Quote:

Not at all. I expect you to make a rational choice based on evidence. Sicentists dont make such claims without good reason. Could they be wrong? Sure, but you havent shown in any way that they are wrong; you've just proven that you don't understand the science involved, that's all.



I understand, they saw something in common between all of these animals. I see those things in common too, and it would almost look convincing. Except looking at the nice neat line that the BBC presents, between two of the fossils there's a jump in size. The whale like creature is 7x bigger than ambulocetus. Furthermore, ambulocetus still has fully formed legs. You may as well put a puppy in front of my face and compare it to a dolphin and then ask me, "Why can't you just see the obvious truth." The obvious truth is that maybe they have a few things in common, but this entire fossil looks like a joke upon closer examination.

I may not be a scientist, but when an animal loses legs, reduces other legs, grows fins, becomes exponentially larger without leaving a trace, I have to ask why you're so convinced.

But more to the point, if your best argument against what I'm saying here is basically a drawn out version of, "Well, don't you believe the scientists? I mean, c'mon! Scientists!" then its kind of hard to have an actual discussion.

Quote:

Do you have any idea what "derived" means?



Yes, it means if the fossils make a good mosaic, you can use them as quick visual example in place of actual evidence. Oh yeah, some of them don't fit together very well, so let's resize them. And then....let's hope no one notices the huge morphological change between two of those fossils. Because their skulls have similar shapes, so that's what matters.

Quote:

You can't get usable DNA material from most fossils, so what is your comment related to?



But if you knew animals along the lines of hippos and camels had to be in the lineage (probably as a seperate branch), you would expect this would be reflected in the fossil evidence. There's no link between the whale's fossil ancestors, and what we see in modern biology and genetics. In other words, the line that includes hippos and camels and such, does not include whales.

Quote:

Since microevolution is good evidence in favor of macroevolution, I think its relevant.



Creationists don't worry about antibiotic resistance. Its only proof of evolution in the mind of an evolutionist. In fact, the unwillingness of any amateur evolutionist to let go of microbial resistance is rather telling of their complete lack of understanding of genetics, and the fact that they really have nothing.

Quote:

Yeah, cartoons aren't at all relevant here, since we are talking about a goofy fictional past where men and dinosaurs were living together. WilLLlllMmmmAAA!!



I've asked the question about three times now and have yet to receive an answer. Why would dinosaurs and man not have been able to coexist, and can you give me a reason why without making some kind of pop-culture reference?

Quote:

First it's, "it's based upon assumptions", then "it's pseudoscience", then it's "your going off topic", now it's "you're not understanding the bible on purpose", what's next?



Well, most of these aren't universal arguments. If you said, "Antibiotic resistance proves evolution," and I responded with, "You just don't understand the bible," it would hardly apply.

Quote:

It's obvious you don't even fully read my posts ... I already made clear I was talking about spiritual blindness as well. Metaphorical or not, that doesn't correct the error made in the reasoning.



Fair enough, it just didn't sound that way.

Quote:

What if we would say that there are more white scientists than black scientists and that this thus makes us superior scientists? Yes, this makes just as little sense as your argument. It's not quantity, but quality that counts. Man, you could even come up with an argument that scientists who's favorite color is blue are more often right than scientists who's favorite color is red, it still doesn't make them superior scientists because of their favorite color, even if it's based upon 'facts' ...




And...so when your evolutionists friends do this, its ok?

Quote:

Where's your evidence for A: the existence of your God then and



What does God have to do with evolution or abiogenesis? Well, I guess I can see what that has to do with abiogenesis. But abiogenesis doesn't magically become possible just because I can't prove God exists.

Quote:

B: the proof that scientists are 'guessing with no proof at all'.



It was just a stab. I think they're using 'evidence', I just think the evidence can be interpreted differently. I critique the evidence and the only answer I get is that I'm wrong because scientists are always right.

Quote:

Now, tell me why you believe in God WITHOUT any evidence...



That assumes I believe there is no evidence. I'm not a fideist or however you spell it.

Quote:

Your faith is based upon faith, isn't it? In other words you accept it no matter what... Why?



I accept God no matter what (even if I had conclusive evidence that the bible got creation all wrong) for the same reason you reject God no matter what.

You have no evidence that God doesn't exist. No proof that there is no God. So why should I even think your position is more valid than mine?

Quote:

Your evidence is none-existent, so why don't you focus on that, instead of trying to come up with 'things evolution can't explain'?



"Your critique of evolution is making me uncomfortable, let's talk about what you believe." That's why.

And because I see no reason to. Is there anything I can say to you to make you accept Jesus as your savior? Ok, then. I don't feel the need to talk about it.

Quote:

Evolution can't explain everything, nobody claimed this.



If your defense of evolution is that it can't explain everything, that's pretty weak. I should use that for God from now on. I don't think I would get very far with that one.

Quote:

Does this make your belief without proof or logic, but only one big assumption more true? Lol, no, not at all. Where's the logic, eey?



I never said evolution being false proves God exists. This sounds suspiciously like projection. But maybe I'm projecting my own projection.

But seriously. If evolution is true, I'll know God exists. If evolution is false, I'll know God exists, and that He's not cruel, wasteful, and weak. Either way, my faith remains untested.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/04/06 06:40.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."