There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Subduction Zone]

I asked a question, was it too difficult?

No, you were trying to mislead others. You were not asking honest questions. Certain of your beliefs are wrong. If you want to learn how we know that I have no trouble starting you on the pathway to knowledge. But trying to ask "gotcha questions" when one is illiterate about the concept being discussed is not an honest or honorable way to debate.

 

[Tony B]

That's all that post required. Anyone who understands science and evolution knows you're using old creationist talking points from over 50 years ago that have been debunked many times over.

They're all listed here:

An Index to Creationist Claims

By the way, can you explain how the following unsubstantiated source free statement is substantiated by the scientific method?

'We do not see creatures in various stages of completion. In the past, according to evolutionary theory, there were half-birds, half-dogs, etc. We see nothing like that now.'

Now I may not be the scientific genius you are, but I would put this in the category of 'marking your own homework'. Basically this should be clarified with the following caveat. 'This statement is true because the theory I support says it is, no further evidence required', call me Mr Picky but that doesn't sound very sciencey to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just picked one;

CB925: Incomplete creatures

I mean seriously? where are all the missing links? where is the man ape? you keep looking for him but you can never find him. Why are fossils of mammals found below and alongside Dinosaurs etc etc, I could go on. This hilarious 'debunking' includes aquatic snakes, newsflash, some snakes can swim, it doesn't prove evolution at all. Yes, some fish can live for short duration out of water, it doesn't prove fish became anything else, it's speciation and adaption, you're definitely not a skeptic thinker at all are you.

There you go being less than honest again. You do not know enough to even have the ability to ask proper questions. The theory of evolution does not rely on fossil evidence. Darwin did not use fossils at all when he wrote his theory. We know that he fossil record is very incomplete so a complete record is not expected.

Let's take your life as an example. You have endless evidence that you are you. I know that you have pictures of you at various ages. We all have those. If you are fairly young you even have video of quite a few events in your life. Does the lack of an endless video of your life disprove that you are you? That is what you appear to be demanding for evolution.

So of course there are "missing links". They were predicted from the start since even Darwin knew that the fossil record is incomplete. What was predicted was that the fossil record would follow certain rules. And if those rules are broken that would refute the theory of evolution. In other words it is possible for every new fossil find to refute the theory of evolution, but to date they do not. They all support the theory of evolution. That is why the fossil record is strong evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, can you explain how the following unsubstantiated source free statement is substantiated by the scientific method?

'We do not see creatures in various stages of completion. In the past, according to evolutionary theory, there were half-birds, half-dogs, etc. We see nothing like that now.'

Now I may not be the scientific genius you are, but I would put this in the category of 'marking your own homework'. Basically this should be clarified with the following caveat. 'This statement is true because the theory I support says it is, no further evidence required', call me Mr Picky but that doesn't sound very sciencey to me.

That quote is a strawman. It is inaccurate. I cannot support it since as written it is wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I definitely understand it, and I definitely understand how evolution is so full of holes it gives a Swiss cheese a run for it's money, why don't you just call yourself the 'Master of the Unsubstantiated Statement', it's far more realistic than 'Skeptic Thinker'.

Then you should post something that indicates you understand it.
So far, you haven't.

Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. That is a demonstrable fact. The theory of evolution explains that fact. It is the backbone of modern biology. I.e. It doesn't work without out.
Like how gravity is a fact and gravitational theory explains the fact.
Or like how the existence of germs is a fact, and the germ theory of disease explains that fact.

 

[Tony B]

No, you were trying to mislead others. You were not asking honest questions. Certain of your beliefs are wrong. If you want to learn how we know that I have no trouble starting you on the pathway to knowledge. But trying to ask "gotcha questions" when one is illiterate about the concept being discussed is not an honest or honorable way to debate.

Lets look at the question of honesty shall we. You asserted that I did not understand what Ioannidis asserted in his paper, so I asked you to prove that assertion, which you basically ignored, because obviously you can't, it's very obvious what the paper refers to. So there was no attempt to mislead by myself. You keep making baseless assertions about me, and my alleged comprehension on things, yet you cannot substantiate those claims, because you simply do not know, it's just a petty insult. Yet again you accuse me of being 'illiterate', well you have a the golden opportunity to prove that with your previous claim, but you won't, because you can't. There's only person being dishonest and dishonourable here, and it clearly isn't me as I've just explained.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I just picked one;

CB925: Incomplete creatures

I mean seriously? where are all the missing links? where is the man ape? you keep looking for him but you can never find him. Why are fossils of mammals found below and alongside Dinosaurs etc etc, I could go on. This hilarious 'debunking' includes aquatic snakes, newsflash, some snakes can swim, it doesn't prove evolution at all. Yes, some fish can live for short duration out of water, it doesn't prove fish became anything else, it's speciation and adaption, you're definitely not a skeptic thinker at all are you.

Yes, that is how bad the arguments you are sharing here are to those who understand evolution.

Anyone yelling "where are the missing links" is a person who doesn't understand what they're talking about.

Humans are apes.

The rest of what you said is nonsensical and again betrays a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just picked one;

CB925: Incomplete creatures

I mean seriously? where are all the missing links? where is the man ape? you keep looking for him but you can never find him. Why are fossils of mammals found below and alongside Dinosaurs etc etc, I could go on. This hilarious 'debunking' includes aquatic snakes, newsflash, some snakes can swim, it doesn't prove evolution at all. Yes, some fish can live for short duration out of water, it doesn't prove fish became anything else, it's speciation and adaption, you're definitely not a skeptic thinker at all are you.

I have to answer this one again. It was a fractally wrong post. You proved that you do not understand evolution once again. You do not seem to realize that you are an ape. Your demand to see a "man ape" would be no different from you demanding to see a "mallard duck".

Please answer this question:

Where is the missing link between mallards and ducks?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lets look at the question of honesty shall we. You asserted that I did not understand what Ioannidis asserted in his paper, so I asked you to prove that assertion, which you basically ignored, because obviously you can't, it's very obvious what the paper refers to. So there was no attempt to mislead by myself. You keep making baseless assertions about me, and my alleged comprehension on things, yet you cannot substantiate those claims, because you simply do not know, it's just a petty insult. Yet again you accuse me of being 'illiterate', well you have a the golden opportunity to prove that with your previous claim, but you won't, because you can't. There's only person being dishonest and dishonourable here, and it clearly isn't me as I've just explained.

No, that was a challenge to you. You had already demonstrated that you do not understand how science is done. If you want to post a challenge you need to post an honest one.

 

[Tony B]

Then you should post something that indicates you understand it.
So far, you haven't.

Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

How much time?

That is a demonstrable fact.

So demonstrate how apes became men? that's the best example you could use, I'll wait.

The theory of evolution explains that fact.

It's not a fact, because you cannot demonstrate it and there is no evidence for it, it's literally the opposite of what you claim.

It is the backbone of modern biology. I.e. It doesn't work without out.

Biology works absolutely fine without evolution, explain why it doesn't?

Like how gravity is a fact and gravitational theory explains the fact.

That's a non-sequitir and a really bad example, because we can witness gravity in action, we can't witness evolution because it doesn't exist.

Or like how the existence of germs is a fact, and the germ theory of disease explains that fact.

How can germs be a fact if it's called germ theory? it's called germ theory for a reason, and it's definitely not a proven fact, and there is a strong competing theory (this was discarded because its not profitable) and Louise Pasteur by the way was a fraud who fixed his experiments and was exposed by a relative after his death, when his notes were released and scrutinised.

 

[Tony B]

I have to answer this one again. It was a fractally wrong post. You proved that you do not understand evolution once again. You do not seem to realize that you are an ape. Your demand to see a "man ape" would be no different from you demanding to see a "mallard duck".

Men are not apes, that is absurd, and no-one actually claims as such, even your own misguided side recognise this.

How humans and apes are different, and why it matters

Please answer this question:

Where is the missing link between mallards and ducks?

That's a strawman, debate honestly or not at all.

 

[Tony B]

No, that was a challenge to you. You had already demonstrated that you do not understand how science is done. If you want to post a challenge you need to post an honest one.

I asked you a question and that was a challenge to me? keep digging fella....

 

[Tony B]

No, that was a challenge to you. You had already demonstrated that you do not understand how science is done. If you want to post a challenge you need to post an honest one.

I asked you a question and that was a challenge to me? keep digging fella....

There you go being less than honest again. You do not know enough to even have the ability to ask proper questions. The theory of evolution does not rely on fossil evidence. Darwin did not use fossils at all when he wrote his theory. We know that he fossil record is very incomplete so a complete record is not expected..

Oh I see, so no evidence required then? Yes it does require fossil evidence if you want to prove your theory, and there is none, and this is widely recognised as a serious flaw in the theory, so you can keep lying, it doesn't change the truth.

Let's take your life as an example. You have endless evidence that you are you. I know that you have pictures of you at various ages. We all have those. If you are fairly young you even have video of quite a few events in your life. Does the lack of an endless video of your life disprove that you are you? That is what you appear to be demanding for evolution.

No, because I am a man, and there is a huge fossil record of men, do you see how your logic is noticeable by its absence?

So of course there are "missing links". They were predicted from the start since even Darwin knew that the fossil record is incomplete. What was predicted was that the fossil record would follow certain rules. And if those rules are broken that would refute the theory of evolution. In other words it is possible for every new fossil find to refute the theory of evolution, but to date they do not. They all support the theory of evolution. That is why the fossil record is strong evidence for the theory of evolution.

Riiight...so the absence of a fossil record proves the theory? and you're the 'sciencey' guy? seriously

 

[Subduction Zone]

How much time?

It depends upon how much evolution one is talking about. We have observed speciation over just tens of years at times. Here is your problem. You do not even know what evolution is so you will not understand speciation.

So demonstrate how apes became men? that's the best example you could use, I'll wait.

It has been demonstrated. And remember, you never stopped being an ape. So if you make a complaint when you see a series of fossils that "Lucy is still an ape" or other such claims would simply be you admitting that you are wrong.

It's not a fact, because you cannot demonstrate it and there is no evidence for it, it's literally the opposite of what you claim.

Sorry, it is a fact. The use of the ostrich defense does not negate that.

Biology works absolutely fine without evolution, explain why it doesn't?

No, you need to show how it would work fine without evolution. You tried to refute a claim with a bogus counter claim. That is not how one debates, especially when it comes to a topic that you do not understand.

That's a non-sequitir and a really bad example, because we can witness gravity in action, we can't witness evolution because it doesn't exist.

We can observe evolution in action. You do not seem to understand that. And there are all sorts of different "levels" of gravity. Watching a rock fall is evidence for gravity. You would agree with that. But since you do not understand gravity you will not understand how that is evidence for planetary motion, much less evidence for why we need to apply General relativity to satellites so that GPS works.

How can germs be a fact if it's called germ theory? it's called germ theory for a reason, and it's definitely not a proven fact, and there is a strong competing theory (this was discarded because its not profitable) and Louise Pasteur by the way was a fraud who fixed his experiments and was exposed by a relative after his death, when his notes were released and scrutinised.

Here is where you demonstrate that you do not know what a scientific theory is. You are using the colloquial definition for "theory" and in a scientific discussion that is wrong. In the sciences a theory is as good as it gets. In the sciences a theory if anything outranks a law. Scientific theories explain facts. The germ theory of diseases explains germs. The theory of gravity explains gravity. That is why it supplants the Law of Gravity. It is more thorough. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I asked you a question and that was a challenge to me? keep digging fella....

No, you were given a challenge and you ran away. Do not make false claims about others.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How much time?

Generations

So demonstrate how apes became men? that's the best example you could use, I'll wait.

Humans are apes.

It's not a fact, because you cannot demonstrate it and there is no evidence for it, it's literally the opposite of what you claim.

It's been demonstrated many times over by multiple independent groups of scientists across the world, spanning multiple scientific fields over the last 150+ years. Evolution is the most well-evidenced scientific theory in existence. Genetics alone demonstrates it.

Biology works absolutely fine without evolution, explain why it doesn't?

Biology and evolution of life science - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The relevance of evolution

evolution.berkeley.edu

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution - Science and Creationism - NCBI Bookshelf

That's a non-sequitir and a really bad example, because we can witness gravity in action, we can't witness evolution because it doesn't exist.

Nope, it's right on point about what scientific theories are. You just don't seem to understand it, despite my attempt to explain it.

We can see evolution in action as well.

How can germs be a fact if it's called germ theory? it's called germ theory for a reason, and it's definitely not a proven fact, and there is a strong competing theory (this was discarded because its not profitable) and Louise Pasteur by the way was a fraud who fixed his experiments and was exposed by a relative after his death, when his notes were released and scrutinised.

I just explained it to you.

Try reading it all again, this time with an attempt to understand it.

The existence of germs are a fact. Germ theory of disease explains how they operate and interact with our bodies and the mechanisms involved.
Evolution is a fact of life. The theory of evolution explain how it operates, and the mechanisms involved.
The existence of gravity is a fact. Gravitational theory explains how it operates, and the mechanisms involved.

There are no viable competing theories to the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I asked you a question and that was a challenge to me? keep digging fella....

Asked and answered.

Oh I see, so no evidence required then? Yes it does require fossil evidence if you want to prove your theory, and there is none, and this is widely recognised as a serious flaw in the theory, so you can keep lying, it doesn't change the truth.

No, I am more than willing to provide evidence, but you do not even understand the concept of evidence. I need to remind you that you came totally unarmed to this discussion which is why you are easily shown to be wrong. You once again demonstrated that you do not even understand how the sciences work. The sciences are evidence based "proof" is a mathematical concept. I offered to help you with the basics but you ran away.

No, because I am a man, and there is a huge fossil record of men, do you see how your logic is noticeable by its absence?

If you claim to be a man, then you are claiming to be an ape. And I need to remind you that to date you have been too afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence. You do not get to demand evidence if you refuse to understand the concept of evidence.

Riiight...so the absence of a fossil record proves the theory? and you're the 'sciencey' guy? seriously

That is not what I said. You are not arguing honestly.

Once again, you do not even understand the concept of evidence. Are you willing to learn? It does no good at all to provide evidence to a person that is too afraid to even learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Men are not apes, that is absurd, and no-one actually claims as such, even your own misguided side recognise this.

How humans and apes are different, and why it matters

That's a strawman, debate honestly or not at all.

Humans are great apes.

Introduction to Human Evolution

humanorigins.si.edu

Frequently Asked Questions

humanorigins.si.edu

Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Like

The 13-million-year-old infant skull may have resembled a baby gibbon

www.scientificamerican.com

Humans and other Great Apes

Humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes.

australian.museum

Genetics

humanorigins.si.edu

 

[Subduction Zone]

Men are not apes, that is absurd, and no-one actually claims as such, even your own misguided side recognise this.

How humans and apes are different, and why it matters

LOL! If you want to base your argument on that article you have admitted that evolution is real. Once again, you linked an article that you either did not either read. He points out in that article that people are the product of evolution. He just does not like the term "ape". He is factually wrong in that dislike. He does not represent the mainstream with that opinion. He does not point to a time when men stopped "being apes".

That's a strawman, debate honestly or not at all.

Prove that it is a strawman argument. I understand evolution. You clearly do not. So how are you going to support that claim?

You do not get to just say "strawman". You have to be read to defend that claim.

Once again, you do not even understand the basics of science. I can help you with that. Are you willing to learn?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Humans are great apes.

I can't believe how gullible I was to believe in the creation myth while I was a Christian. In my opinion, I think it is more reasonable to believe the theory of evolution as a logical explanation for the origin of mankind than to believe that the biblical god created a man from dirt, breathed air into his nostrils and made him alive, and then created a woman from this man's rib. I also think evolution is more reasonable to accept than to believe that a talking serpent cunningly deceived the woman, who then deceived the man, into disobeying this god's command to them not to eat forbidden fruit from a magical tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or that the rest of humanity descended from this man and woman. In comparison to this biblical story, believing that human beings evolved from a primate ancestor doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It seems ridiculous to me now that I once believed the creation myth.