the first place your behavior does not lead me to suppose that you are capable of feeling shame, and in the second place the view of your intellectual capacities I have formed as a result of reading your posts persuade me that --- ludicrous though it may seem --- you might actually believe what you're saying. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I have one word for you, Cavediver. Pride. Yes, he was so puffed up with "pride" that ... er ... he admitted to himself that for years he'd been wrong and deluded and inadvertently misleading others. Though it does sound awfully like humility. Wait, that is humility. But thanks for the view from Opposite World. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So by your own calculations, it could be wrong 15% of the time? Where does that leave Parker, Arnold and you with your "unbroken" evolutionary progression, RAZD? Perhaps you should read the post to which you are ostensibly replying until you are capable of understanding it. Then you could try to think of a rebuttal. Good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And who might you be? I've posted 189 times, and the only one you replied to was the one where you thought I wasn't coming back. When you say this, you presuppose that he actually believed what you were saying. He may not have done. I know that I didn't --- nothing that I know about you inspires any great trust in your veracity. And I know your type.
You are obviously the type of guy who hitches his pants up and struts around talking tough after the other guy has left. To be more precise, he's obviously the sort of guy who says goodbye when the other guy announces that he's leaving. He has said nothing whatsoever, "tough" or otherwise, "after the other guy had left", because you did not, in fact, leave.
How sad. If this saddens you, you may console yourself with the thought that in the future he is unlikely to take your word for anything. Yes, it was foolish of him, but he seems to have learnt his lesson.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Let's try to put this in terms that you will understand.
Once upon a time there was a magical pixie named Bubbles who lived on the Rock-Candy Mountain in the Bubblegum Forest, and he had a pet unicorn named Twinkle who he loved very much. Now Twinkle the unicorn was a very good unicorn, and he always told the truth. One lovely day the pixie was riding his unicorn through the magical Bubblegum Forest when they saw the fossil record. "Oh my goodness", cried Bubbles, "what can this mean!" "It's obvious," replied Twinkle the unicorn. "It proves that evolution has occurred, and only a drooling halfwit would doubt it." "You're right," replied Bubbles the pixie, and so the merry pair went on their merry way. We know that this story is true because it was written by Twinkle the Unicorn, who always tells the truth, and the fact that this narrative always refers to Twinkle in the third person is neither here nor there and should be disregarded. --- Now, me, I'd rather look at the evidence. But you apparently put your trust in dumb fairy-stories. So there's one for you. If you find it less convincing than the fairy-story about the magic tree and the talking snake, please do explain why.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Here's what I find troubling, the evidence is what every storyteller at the table has, the 14 fossils. Which "14 fossils"? There are a lot more fossils than that. What are you talking about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Your point is obscure.
You wish to deny all the implications of all the evidence, but you have not really offered up any excuse. Where's your excuse?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I am going to be the good skeptic ... No.
... and ask the questions about interpretation that too many are allowed to get away with. We all have 'evidence,' which is fairly boring. You see, this is why you're not a "good skeptic". You think that the evidence is "boring". No, frankly, that's what makes this good skeptic think that you're a whackjob.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024