Question Evolution!

Portillo hasn't posted to this thread , whilst on the Australia thread, I have asked him again and again to tell me what his problem is with the evolutionist position. He refuses to do so. Nonetheless, I seem to recall that Portillo has "cheered" at least one of my messages on that thread, so he's clearly a bit thicker skinned than you.Stop trying to move the attention away from yourself. Argue the points made by those who are being respectful or quit complaining about mudslinging of which you are one of the prime participants.Mutate and Survive

Understanding evolution is easy. Any child or non-creationist could do it. This is why it was so easy to answer CMI's questions.Retailing even a fraction of the evidence for evolution would take a book. A large book.Tell you what, when I've finished writing my textbook on geology, maybe I'll do evolution. In the meantime there are textbooks on evolution already, perhaps you could read one.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I was very specific about what I was replying to - I quoted you asking if the geologic column even exists, so there's your "for instance," right in the very message you replied to. Instead of investigating what is known about the geologic column, you questioned its existence. You seem to be letting ignorance be your guide. As others keep noting, your messages are remarkably free of meaningful content.Instead of replying on this meta-topic, why not just respond meaningfully to what Dwise1 was saying about the geologic column in Message 170 and before. Yes, we know you think you have a theory, we haven't forgotten, you don't need to keep reminding us. But theories are based upon evidence, something we keep trying to engage you in but also something you seem remarkably reluctant to talk about, almost as if you only know what you believe scientifically but not why you believe it.--Percy

Well instead of investigating what is known about the geologic column, you asserted its existence. You and Chuck both seem to be committing what philosophers call a "category error".

Uh, okay, that's an interesting perspective. The actual discussion involving the geologic column was between Chuck and Dwise1.--Percy

No Chuck. I've already described my impression of you in the next to last post I'll ever address to you.

Hi Percy,Personally, I'd be interested to see how Chuck answers the following question;Does the Periodic Table of the Elements exist?The Geologic Column exists in the same way that the Periodic Table does; as an abstraction used to make sense of certain facts. The fact that there exist several places where near complete matches for the column can be found in the actual rocks only serves to confirm the column's usefulness as a model.Mutate and Survive

Except that creationists are forced to deny or misrepresent a lot of that evidence, as it otherwise contradicts rather than supports creationism. There is an example of denying evidence. There are lots of transitional fossils. This is well documented in the Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CC200. Here is one of the examples: Unfortunately you'd have to do some research and study to understand this example, so most likely you'll resort to the standard creationist tactic of denying the evidence, or misrepresenting it somehow. When there are competing ideas, empirical evidence is used to test them. Creation "theory" has been tested and found to be contradicted by that evidence. There are transitionals, and there was no global flood during human times. There certainly was no ice age within the past 6,000 years. And there is good evidence for evolution rather than a common designer--there is simply no evidence at all for supernatural critters. That is a religious belief, not something that has been supported by evidence.

It seems I omitted one important creationist tactic: ignoring the evidence.It has been well over a day and there has been no response to the evidence I presented on transitionals...

I think Granny was saying he knew more about biology when he was eight than you do now. He made no mention of knowing more about ToE.When I was eight I had no idea about evolution, but I knew that animals had Latin names.Let me ask you, aside from web sites, what academic reading have you done into biology and ToE?

Or telling outright porkies about the evidence, as is witnessed by denying the existence of transitional fossils. That's not "interpreting the evidence differently" at all. Stating that "transitional fossils don't exist" is not denying or misrepresenting, it's telling untruths.

I can grab a rock and claim it supports the existence of Leprechauns if I want. Anyone can say anything they want. Demonstrating that something is true is another ball game entirely. So why don't you show us how creationists have demonstrated that the fossil record supports their claims? A good place to start would be to tell us what a transitional fossil should look like so that we can determine if they really exist.

Wow....and you lot accuse me of being a troll??? This is rich. I just went through this entire thread and ole chucky boy hasn't uttered one iota of evidence and the rest of you have went to great lengths to provide it.Good show chuck old chap. Keep it up. jeebus would be proud of your ignorance.

Another bump for Chuck77.

Paging Chuck. Paging Chuck77.

​

Pick up the white courtesy telephone please.

I like these answers. I would like to add to 9.:

quote:

---

9.Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

​

Who expected which fossils to be discovered when? In a non-evolutionary world, there should be no transitionals. The transitions in form that we have discovered confirm that our biosphere is evolutionary.

---

"...or that we have an intelligent designer very keen to cover its tracks."