Just Accidental?

[Subduction Zone]

That is the moral of who claims to be good men, insulting like children than have real
discussion, be a real man then I may have a real discussion with you, but you don't even deserve my time.

Perhaps you should change your sig line. When it comes to evolution you are demonstrably wrong. When a person is ignorant and is not willing to learn what is the natural description that comes to mind?

 

[Sapiens]

That is the moral of who claims to be good men, insulting like children than have real
discussion, be a real man then I may have a real discussion with you, but you don't even deserve my time.

I am the one accused of childishness, not being a real man and being undeserving of your time ... all for the offense of suggesting that you read your own sig lines:

1-Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best proof of stupidity.
Michel de Montaigne
2-We can't fix stupid
​

Methinks the FearGod doth protest too much.

Perhaps you should change your sig line. When it comes to evolution you are demonstrably wrong. When a person is ignorant and is not willing to learn what is the natural description that comes to mind?

errrr ... stupid?

 

[FearGod]

Perhaps you should change your sig line. When it comes to evolution you are demonstrably wrong. When a person is ignorant and is not willing to learn what is the natural description that comes to mind?

When he agrees that natural selection is the blind maker while it doesn't make but it selects
by natural means and also you agree with him then at this point I'm more convinced the reason
for making my sig line and even finding no way to amend the corrupted minds.

 

[FearGod]

I am the one accused of childishness, not being a real man and being undeserving of your time ... all for the offense of suggesting that you read your own sig lines:

1-Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best proof of stupidity.
Michel de Montaigne
2-We can't fix stupid
​

Methinks the FearGod doth protest too much.



errrr ... stupid?

I said to you before that you're good in memorizing what the others thought but you never have your own thoughts, following the others blindly is the best proof of stupidity as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When he agrees that natural selection is the blind maker while it doesn't make but it selects
by natural means and also you agree with him then at this point I'm more convinced the reason
for making my sig line and even finding no way to amend the corrupted minds.

Actually he did mention both variation and natural selection. I like to make it clear that both are required since I have dealt with countless either ignorant or dishonest creationists that never deal with both at the same time.

 

[FearGod]

Actually he did mention both variation and natural selection. I like to make it clear that both are required since I have dealt with countless either ignorant or dishonest creationists that never deal with both at the same time.

Natural selection is the normal result of what have been made.

 

[Sapiens]

Natural selection is the normal result of what have been made.

You need to fix this sentence, in its current form it is a nonsense phrase.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Natural selection is the normal result of what have been made.

As Sapiens pointed out this does not make any sense as written. If you are trying to claim that natural selection would have occurred if life was created, a claim that you need to support with evidence if you want to make it, that may be true. But once again, I warned you about this. You ignoring the role that variation plays in evolution. Both natural selection and variation are needed for evolution. Creationists only tend to deal with one at a time.

 

[FearGod]

As Sapiens pointed out this does not make any sense as written. If you are trying to claim that natural selection would have occurred if life was created, a claim that you need to support with evidence if you want to make it, that may be true. But once again, I warned you about this. You ignoring the role that variation plays in evolution. Both natural selection and variation are needed for evolution. Creationists only tend to deal with one at a time.

You need to fix this sentence, in its current form it is a nonsense phrase.

Comparing the blind watchmaker to nature selection is a stupid comparison.

Watchmaker are the one who makes each and every piece needed for the watch to work,
he does the plan and the design ...etc, did you see how stupid such comparison will be..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Comparing the blind watchmaker to nature selection is a stupid comparison.

Watchmaker are the one who makes each and every piece needed for the watch to work,
he does the plan and the design ...etc, did you see how stupid such comparison will be..

It was just a poetic statement. It was not even an analogy. Surely you can understand that, can't you? Besides that you are avoiding the obvious. We know creationism is wrong, you should be trying to learn how we know this. Keeping oneself ignorant is never a wise strategy.

 

[FearGod]

It was just a poetic statement. It was not even an analogy. Surely you can understand that, can't you? Besides that you are avoiding the obvious. We know creationism is wrong, you should be trying to learn how we know this. Keeping oneself ignorant is never a wise strategy.

You need to be sincere with your own self, Dawkins said specifically that natural selection plays
the role of the blind watchmaker, why the need to defend a stupid statement, or is he your prophet ?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It was pretty basic. They (and their literature) made claims about the alleged absence of transitional fossils. I gave a standard definition for "transitional fossil", asked them if they agreed with it, and asked if they would agree that if evolutionary common descent were true, those are the sorts of fossils we would expect to find (and not just in terms of their characteristics, but also their location (biogeography) and chronology).

They agreed and then I proceeded to show them that according to what they had just agreed to, transitional fossils are very abundant.


Or even a reasonable discussion, as this thread testifies.


It wasn't that complicated. They said "X doesn't exist", we agreed what "X" would be, and then I showed them multiple examples of X. They had no answer other than to leave........just like this thread.

This is funny!

The obvious gaps that exist between each alleged transitional fossil are so glaring, it's nothing but imaginative fantasy to construct an ancestral lineage out of them !! But then you'll say, "Well, the fossil record isn't complete."

I say the fossil record is more 'complete' than you care to contemplate. But it's what you want t believe, so whatever.

Of course, then there's this one: "Every fossil is transitional." Pulease.

What a fairytale!

In these discussions, Ive noticed (and others) that you exhibit a tendency to be belittling, to make nasty insinuations. I'm pretty sure that's why my brothers left!

So long, cousin.

 

[Thief]

so transitional does not apply to each and every generation?
and linking each fossil to a previous generation....cannot be done?

 

[Jose Fly]

The obvious gaps that exist between each alleged transitional fossil are so glaring, it's nothing but imaginative fantasy to construct an ancestral lineage out of them !! But then you'll say, "Well, the fossil record isn't complete."

I say the fossil record is more 'complete' than you care to contemplate. But it's what you want t believe, so whatever.

Of course, then there's this one: "Every fossil is transitional." Pulease.

What a fairytale!

According to who......you? As I asked Deeje multiple times (and she ignored each time), given your extreme bias on this subject, why do you think you get to be the one who decides what is and isn't scientifically valid?

In these discussions, Ive noticed (and others) that you exhibit a tendency to be belittling, to make nasty insinuations. I'm pretty sure that's why my brothers left!

The reason they left is the same reason you and the other creationists here ignore questions, wave away data, and leave discussions, and is the primary factor behind Morton's Demon (referenced earlier in this thread)...fear.

The fear in those folks' eyes when they realized they had no answer to what I was showing them was obvious. Their fight-or-flight response was triggered and since their literature offered them no help they had no choice but to run. It's the same thing we've seen from many creationists here. No answer? Just ignore the post and run away.

Deeje described the emotional and social devastation Jehovah's Witnesses would have to face should they ever waver on evolution/creationism. Losing your friends and family? Losing all meaning to your life? Being treated "like a piece of garbage"? No wonder you guys are afraid.

 

[ArtieE]

I have a question for Hockeycowboy and FearGod. Suppose you could see yourselves from outside and time went backward. You could see yourselves becoming younger and younger, pop into your mothers and then follow your mothers and their mothers in the same way. Describe in as much detail as possible what you would see when the mother you followed no longer popped back into her mother but was created by a god. What exactly would you see and when exactly would you see it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You need to be sincere with your own self, Dawkins said specifically that natural selection plays
the role of the blind watchmaker, why the need to defend a stupid statement, or is he your prophet ?

It appears that you did not understand the statement. It was not stupid by any means. I tried to explain it to you. This is not that hard to understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so transitional does not apply to each and every generation?
and linking each fossil to a previous generation....cannot be done?

Transitional does not mean ancestral. So no, we do not see a continual line nor is one expected. What is expected is that every fossil found fits the paradigm made by the theory of evolution, and that is what we do find, at least to date.

 

[FearGod]

It appears that you did not understand the statement. It was not stupid by any means. I tried to explain it to you. This is not that hard to understand.

Explain what? natural selection has no rule in the making, the successful organisms stay
and multiply, the natural selection is the normal result of a successful organism, is that really
hard to understand?

 

[Sapiens]

You need to be sincere with your own self, Dawkins said specifically that natural selection plays
the role of the blind watchmaker, why the need to defend a stupid statement, or is he your prophet ?

What exactly do you think the "role of the blind watchmaker" is? I suspect you do not know what Dawkins is referring to.

This is funny!

The obvious gaps that exist between each alleged transitional fossil are so glaring, it's nothing but imaginative fantasy to construct an ancestral lineage out of them !! But then you'll say, "Well, the fossil record isn't complete."

I say the fossil record is more 'complete' than you care to contemplate. But it's what you want t believe, so whatever.

Of course, then there's this one: "Every fossil is transitional." Pulease.

What a fairytale!

In these discussions, Ive noticed (and others) that you exhibit a tendency to be belittling, to make nasty insinuations. I'm pretty sure that's why my brothers left!

So long, cousin.

Even across the existing gaps the transitions are so clear as to be indisputable on rational grounds. But to understand that you need to be able to do more than remark on the overall general similarity of form. Without a detailed understanding of the plastic and conservative osteological attributes, you're just spitting into the wind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Explain what? natural selection has no rule in the making, the successful organisms stay
and multiply, the natural selection is the normal result of a successful organism, is that really
hard to understand?

Hiding ones head in the sand does not make a problem go away. Natural selection is meaningless without variation, and when variation is added into the mix evolution is the result.