If asked...

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You seem so confused. Let me repeat - The theory of evolution does not discuss the origins of life. Evolution and abiogenesis are seperate fields.

I never said that "evolution discusses the origins of life". I said evolution depends on abiogenesis, based on the naturalistic worldview.

This is the third time I had to clarify your misrepresentation of what I said.

As to how life emerged naturally, sceince has in fact learned a great deal about that.

Science has learned so much, yet there is so much more to learn...and until you can observe and do an experiment to corroborate your hypothesis, then you are running on a treadmill.

No. The ToE is not dependant on abiogenesis at all. It is a different field.

I've already explained why it is, and I would have expected you to respond directly to what I said instead of merely claiming that it isn't.

Wow! Darwin Jerseys? Dude Darwin died more than a century and a half ago. Do you call people who accept that gravity exists Newtonists? Am I wearing the Newton jersey because I do not deny gravity?

Can't believe you took what I said literally. The one thing that you shouldn't have taken literally, you took literally.

Dude the Cambrian explosion came before there were boney animals. So how can the Cambrian layer, which is stacked full of fossils disprove the existence of animals that
had not evolved yet?

My point is; you DON'T find the transitional phrase of species. So there is no ancestral tree that Darwin thought it was.

Not at all, the ToE is entirely drawn form observation.

No it hasn't. If you believe that the dogs of today came from a non-dog of yesterday, no such thing has ever been observed.

Wow. You are still confusing abiogenesis for evolution. The ToE does not need to explain abiogenesis.

Again, I never said that it did..in fact, I thought I was very clear with the distinction, which I noticed you purposely ignored in an effort to deliberately attack straw man.

Yes of course it does.

So if you trace its ancestry back in time, eventually you will run into a non-dog, thus an animal producing a different kind of animal. Have you ever observed this? No you haven't.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, you don't. No matter how many times you repeat something that is false, it doesn't make it true.

I can tell you the same thing.

Sure, if you like. But there's no point jumping to a conclusion before we understand enough about it

That's the point, you are jumping to the conclusion that evolution occurred without understanding/knowing whether life came come from non-life in the first place.

, and there's definitely no logic in jumping to a conclusion which requires us to accept the existence of magic.

I appeal to the best explanation. You have two problems...you have to explain how life came from non-living materials, and you also have to explain how consciousness, an immaterial entity, can originate from matter. And if you want to call my belief magic, fine..I can live with that...my belief is magic and God is the magician doing all the tricks...and I will call your belief voodoo science, a belief at which there is no magician, things are just...happening...for apparently no reason at all.

How many times do I have to repeat this?

Evolution does not DEPEND on "life from non-life". It only requires life to first exist - regardless of the means by which it came to exist. If life started naturally or through some supernatural agency, that has no affect whatsoever on the fact that evolution, from that point on, is responsible for how that life changed over time. The exact same process would be responsible regardless of whatever means is responsible for the original life forming.

First off, I've been very careful to say that my argument is against NATURALISM. If you are open-minded enough to believe that divine intervention is possible, then my hat is off to you. I guess we will have to agree/disagree on that point..even though I still don't have any good reasons to believe the ToE is true..but on that note, to each his/her own. Again, my argument is against naturalism; the view that the natural world is all there is and life originated from nonlife naturally. On that worldview, evolution is definitely FALSE.

Once and for all: EVOLUTION IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE IDEA THAT LIFE CAME FROM NON-LIFE, only that life exists.

Again, my argument is against those that believe that life came from nonlife based on naturalism. If you are open to "Goddidit" when it comes to ToE, then like I said, we just have to agree/disagree.

My arguments against evolution stands regardless of whether or not the idea is that God could have done it or not. My point is simple; I don't see any reasons to believe in evolution, whether supernaturally or naturally.

What does God have to do with any of this? Nobody here has asserted that God doesn't exist, and evolution says nothing about the subject of God whatsoever. And, once again, evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis.

Ok, so lets just pretend like there aren't people that hold the view that evolution is true so we don't need God. Lets pretend like Richard Dawkins isn't on the forefront of this worldview from a evolutionary perspective.

And, once again, even if the theory is that God used evolution as a mechanism to create different species, I REJECT this theory. I still don't see any reasons to believe that God did it, or that nature did it. I just flat out reject the theory. And like I said, if you are a naturalist, then you are REALLY in trouble because you have to explain the origin of life and the origin of consciousness naturally...and I don't think this can be done.

Why do you have such difficulty separating these two simple ideas? Can you imagine a ball being created and a ball rolling down a hill? If you can imagine those two things separately, then you should be able to comprehend the extremely simple idea that the origin of life and how life develops from that point on are two separate things.

No one is denying that they are two separate things. This has to be the 7th time I've said this...my argument is AGAINST NATURALISM. If naturalism is true, then evolution depends on life from nonlife, and that is the problem. There is no way you can begin to explain the changes in the forms of life if you don't have a viable theory has to how life originated in the first place, since it may be the case that life CAN'T originate from nonlife, and if this is the case, then evolution is FALSE.

Do you see that? That was against NATURALISM..not theistic evolution, which I STILL see as a false position, but it is certainly more reasonable than naturalistic evolution.

Wrong. Intelligent design doesn't mean "theism", it a specific, theistic movement that is opposed to the theory and teaching of evolution. Intelligent design is a specifically anti-evolution movement. Accepting intelligent design is not the same thing as accepting theistic evolution, as ID-advocates deal specifically in arguments intended to refute evolutionary claims.

My goodness, here we go...semantics. Whatever dude. I am a Christian theist. Call it "Goddidit"...call it "Divine intervention"...call it "Supernatural Deity"...call it "Intelligent Design"...call it "Creationism"..you can even call it "SkyDaddy"....whatever you want to call it.

Your inability to grasp the simple ideas I have explained to you dozens of times is astounding. Why is it so troubling for you to grasp what I have explained to you? Is it really so hard for you to admit when you're wrong?

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats. I am not wrong about that, am I?

Wrong. Do you have any idea how rare fossilization is? It's astonishing we've been able to unearth any time all, let alone the thousands that we have.

Then there is no true fossil record now, is it. If that is your response to the question of us NOT HAVING ANY TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS..then there is no so called "fossil record" in the first place.

To assert that living organisms - entire populations of them - never had any children is ridiculous.

Are you seriously suggesting that all of these organisms failed to reproduce, and the subsequent generations of very similiar-looking organisms that fit perfectly within evolution predictions just appeared out of thin air?

In order for X to be an evolutionary successor of Y, you have to assume that X had different kinds of children. You don't see animals of today having different kinds of children, so why do you think that this fossil in the dirt had different kinds of children? Were you in the emergency room when X was giving birth? Did you see the baby?

Have you ever observed a species appearing out of thin air, or is it reasonable to assume that life reproduces and that this results in changes in allele frequency - both of which are observed facts. Since you're clearly such a fan of only believing what we observe, the latter conclusion must, by default, be more reasonable than the former.

We only see different varieties of the same kind of animals. That is an observed fact. That is the only observed fact that we can see. If you go anywhere beyond this, then you are leaving science and diving into the pool of religion.

You obviously don't know anything about the Cambrian explosion, despite it being explained to you dozens of times. The Cambrian explosion was a rapid speciation event evidenced by the existence of a multitude of varied fossils appearing within a relatively short space of time (that was still several million years) in the geological column. It's ridiculous to say "the Cambrian explosion says there is no fossil record" when the Cambrian explosion is, itself, a fossil record.

But you aren't seeing the transitional phase..if we all share a common ancestor and are all branches off of this "tree of life", we shouldn't see animals miraculously appearing in their full forms without also seeing the transitional forms from which they came from...not that it would necessarily imply macroevolution anyway.

 

[fantome profane]

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats. Anything beyond this is relying on the unseen. It is faith.

I wonder if COTW's problem is that his religion has degraded his ability to think. This and other examples I have encountered incline me to think so.

I have read that NGOs in Afghanistan find the Afghans unable to take in new information unless it is presented in the context of the quran. Same effect?

I don't know, but I can certainly understand why you might think this.

 

[Gordian Knot]

To those who believe in the creationist argument that "if you weren't there to see it how can you know it happened", there is a question I would pose that I would be interested in your answer. It's not a trick question, promise. How would a creationist explain the following statements:

A. There was once a super continent called Pangea which included all the planet's land mass grouped all together. Does a creationist believe that? No one was there to see it.

B. Science has shown us the reality of plate tectonics. That huge portions of the earth's crust move and slide around against each other. Creationists are here to see that. Do they believe in plate tectonics?

B proves that A happened.

Can creationists believe in B but not A? Or do you believe neither? You cannot believe both if you stand by the if-you-weren't-there argument. Can you?

 

[Desert Snake]

And what did that "one cat ancestor" evolve from?

Apparently that isn't the point of the thread. If you figure out the point of the thread, get back to me.


My official 'answer' to the OP is "Smilodon type cat".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I can tell you the same thing.

Except the only things I'm repeating are things that you seem somehow incapable of responding to or understanding.

That's the point, you are jumping to the conclusion that evolution occurred without understanding/knowing whether life came come from non-life in the first place.

Because the origin of life is irrelevant to how life changes over time.

I really don't think it's possible for me to be any clearer on that than I already have been. I have explained it dozens of times in dozens of different ways. What are you having difficulty with, exactly?

I appeal to the best explanation.

No you don't. You appeal to whatever explanation fits your religious presuppositions.

You have two problems...you have to explain how life came from non-living materials, and you also have to explain how consciousness, an immaterial entity, can originate from matter.

No we don't.

We are discussing evolution, not abiogenesis.

And if you want to call my belief magic, fine..I can live with that...my belief is magic and God is the magician doing all the tricks...and I will call your belief voodoo science, a belief at which there is no magician, things are just...happening...for apparently no reason at all.

Because physical reality doesn't have natural laws?

First off, I've been very careful to say that my argument is against NATURALISM. If you are open-minded enough to believe that divine intervention is possible, then my hat is off to you.

And my problem is that you are constitutionally incapable of separating naturalism and evolution, and assume that evolution makes any assertions whatsoever about the origin of life and/or the existence of a God, and that primarily your arguments deal with issues that are either irrelevant to the subject of evolution or are based on fundamental misconceptions about how evolution actually works.

I guess we will have to agree/disagree on that point..even though I still don't have any good reasons to believe the ToE is true..but on that note, to each his/her own. Again, my argument is against naturalism; the view that the natural world is all there is and life originated from nonlife naturally. On that worldview, evolution is definitely FALSE.

See above.

Again, my argument is against those that believe that life came from nonlife based on naturalism. If you are open to "Goddidit" when it comes to ToE, then like I said, we just have to agree/disagree.

Except, no. It's not that simple. You are not only making assertions that are outright false, you distort the facts to suit your own agenda. So no, let's not "agree to disagree", let's have a debate in which I point out (repeatedly, and at length) where you are wrong. I couldn't care less if you believed in God, Ra, Zeus or Set, or whether you believe life was intelligently designed, left here by aliens or the result of a magic unicorn farting. What you believe is not what bothers me. It's the fact that you are misrepresenting facts about the Universe, and denying actual science.

My arguments against evolution stands regardless of whether or not the idea is that God could have done it or not. My point is simple; I don't see any reasons to believe in evolution, whether supernaturally or naturally.

Then you aren't bothering to investigate it. We've already established that you are extremely ignorant of taxonomy, genetics and the fossil record, so how can you safely conclude that you are sufficiently educated on the claims made by evolutionary theory to give an informed opinion enough to reject it?

Ok, so lets just pretend like there aren't people that hold the view that evolution is true so we don't need God. Lets pretend like Richard Dawkins isn't on the forefront of this worldview from a evolutionary perspective.

Yes, let's.

And, once again, even if the theory is that God used evolution as a mechanism to create different species, I REJECT this theory. I still don't see any reasons to believe that God did it, or that nature did it. I just flat out reject the theory. And like I said, if you are a naturalist, then you are REALLY in trouble because you have to explain the origin of life and the origin of consciousness naturally...and I don't think this can be done.

Wait and see. We may find out some day that you are right. But, just like you, I have absolutely no reason to assume that your perspective is right. But there is one thing I know: the natural world exists. That's it.

No one is denying that they are two separate things.

Then don't equate the two.

This has to be the 7th time I've said this...my argument is AGAINST NATURALISM.

You've not said this, even once, in debate with me even after I have explained repeatedly that evolution makes no claims about the origin of life. This is the first post in which you've actually said it. Don't act like you were clear on your position, just to cover your own tracks.

If naturalism is true, then evolution depends on life from nonlife, and that is the problem. There is no way you can begin to explain the changes in the forms of life if you don't have a viable theory has to how life originated in the first place, since it may be the case that life CAN'T originate from nonlife, and if this is the case, then evolution is FALSE.

How would that make evolution false? It doesn't matter by what means life started, all the evidence still clearly shows that life speciates over time.

My goodness, here we go...semantics. Whatever dude. I am a Christian theist. Call it "Goddidit"...call it "Divine intervention"...call it "Supernatural Deity"...call it "Intelligent Design"...call it "Creationism"..you can even call it "SkyDaddy"....whatever you want to call it.

It's not "semantics", it's "definitions".

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats. I am not wrong about that, am I?

No, you're not. Just as I'm not wrong when I say eukaryotes produce eukaryotes and mammals produce mammals.

Then there is no true fossil record now, is it. If that is your response to the question of us NOT HAVING ANY TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS..then there is no so called "fossil record" in the first place.

You have just lied.

You have literally just lied and misrepresented what I explained completely. I did not say that we have no transitional fossils. I said fossilization is rare - BUT IN SPITE OF THAT FACT WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF THEM.

This is incredible dishonesty.

In order for X to be an evolutionary successor of Y, you have to assume that X had different kinds of children. You don't see animals of today having different kinds of children,

Yes we do. Every living thing on the planet that reproduces, reproduces with variation.

so why do you think that this fossil in the dirt had different kinds of children? Were you in the emergency room when X was giving birth? Did you see the baby?

You seem dead set against any kind of scientific inquiry. Do you not realize that we gather facts about the Universe WITHOUT directly observing them? It's called investigation, evidence, deduction and reasoning. Maybe those words mean something to you.

We only see different varieties of the same kind of animals. That is an observed fact. That is the only observed fact that we can see. If you go anywhere beyond this, then you are leaving science and diving into the pool of religion.

Correct. But, as has been explained to you repeatedly, this is not a contradiction of evolution. Everything reproduces a copy of itself with variation. Nothing has to produce something "other than what it is".

But you aren't seeing the transitional phase..if we all share a common ancestor and are all branches off of this "tree of life", we shouldn't see animals miraculously appearing in their full forms without also seeing the transitional forms from which they came from...not that it would necessarily imply macroevolution anyway.

Every living thing is a transitional form, and every fossil we have ever found fits with evolutionary predictions of these transitional forms. No forms in the Cambrian explosion "miraculously appeared". They were all preceded by earlier forms, and none of them appeared out of "nothing".

 

[Bunyip]

I never said that "evolution discusses the origins of life". I said evolution depends on abiogenesis, based on the naturalistic worldview.

I know what you said mate, and you are wrong. Evolution does not depend upon abiogenesis - it is a different field.

This is the third time I had to clarify your misrepresentation of what I said.

I know what you said, how many times have you been told that evolution does not depend upon abiogenesis, butis a different field? 50 times?

Science has learned so much, yet there is so much more to learn...and until you can observe and do an experiment to corroborate your hypothesis, then you are running on a treadmill.

Those observations and experiments were done long, long ago. The theory of evolution graduated from a mere untested hypothesis more thana century ago.

I've already explained why it is, and I would have expected you to respond directly to what I said instead of merely claiming that it isn't.

Evolution is about how species change over time, not how life emerged. Why that simple fact is so hard for you to process I can only put down to brain washing.

Can't believe you took what I said literally. The one thing that you shouldn't have taken literally, you took literally.

My point is; you DON'T find the transitional phrase of species. So there is no ancestral tree that Darwin thought it was.

But that is just a lie. All fossils are transitional, that is about the most basic principle of evolution. We haveflund millionsof transitional fossils, and have an ancestral tree for manyspecies that is stunningly detailed. Between the terrestrial ancestor of the whales and modern whales we have about 19 different transitional species.

No it hasn't. If you believe that the dogs of today came from a non-dog of yesterday, no such thing has ever been observed.

You keep repeating the same lies over and over and over. Evolution would never expect tosee a dog come from a non dog, that is an observation that would DISPROVE the ToE.

Again, I never said that it did..in fact, I thought I was very clear with the distinction, which I noticed you purposely ignored in an effort to deliberately attack straw man.



So if you trace its ancestry back in time, eventually you will run into a non-dog, thus an animal producing a different kind of animal. Have you ever observed this? No you haven't.

Of course not. According to the ToE that could never happen. You keep repeating the same mistake, and asking for an observation of something that the ToE does not predict.

 

[Simurgh]

[FONT=&quot]

I know what you said mate, and you are wrong. Evolution does not depend upon abiogenesis - it is a different field.............................Of course not. According to the ToE that could never happen. You keep repeating the same mistake, and asking for an observation of something that the ToE does not predict.

40 years ago, E. O. Wilson stated in his book, On Human Nature, “Men, it appears, would rather believe than know”. I think that sums up everything about CotW that we know.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] So why not just argue over elves and faeries with him? Some people just don't want to understand/learn science because it messes with their idea of self-importance that only some god can bestow on them. When one is afraid of being insignificant, unless one is part of some big scheme--regardless of how nebulously conceived--then rational thought will not change that.

So, how about that new species of pterosaur they found in China? Or that sand dwelling plant, Cissampelos arenicola, in Bolivia?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Bunyip]

[FONT=&quot]40 years ago, E. O. Wilson stated in his book, On Human Nature, “Men, it appears, would rather believe than know”. I think that sums up everything CotW has ever said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So why not just argue over elves and faeries with him? Some people just don't want to understand/learn science because it messes with their idea of self-importance that only some god can bestow on them. When one is afraid of being insignificant, unless one is part of some big scheme--regardless of how nebulously conceived--then rational thought will not change that.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So, how about that new species of pterosaur they found in China? Or that sand dwelling plant, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Cissampelos arenicola[/FONT][FONT=&quot], in Bolivia? [/FONT]

Why thankyou. I have tried to send you a frubal, but am apparently technologically disabled.
1 large bowl of cream for you.


One of my favourites is the case a few years ago where a Chinese fossil of an early bird was exposed as a fake - the creationists jumped on that and ran with it.

Funnily enough, it was indeed a fake fossil of an early transitional bird. The farmer who found it had glued two different fossils together.

The punchline is that the fake was later discovered to be two previously undiscovered transitional bird species, not one.

 

[Simurgh]

Why thankyou. I have tried to send you a frubal, but am apparently technologically disabled.
1 large bowl of cream for you.


One of my favourites is the case a few years ago where a Chinese fossil of an early bird was exposed as a fake - the creationists jumped on that and ran with it.

Funnily enough, it was indeed a fake fossil of an early transitional bird. The farmer who found it had glued two different fossils together.

The punchline is that the fake was later discovered to be two previously undiscovered transitional bird species, not one.

Thank you for your kind thought, i put some catnip in the cream and man, did that fire the synapses.

This new pterosaur species was apparently very social. Some of the 40 eggs they found were very well preserved. Fascinating stuff, and just one of some truly significant finds in the last few months. So many new species, so few gods to take credit for it. Did you know that Koalas hug trees to cool down?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Except the only things I'm repeating are things that you seem somehow incapable of responding to or understanding.

I understand that dogs produce dogs, and cats produce cats. If I am to additionally believe that animals were doing things contrary to this long when noone was around to witness it, and if this is considered science, then I am going to need to observe it or experiment on it..I can't, so therefore I see no reason to believe it.

Because the origin of life is irrelevant to how life changes over time.

First off, you nor anyone else has ever observed these changes that you are referring to anyone. You are relying on what you've never seen, and yet somehow you are convinced that it is true. Bogus.

Second, on a naturalistic worldview, if life can't come from nonlife, then you can't bypass this and dive immediately to changes in life, when you don't have a viable theory of how life began in the first place.

I really don't think it's possible for me to be any clearer on that than I already have been. I have explained it dozens of times in dozens of different ways. What are you having difficulty with, exactly?

I feel the same way. On naturalism, you have to believe that life came from nonlife, and it has been making these macro changes ever since. My point is you can never get to the point of macro changes if you can't prove that life can come from nonlife. You have to assume that life came from nonlife in order for the theory to work.

Suppose it can be scientifically proven that life can't come from nonlife? Then how will you explain the origin of life? Intelligent design, either way, whether God let evolution take its course naturally, or God did it without evolution...but either way, Intelligent Design is needed at that point...and naturalism is defeated.

No you don't. You appeal to whatever explanation fits your religious presuppositions.

I have independent arguments for my belief...arguments that are beyond science. You, on the other hand, have to admit that God is the most plausible explanation, or keep trying to use science to explain the origins of its own domain, which is circular reasoning.

No we don't.

We are discussing evolution, not abiogenesis.

If nature is the only reality, and there is no God, then life came from nonlife. On this worldview, evolution is solely dependent upon abiogenesis. I understand that abiogenesis is a tough subject for naturalists, as you don't have a freakin CLUE has to how life originated...so you want to conveniently bypass this very important element and jump right into the meat and potatos (evolution), but no, it doesn't work like that.

Because physical reality doesn't have natural laws?

Umm, huh?

And my problem is that you are constitutionally incapable of separating naturalism and evolution, and assume that evolution makes any assertions whatsoever about the origin of life and/or the existence of a God, and that primarily your arguments deal with issues that are either irrelevant to the subject of evolution or are based on fundamental misconceptions about how evolution actually works.

I don't believe in evolution not because of what I don't understand..but precisely based on what I DO understand.

See above.

If abiogenesis is false, and God doesn't exist, then evolution is false.

Except, no. It's not that simple. You are not only making assertions that are outright false, you distort the facts to suit your own agenda. So no, let's not "agree to disagree", let's have a debate in which I point out (repeatedly, and at length) where you are wrong.

I thought that is what we've been doing..but ok..lets have at it.

I couldn't care less if you believed in God, Ra, Zeus or Set, or whether you believe life was intelligently designed, left here by aliens or the result of a magic unicorn farting.

What you believe is not what bothers me. It's the fact that you are misrepresenting facts about the Universe, and denying actual science.

My point was simply if you believe that God used evolution as a method of creation, then fine...I don't agree with you, but that is a far better position than believing that inanimate matter suddenly became "alive" and began eating, thinking, talking, having sex, and everything else under the sun. That was my point.

Second, evolution isn't science. It is associated with science. It is a "add-on". It isn't part of actual observation and experiment. No one has ever observed macroevolution, nor can anyone experiment and make predictions on when the next change will occur..and when asked why the answer that is commonly given is "oh, it takes so long to occur"...

I agree, it takes so long..so long that it didn't happen in the first place.

Then you aren't bothering to investigate it. We've already established that you are extremely ignorant of taxonomy, genetics and the fossil record, so how can you safely conclude that you are sufficiently educated on the claims made by evolutionary theory to give an informed opinion enough to reject it?

I am not ignorant of the observation that all man has ever seen, was animals producing what they are, not what they aren't. I have no reason to believe otherwise, because I don't have a anti-theistic agenda to push.

Yes, let's.

Let's not, since Dawkins is an atheist evolutionists.

Wait and see. We may find out some day that you are right. But, just like you, I have absolutely no reason to assume that your perspective is right. But there is one thing I know: the natural world exists. That's it.

Then you'd have to explain how infinity can be traversed, which you can't...nor can you explain how an immaterial entity like the mind can originate from matter (the brain).

How would that make evolution false? It doesn't matter by what means life started, all the evidence still clearly shows that life speciates over time.

Oh it makes all the difference..there are only three options..

1. God created different species without evolution
2. God used evolution to create species
3. God doesn't exist and life and species originated naturally

If #3 is false, then evolution AND abiogenesis is false. And if #3 is false, then evolution may still be true, but it would REQUIRE GOD to be true...and therefore, God would exist. See how that works?

It's not "semantics", it's "definitions".

Ok, definitions...intelligence: the ability to think and learn. You can't have the ability to think and learn if you don't have a mind...therefore, intelligent design implies a mind...and God is a mind.

Conclusion: Intelligent Design = God.

You have just lied.

You have literally just lied and misrepresented what I explained completely. I did not say that we have no transitional fossils. I said fossilization is rare - BUT IN SPITE OF THAT FACT WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF THEM.

This is incredible dishonesty.

Foolishness. Your blatant misunderstanding is incredible. You didnt' specifiy what kind of fossils were "rare"..you only said fossilizatons are rare. I am talking about transitional fossils, and unless I see a fossil being identified as "transitional", then I am going to think you are talking about regular fossils.

Not to mention the fact that, as I said, fossils are not proof of evolution anyway.

Yes we do. Every living thing on the planet that reproduces, reproduces with variation.

Variation within the kind. No arguments there.

You seem dead set against any kind of scientific inquiry. Do you not realize that we gather facts about the Universe WITHOUT directly observing them? It's called investigation, evidence, deduction and reasoning. Maybe those words mean something to you.

And you have to have reasons to call them "facts", which have to be more plausible than its negation.

Correct. But, as has been explained to you repeatedly, this is not a contradiction of evolution. Everything reproduces a copy of itself with variation. Nothing has to produce something "other than what it is".

Right, but there are limits to the variation. The variation will never exceed the "kind". It will stay within the realm of its "kind"

Every living thing is a transitional form, and every fossil we have ever found fits with evolutionary predictions of these transitional forms. No forms in the Cambrian explosion "miraculously appeared". They were all preceded by earlier forms, and none of them appeared out of "nothing".

Then we should see the transitional forms, not the end product after the form. Those organisms that were in the transitional stage, they had to die too, so where are they? There are none.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I understand that dogs produce dogs, and cats produce cats.

Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point.

If I am to additionally believe that animals were doing things contrary to this long when noone was around to witness it, and if this is considered science, then I am going to need to observe it or experiment on it..I can't, so therefore I see no reason to believe it.

Do I really have to explain this yet again? Why do you not pay attention to what I've explained, ever?

First off, you nor anyone else has ever observed these changes that you are referring to anyone.

Actually, we have.

You are relying on what you've never seen, and yet somehow you are convinced that it is true. Bogus.

I'm relying on the evidence, the facts and direct observation of the process.

Second, on a naturalistic worldview, if life can't come from nonlife, then you can't bypass this and dive immediately to changes in life, when you don't have a viable theory of how life began in the first place.

There's no need to bypass it - evolution would be exactly the same process whether life originated naturally or supernaturally. And nobody is talking about "naturalistic worldviews" except you.

I feel the same way. On naturalism, you have to believe that life came from nonlife, and it has been making these macro changes ever since. My point is you can never get to the point of macro changes if you can't prove that life can come from nonlife. You have to assume that life came from nonlife in order for the theory to work.

And, as I have explained repeatedly, that's garbage.

Once again, nobody is talking about "naturalism" except you. You're the one determined to drag naturalistic worldviews into this debate, but the rest of us are talking exclusively about the facts of evolution, not any form of worldviews. You're arguing against a position none of us have actually presented.

Also, evolution isn't dependent on the origin of life. Why do you not understand this?

Suppose it can be scientifically proven that life can't come from nonlife? Then how will you explain the origin of life? Intelligent design, either way, whether God let evolution take its course naturally, or God did it without evolution...but either way, Intelligent Design is needed at that point...and naturalism is defeated.

Not really. I won't jump to a conclusion until the facts demonstrate one of them to be more reliable. If abiogenesis were proven impossible, that still doesn't lend any credibility to any assertions of intelligent design if there is no evidence of it. The point is that, currently, I have no reason whatsoever to assume latter, but I do have reasons to believe the former. There's no use conjuring up these hypothetical scenarios when I can easily refute your point by saying "and what if it were proven that life did come from non-life?"

I have independent arguments for my belief...arguments that are beyond science.

In other words "not actually testable, observable or based on facts".

You, on the other hand, have to admit that God is the most plausible explanation, or keep trying to use science to explain the origins of its own domain, which is circular reasoning.

I don't think you understand what circular reasoning means.

If nature is the only reality, and there is no God, then life came from nonlife. On this worldview, evolution is solely dependent upon abiogenesis.

Wrong. They aren't dependent on each other. Perhaps a naturalistic worldview is somewhat dependent on life coming from non-life, but evolution isn't. Evolution would be just as true if God made life as it would if life formed naturally. Again, you're arguing against naturalistic worldviews - not evolution.

I understand that abiogenesis is a tough subject for naturalists, as you don't have a freakin CLUE has to how life originated...so you want to conveniently bypass this very important element and jump right into the meat and potatos (evolution), but no, it doesn't work like that.

Actually, yes it does, because it doesn't have to "bypass" anything. We can observe how life changes over time without observing how life originated. This is no more difficult to grasp than saying "you don't need to see a child being born in order to observe and understand the process of how they grow older". It's really that simple. The fact that you don't understand this astounds me.

I don't believe in evolution not because of what I don't understand..but precisely based on what I DO understand.

Which is very little, considering in the course of this debate you've displayed your ignorance of the geological column, the Cambrian explosion, genetics, taxonomy and the actual claims made by evolution theory. You don't understand a thing, in spite of it being repeatedly explained to you by me and many others at great length. The fact that you fail to understand such basic facts as "all living things reproduce, but with variation" is proof that your ignorance on the subject of evolution is both and total and willful.

If abiogenesis is false, and God doesn't exist, then evolution is false.

Wrong. It doesn't matter how life started, life could still diversify over time through mutation and environmental attrition.

My point was simply if you believe that God used evolution as a method of creation, then fine...I don't agree with you, but that is a far better position than believing that inanimate matter suddenly became "alive" and began eating, thinking, talking, having sex, and everything else under the sun. That was my point.

Which is completely irrelevant. So why bring it up? We're debating evolution, not abiogenesis, and your ridiculous strawman isn't even relevant.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Second, evolution isn't science.

Yes it is.

It is associated with science. It is a "add-on". It isn't part of actual observation and experiment.

Yes it is. It has been directly observed, the affects of it have been quantified, predicted and tested positively thousands of times. Not only that, our understanding of evolution is such that we are able to use the theory to successfully predict the evolution of germs and bacteria, as well as successfully predict the exact location of fossils of specific evolutionary ancestors.

No one has ever observed macroevolution, nor can anyone experiment and make predictions on when the next change will occur..and when asked why the answer that is commonly given is "oh, it takes so long to occur"...

But we can observe it in the fossil record and genetics. A fact you seem incapable of acknowledging.

I agree, it takes so long..so long that it didn't happen in the first place.

Great logic.

I am not ignorant of the observation that all man has ever seen, was animals producing what they are, not what they aren't. I have no reason to believe otherwise, because I don't have a anti-theistic agenda to push.

I honestly have to ask, do you even read these posts? Do you understand what we have explained to you? Do you understand what I say when I say "eukaryotes only produce eukaryotes" or "all living things reproduce with variation"? What do you think these sentences mean?

Let's not, since Dawkins is an atheist evolutionists.

And, therefore, all atheists and people who accept evolution should agree with him on everything all the time?

Then you'd have to explain how infinity can be traversed, which you can't...nor can you explain how an immaterial entity like the mind can originate from matter (the brain).

Doesn't mean it never can be. The point is, don't jump to conclusions. Formulate ideas from the facts that are available, and every single fact available to use right now comes from the natural world. In the words of Tim Minchin: "Throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic."

Oh it makes all the difference..there are only three options..

1. God created different species without evolution
2. God used evolution to create species
3. God doesn't exist and life and species originated naturally

If #3 is false, then evolution AND abiogenesis is false. And if #3 is false, then evolution may still be true, but it would REQUIRE GOD to be true...and therefore, God would exist. See how that works?

Sure. Where does that contradict anything I've said?

Ok, definitions...intelligence: the ability to think and learn. You can't have the ability to think and learn if you don't have a mind...therefore, intelligent design implies a mind...and God is a mind.

Conclusion: Intelligent Design = God.

Oh, I get it. So, therefore, the "National Socialist Party" just means "a big, fun party full of people who are in a country and are very sociable."

Yep, I totally get it.

Foolishness. Your blatant misunderstanding is incredible. You didnt' specifiy what kind of fossils were "rare"..you only said fossilizatons are rare.

Yes, I did. And you said that what I said is that "the fossil record doesn't exist". Which I categorically did not. I demand an apology for your misrepresentaion.

I am talking about transitional fossils, and unless I see a fossil being identified as "transitional", then I am going to think you are talking about regular fossils.

All fossils are transitional. There is no such thing as a "non-transitional fossil".

Not to mention the fact that, as I said, fossils are not proof of evolution anyway.

Which is total garbage. They are hard evidence that evolution occurs and that life diversifies over time.

Variation within the kind. No arguments there.

None here either. Which is how a eukaryote can produce a human.

Right, but there are limits to the variation. The variation will never exceed the "kind". It will stay within the realm of its "kind"

Again, if we're talking about things only reproducing "with variation" and not "producing something that belongs to another order, clade or taxonomic rank" then yes. We agree.

Then we should see the transitional forms, not the end product after the form. Those organisms that were in the transitional stage, they had to die too, so where are they? There are none.

Every fossil that we find is a transitional fossil.

Once again, your ignorance of evolution rears its head. There is no such thing as a "non-transitional form". "Transitional" is a word used to illustrate how one form can exist as an intermediate between two points, but both of those two points are also, themselves, transitional between two other points. For example, if I wanted to find a transitional number between 1 and 10, I could choose 5. Does this mean that 1 and 10 are "whole" numbers whereas the number 5 is a "transitional" number? No. Because 1 is a transition between 0 and 2, and 10 is a transition between 9 and 11. 5 represents a "transition" between the two numbers, but that doesn't mean it is just a "transitional number" - it just means it represents a clear point between 1 and 10. Do you understand?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes it is.


Yes it is. It has been directly observed, the affects of it have been quantified, predicted and tested positively thousands of times. Not only that, our understanding of evolution is such that we are able to use the theory to successfully predict the evolution of germs and bacteria, as well as successfully predict the exact location of fossils of specific evolutionary ancestors.


But we can observe it in the fossil record and genetics. A fact you seem incapable of acknowledging.


Great logic.


I honestly have to ask, do you even read these posts? Do you understand what we have explained to you? Do you understand what I say when I say "eukaryotes only produce eukaryotes" or "all living things reproduce with variation"? What do you think these sentences mean?


And, therefore, all atheists and people who accept evolution should agree with him on everything all the time?


Doesn't mean it never can be. The point is, don't jump to conclusions. Formulate ideas from the facts that are available, and every single fact available to use right now comes from the natural world. In the words of Tim Minchin: "Throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic."


Sure. Where does that contradict anything I've said?


Oh, I get it. So, therefore, the "National Socialist Party" just means "a big, fun party full of people who are in a country and are very sociable."

Yep, I totally get it.


Yes, I did. And you said that what I said is that "the fossil record doesn't exist". Which I categorically did not. I demand an apology for your misrepresentaion.




All fossils are transitional. There is no such thing as a "non-transitional fossil".


Which is total garbage. They are hard evidence that evolution occurs and that life diversifies over time.


None here either. Which is how a eukaryote can produce a human.


Again, if we're talking about things only reproducing "with variation" and not "producing something that belongs to another order, clade or taxonomic rank" then yes. We agree.


Every fossil that we find is a transitional fossil.

Once again, your ignorance of evolution rears its head. There is no such thing as a "non-transitional form". "Transitional" is a word used to illustrate how one form can exist as an intermediate between two points, but both of those two points are also, themselves, transitional between two other points. For example, if I wanted to find a transitional number between 1 and 10, I could choose 5. Does this mean that 1 and 10 are "whole" numbers whereas the number 5 is a "transitional" number? No. Because 1 is a transition between 0 and 2, and 10 is a transition between 9 and 11. 5 represents a "transition" between the two numbers, but that doesn't mean it is just a "transitional number" - it just means it represents a clear point between 1 and 10. Do you understand?

You can have the last word. Until next time...

 

[johnhanks]

I understand that dogs produce dogs, and cats produce cats. If I am to additionally believe that animals were doing things contrary to this long when noone was around to witness it, and if this is considered science, then I am going to need to observe it or experiment on it..I can't, so therefore I see no reason to believe it.

Do I really have to explain this yet again?

No, Flame, you don't. You could just leave CotW to stew in his ignorance.

Why do you not pay attention to what I've explained, ever?

You have to realise that not paying attention to what you've explained is not just some irritating quirk of CotW's, it's essential to the maintenance of his position. You and I and others have lucidly explained the realities of evolution to him several times, but it's crucial to him that he must not listen. If he took those realities on board, he would have to argue against them, and he sure as hell isn't capable of doing that: far easier to dismiss all such explanations as "bio-babble" and pretend that evolution is really about dogs giving birth to non-dogs. OK, that's palpable nonsense, but it's much easier to argue against.

 

[Bunyip]

At this point it is painfully clear the the entirety of creationist apologetics boils down to pretending not to understand simple concepts.

 

[fantome profane]

At this point it is painfully clear the the entirety of creationist apologetics boils down to pretending not to understand simple concepts.

You are giving them too much credit.

 

[Simurgh]

[FONT=&quot]

At this point it is painfully clear the the entirety of creationist apologetics boils down to pretending not to understand simple concepts.

I always thought they simply ignore everything that does not fit into their worldview because it threatens their position as special pets of some powerful entity. You know, those afraid and unwilling to take responsibility for anything they do, always need someone else to blame, kind of a thing.

Here is a survey that i thought would be telling in that regard.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"People who have faith often use it as an outlet for forgiveness" said Dr. Eric Anderson, a sociologist at the University of Winchester in England, "so they're more likely to cheat and less likely to feel guilty." [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Here's the entire breakdown:[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Evangelist 25.1%[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Protestant 22.7%[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Catholic 22.75%[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Agnostic 2%[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Mormon 1.6%[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Muslim 1.5%[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Jewish 1.4%[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Atheist 1.4%[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Jehovah’s Witness 0.5%[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Hindusim 0.3%[/FONT]