The watchmaker

[nPeace]

Yes, it's simply a matter of record. You not only claimed that you can disprove evolutionary theory, you also claimed that you already have disproved evolutionary theory. But as soon as you were asked to show where you did so, you dodged and refused to say.

That speaks for itself.


What in the world are you talking about?

Round and round we go. Where we'll stop... I know. Right here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Round and round we go. Where we'll stop... I know. Right here.

We have no clue. Since you are the one running around in circles odds are we will not get anywhere.

 

[Jose Fly]

Round and round we go. Where we'll stop... I know. Right here.

If you want to stop here, that's fine. The record is quite clear.

What I wonder though is.....why would you make such a bold claim if you couldn't back it up? Was it just an empty boast that you were hoping no one would call you on? Are you naive enough that you thought you could make a claim like that, refuse to back it up, and everyone would be ok with it? Or was it just an off-hand remark that you didn't really think about, and now that you've been called out on it you can't bring yourself to admit your mistake?

Fascinating.

 

[nPeace]

If you want to stop here, that's fine. The record is quite clear.

What I wonder though is.....why would you make such a bold claim if you couldn't back it up? Was it just an empty boast that you were hoping no one would call you on? Are you naive enough that you thought you could make a claim like that, refuse to back it up, and everyone would be ok with it? Or was it just an off-hand remark that you didn't really think about, and now that you've been called out on it you can't bring yourself to admit your mistake?

Fascinating.

Wow! This coming from someone that reads a page with three paragraphs, and only sees assertions.

I don't know if you wear glasses, so I'll excuse you.

I said, the entire evolution theory is based on assumptions.
#1. a
The link provided to show transitional fossils is nothing more than drawings and a few fossils which evolutionists claim show transition.
They don't. They are based purely on assumption.

Scientists are unable to test and observe what they claim takes millions of years. Yet, we live millions of years in the future, but evolution on a macro scale cannot be seen.

Instead we see fully formed creature, come and go, just as they did when they first exploded on the scene.

There are no intermediary fossils - none were found.
One of Darwin's concerns - never found in over a century.

On Origin of the Species
Page 23
... one form is ranked as a variety of another, not because the intermediate links have actually been found, but because analogy leads the observer to suppose either that they do now somewhere exist, or may formerly have existed; and here a wide door for the entry of doubt and conjecture is opened.
(One person called this a lie. I call SHAME.)

Page 58
Natural selection, as has just been remarked, leads to divergence of character and to much extinction of the less improved and intermediate forms of life.
(Another lie it was called. SHAME.)

Page 80
... must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved...

I challenged persons here to show this to be untrue, and one person starts a merry-go-round on...

This is just the (a), part of the first....and I have only just begun.

 

[Jose Fly]

Wow! This coming from someone that reads a page with three paragraphs, and only sees assertions.

First of all, your memory is failing you. THIS is the post YOU LINKED ME TO. Most of what follows was not in that post.

Try and pay closer attention.

I said, the entire evolution theory is based on assumptions.

Good for you. As I noted earlier, anyone with access to the internet came go into a forum and post empty assertions.

If I say "The moon is made of cheese", do you believe me? Is the moon made of cheese simply because I declared it to be so? No? Now you understand why your equally empty assertions do not constitute a falsification of evolutionary theory.

#1. a
The link provided to show transitional fossils is nothing more than drawings and a few fossils which evolutionists claim show transition.
They don't. They are based purely on assumption.

Another empty assertion. But let's begin here anyways.

Would you agree that under evolutionary common descent we would expect to find "transitional fossils", with "transitional fossils" being defined as fossils that show a mixture of traits from different taxa?

 

[nPeace]

First of all, your memory is failing you. THIS is the post YOU LINKED ME TO. Most of what follows was not in that post.

Try and pay closer attention.


Good for you. As I noted earlier, anyone with access to the internet came go into a forum and post empty assertions.

If I say "The moon is made of cheese", do you believe me? Is the moon made of cheese simply because I declared it to be so? No? Now you understand why your equally empty assertions do not constitute a falsification of evolutionary theory.


Another empty assertion. But let's begin here anyways.

Would you agree that under evolutionary common descent we would expect to find "transitional fossils", with "transitional fossils" being defined as fossils that show a mixture of traits from different taxa?

Please show me why the above are empty assertions.

I could simply like you just say, I don't understand a thread of what you just said because it sounds like pure rubbish... but I won't.
So please don't just dismiss my post without giving an adequate reason, and then badger me with your questions.

 

[Jose Fly]

Please show me why the above are empty assertions.

An "empty assertion" is defined as something stated without demonstration. You asserted that "the entire evolutionary theory is based on assumptions", and left it at that. You did not demonstrate how that is so.

I could simply like you just say, I don't understand a thread of what you just said because it sounds like pure rubbish... but I won't.
So please don't just dismiss my post without giving an adequate reason, and then badger me with your questions.

You made some assertions about "transitional fossils". So again, would you agree that under evolutionary common descent we would expect to find "transitional fossils", with "transitional fossils" being defined as fossils that show a mixture of traits from different taxa?

 

[nPeace]

An "empty assertion" is defined as something stated without demonstration. You asserted that "the entire evolutionary theory is based on assumptions", and left it at that. You did not demonstrate how that is so.


You made some assertions about "transitional fossils". So again, would you agree that under evolutionary common descent we would expect to find "transitional fossils", with "transitional fossils" being defined as fossils that show a mixture of traits from different taxa?

Suit yourself.

 

[Jose Fly]

Suit yourself.

Um......what?

You've made a series of assertions about "transitional fossils". Do you even know what the term "transitional fossils" means? If so, please post what that term means to you.

 

[nPeace]

Um......what?

You've made a series of assertions about "transitional fossils". Do you even know what the term "transitional fossils" means? If so, please post what that term means to you.

Please point out the exact assertions.... and explain why it's an assertion.

 

[Jose Fly]

Please point out the exact assertions.... and explain why it's an assertion.

"the entire evolution theory is based on assumptions."

"They [transitional fossils] are based purely on assumption."

"There are no intermediary fossils - none were found"

Those are all statements made without demonstrating them to be true.

Now that I've answered your request, how about you actually do the same? Do you even know what the term "transitional fossil" means? If so, please post what that term means to you.

 

[nPeace]

"the entire evolution theory is based on assumptions."

"They [transitional fossils] are based purely on assumption."

"There are no intermediary fossils - none were found"

Those are all statements made without demonstrating them to be true.

Now that I've answered your request, how about you actually do the same? Do you even know what the term "transitional fossil" means? If so, please post what that term means to you.

I did attempt to show it to be true.
Perhaps if you stop trying to play master, and deal with the other parts of my post, you would at least attempt to show what I said to be wrong.

I am also not going to answer the question which you are asking in your attempt at demeaning - another distraction.

 

[Jose Fly]

I did attempt to show it to be true.

Then you failed. You did not name any assumptions, nor did you take even one specimen and describe the assumptions related to it being a "transitional". You merely said "they are based purely on assumption" and left it at that.

That's no different than me saying "The moon is made of cheese".

Perhaps if you stop trying to play master, and deal with the other parts of my post, you would at least attempt to show what I said to be wrong.

Sure, as soon as we establish what is and isn't expected under evolutionary theory.

I am also not going to answer the question which you are asking in your attempt at demeaning - another distraction.

So you make all sorts of assertions about "transitional fossils", but you refuse to even say what a "transitional fossil" is? How does that make any sense at all? It's like....

"There are no examples of X!!!"

What is X?

"I don't have to answer your questions!"​

Like I said, you're acting more like a guilty defendant on the stand than a participant in an open discussion.

 

[nPeace]

Then you failed. You did not name any assumptions, nor did you take even one specimen and describe the assumptions related to it being a "transitional". You merely said "they are based purely on assumption" and left it at that.

That's no different than me saying "The moon is made of cheese".


Sure, as soon as we establish what is and isn't expected under evolutionary theory.


So you make all sorts of assertions about "transitional fossils", but you refuse to even say what a "transitional fossil" is? How does that make any sense at all? It's like....

"There are no examples of X!!!"

What is X?

"I don't have to answer your questions!"​

Like I said, you're acting more like a guilty defendant on the stand than a participant in an open discussion.

Was it not explained in Darwin's Origin of the Species, what an intermediate, or transitional is?

 

[Jose Fly]

Was it not explained in Darwin's Origin of the Species, what an intermediate, or transitional is?

*sigh*

I've already offered one definition (a fossil with a mixture of traits from different taxa) and you ignored that. Do you agree with it, or do you have a different definition.

I hope you understand how frustrating this is for me. All you had to do was either agree with the definition I gave or provide your own. In a true conversation, that sort of thing is trivially easy. You on the other hand, have made it unnecessarily difficult.

 

[nPeace]

*sigh*

I've already offered one definition (a fossil with a mixture of traits from different taxa) and you ignored that. Do you agree with it, or do you have a different definition.

I hope you understand how frustrating this is for me. All you had to do was either agree with the definition I gave or provide your own. In a true conversation, that sort of thing is trivially easy. You've on the other hand, have made it unnecessarily difficult.

I am not here to support, as I said before, evidence gathered to prop a series of ideas.

I used information from the first idea, and showed that it failed after 150 years.
According to the theory, the natural selection would have caused extinction of less improved and intermediate forms of life - which would have been more abundantly found in the fossil record - if the theory were true.

So, in the earth should abound with intermediates.

If you are saying that this refers to "a fossil with a mixture of traits from different taxa", then please mention what those traits are. If they are fossilized traits, i.e. characteristics in the fossil - go right ahead. ...and define trait.
As far as I know, one can only determine traits from assumptions... unless you have something else in mind to what I am thinking.

When they found Archaeopteryx they were thinking they found a missing link between dinosaur and bird, until they had to admit it was a bird.

So, please, I await your evidence.

 

[Jose Fly]

I used information from the first idea, and showed that it failed after 150 years.

No, you haven't shown anything. You've made a series of empty assertions and dodged every attempt to get you to back them up.

According to the theory, the natural selection would have caused extinction of less improved and intermediate forms of life - which would have been more abundantly found in the fossil record - if the theory were true.

So, in the earth should abound with intermediates.

And you were provided with numerous examples of exactly that. Your only response was to collectively wave them away by declaring them all to be "based on assumption" without naming those assumptions or directly addressing even one specimen.

If you honestly think that's a valid argument, I'll let that speak for itself.

If you are saying that this refers to "a fossil with a mixture of traits from different taxa", then please mention what those traits are. If they are fossilized traits, i.e. characteristics in the fossil - go right ahead. ...and define trait.

Ok. If humans share a common ancestry with other primates, do you agree that we should expect to find fossils that show a mixture of human and primitive primate traits?

As far as I know, one can only determine traits from assumptions... unless you have something else in mind to what I am thinking.

Traits are just the characteristics evident in the fossils themselves. For example, the cranial capacity, the shape of fingers, or the orientation of the skull relative to the spine are all "traits".

When they found Archaeopteryx they were thinking they found a missing link between dinosaur and bird, until they had to admit it was a bird.

Archaeopteryx is a very good transitional fossil. It has both avian and reptilian traits, which I think we agree is exactly what evolutionary theory says we should find.

 

[nPeace]

Ok. If humans share a common ancestry with other primates, do you agree that we should expect to find fossils that show a mixture of human and primitive primate traits?


Traits are just the characteristics evident in the fossils themselves. For example, the cranial capacity, the shape of fingers, or the orientation of the skull relative to the spine are all "traits".


Archaeopteryx is a very good transitional fossil. It has both avian and reptilian traits, which I think we agree is exactly what evolutionary theory says we should find.

If you start with assumptions, I believe it's possible to end with assumptions, on the previous assumptions.
Give me your best example, that'a all I asked for. Why should I have to go through an entire page of drawings and images looking for what you call evidence.

Am I asking too much?

 

[Jose Fly]

If you start with assumptions, I believe it's possible to end with assumptions, on the previous assumptions.
Give me your best example, that'a all I asked for. Why should I have to go through an entire page of drawings and images looking for what you call evidence.

Am I asking too much?

Look, I've been around this tree with creationists many times before. Based on that experience, I know that unless there is an agreed to definition for "transitional fossil", it'll just be me providing and describing examples, followed by the creationist saying "Nuh uh, that's not a transitional".

So all we have to do is agree on what constitutes a "transitional fossil". I've provided my definition and asked if you agree to it. All you have to do is say that you either agree with it, or if you don't, provide your own definition.

Can you do that? I mean, if you're going to go around declaring that there aren't any transitional fossils, one would think you know what a "transitional fossil" is, right?

 

[nPeace]

Look, I've been around this tree with creationists many times before. Based on that experience, I know that unless there is an agreed to definition for "transitional fossil", it'll just be me providing and describing examples, followed by the creationist saying "Nuh uh, that's not a transitional".

So all we have to do is agree on what constitutes a "transitional fossil". I've provided my definition and asked if you agree to it. All you have to do is say that you either agree with it, or if you don't, provide your own definition.

Can you do that? I mean, if you're going to go around declaring that there aren't any transitional fossils, one would think you know what a "transitional fossil" is, right?

You explained what a transactional is right? What is the problem then?

How would you like me to respond to you this way, "Well unless you accept that this scripture says ABC, then I can't show you Z?
I hate when people do that. What is the game here? Are you afraid to present evidence?
If it's so true, why should you care if people refuse to accept it after you show it?