Quote:

It must be me, but that's not what I read in that text. Furthermore they only said it has features of both species families, doesn't this simply indicate a species in TRANSITION? I think you've ripped this out of it's context too.



"which, it seems, had the head of a primitive cetacean (as indicated by the ear region)"

"All the postcranial [meaning roughly 'after skull'] bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and it is likely that they would have been thought of as some primitive terrestrial artiodactyl [goat-like animal or even toed ungulate] if they had been found without their skulls."

In other words, you could call them whales based on their middle ear. Or you could call them land animals based on JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING.

Quote:

doesn't this simply indicate a species in TRANSITION?



Ok, that's a belief in the unseen. We haven't seen a bear become a whale, or any transition along those lines, so why wouldn't that suggest that it doesn't happen?

Quote:

I think you've ripped this out of it's context too.



Well unless the next sentence is something like "...Just kidding! We just wanted to write that so that IDers could take us out of context." Or something that completely contradicts what they wrote.

You could look it up.

Quote:

Look at present human species and compare their length, you will see that it can vary a lot



We don't vary from 5 feet to 50 feet, though.

Quote:

so in this case 'size doesn't really matter'



Why don't we find any transitions somewhere between the 7 and 70 feet or 2 and 21 meters? Why don't we find animals that look like ambulocetus but with reduced legs? Or like basilosaurus, but with vestigial legs left over from when they were ambulocetus.

Quote:

Off course I'll be happy to admit that the differences are big, but from the perspective of evolution it's not more than logical considering the animals there habitat at that time.



No offense, but I can't make out what you're saying here.

Quote:

Yep, incomplete fossils do give scientists a hard time, but that's why they look at what IS available, not what's missing and start guessing around.



I've already shown you that this isn't true. They constantly guess what animals look like (based on their evolutionary presupposition) which inevitably leads to embarrassment. Like say thinking pakicetus was a water-like animal when in fact it looks like some kind of hyena type thing.

Quote:

If e.g. I would infact have a probe implanted we could simply find out by searching



A probe doesn't have to stay in the butt.

But anyway, if their response was to question my belief in God, instead of proving there was a probe, then I would say my example still stands.

Knowing people nowadays, I still wouldn't believe it if there was a device in their butt because people make a living putting devices in their butt.

Let's make another conversation to illustrate my point. Let's say someone is trying to prove the existence of alien spacecraft in earth's atmosphere.

"I know there are alien spacecraft in the sky."

"How do you know that?"

"Well, if there were alien spacecraft in the sky, wouldn't we see lights in the sky?"

"Of course, assuming the spacecraft have lights on them."

"Ok, then. There are lights in the sky right now, I've just proved there are spacecraft."

"I see stars and what appears to be an airplane."

"How can you argue with me? There are lights aren't there?!"

Kind of a ridiculous example, but sufficiently ridiculous to make the fallacy of "ad ridiculum".

Quote:

research and observations -> that's science. You don't except the evidence that this research would give



I really do believe there was a pakicetus animal, and a basilosaurus, and an ambulocetus. I don't believe the unobservable 'theory' that they changed into each other. No one saw it, you can't prove it, so pardon me if I don't believe it. Especially when I think there are inconsistencies, gaps, or ridiculous claims made in the story (like say the middle ear proves a hyena turned into a whale).

Quote:

but on the other hand you do believe in your God for which you've got no evidence at all.



Hm. I won't go into the evidence too much in this thread, but I suppose the main reason I believe in God isn't because I think there's irrefutable evidence. I have a consciousness of God. To me, the choice isn't whether or not to believe He exists. Its whether or not I'm going to reject Him in favor of living the life my sinful nature wants to live. Frankly, while some sinful things are extremely tempting, I'd much rather forgo them in favor of allowing God to use my life to bring glory to Him (this forum notwithstanding ).

Since you'll never be able to prove to me that He doesn't exist, we'll have to agree to disagree on God. Either way, since God's existence doesn't disprove evolution, and since evolution doesn't disprove God's existence. I don't see how it matters. But! I'm starting to get into the idea of apologetics, so if you want to discuss my belief in God and whether or not its rational or plausible, then feel free to start a new thread. I won't avoid the subject in a thread based around God.

Quote:

Evolution theory -> evidence in favor of the evolution theory has been found.



But evidence has been found that contradicts evolution. So I submit that if ALL the evidence doesn't line up with evolution, it can't be a reasonable explanation for reality.

Quote:

but you do believe something when there 0 evidence for it. That's S T R A N G E.



We should start a thread on this, because I'd like you to answer this question. Do you believe that God does not exist?

Quote:

When looking for similarities, it's the similarities you'll be looking for. What's inconsistent in this method?



Nothing, its a good way to find out what traits are found in common with different animals. But when you focus on the ear and teeth of an animal that has nothing else in common with an animal, that's kind of stupid. That's what they do with pakicetus. I can understand why they thought it was a whale ancestor when they ONLY had a skull. But once they found the rest of the body and realized it was a running land mammal, but they held onto it, that was just plain stupid.

Quote:

It's not different, and thus it's hard to tell wether or not they are related, it's different as in that's where the similarities can not be found and too much of the species has evolved/changed already.



Which makes evolution a pseudoscience. What animals have in common proves evolution. When they look nothing like each other, its because of evolution.

Quote:

When will people get it through their heads that evolution is holy. Reality is holy. Fiction is holy.



If evolution is holy, then that means its become a religion for you. You will never listen to any evidence to the contrary because 'change over time' has become your deity. The rest of what you said is a parallel to some neo-pagan religion.

Quote:

You are surrounded by something greater than the word God can even begin to define.



Nature will eventually wind down, and pass away into a dark motionless nothing. That doesn't sound any better than the creator of nature.

Quote:

The fabric of existence, the laws of nature, the love and spark of life in people and the world around us, this is a living, throbbing, wonderful place and many bright people call this beautiful .



It is beautiful, and some people would rather give credit to the creator than the creation. But! Since this isn't about religion...I have to ask. What does it matter if the creation is beautiful? How does that prove evolution? Unless your point is just to express the fact that you don't understand why people believe in something better than a universe that ultimately won't matter.

Quote:

It's so stupid, this bickering about creationism, trying to model the basis of life from a 2000 year old document.



No, let's model it around a 147 year old 'document'.

Much of the bible is older than 2000 years anyway.

Quote:

Our curiousity and inquisitiveness are our best gift, we reach out and search the heavens and the genome and down to the subatomic particles, to abstract quantum and string theories, to alternate realities in fiction and computing machines, we are doing our service to the forces (god if you want) which brought us into this glorious universe.



Yes, which is why early theistic scientists said, "Science brings man closer to God." Science is a good thing.

Quote:

Creationism is cheap, it's tacky.



Good point. How could anyone believe creation if its cheap and tacky? What astounding wisdom.

Quote:

Because it is a quick and stupid answer to the most glorious question we have.



Evolution says a hyena turned into a whale, because its middle ear is shaped similarly. But creation is stupid.

Quote:

Sadly, some people are incapable of appreciating wonder.



I'm going to quote from the new issue of National Geographic that I just got the other day.

"But evolution doesn't evolve towards anything; it's a messy affair, full of diversity and dead ends."

Jennifer Ackerman, National Geographic, July 2006, "The Downside of Upright", Page 142

In other words, its a senseless method of acheiving the best possible result of random tinkering. Its fueled by destruction of the weak in favor of the strong, and its 'messy.'

Hardly what I would call beautiful. I appreciate the beauty that we can see in the world, not fairy tales we come up with so that atheists can have their own creation myth.

Quote:

Absolutely and I really don't get why people can't appreciate and worship this beauty,



Man, you guys have said more about your beliefs than I could have accused you of. For you 'science' and nature is a god. You've basically just stated something that parallels the wiccan belief.

Your beliefs aren't founded on science, they're founded on religious...things.

No one contests that these fossilized animals exist. We just don't jump the gun and say that they turned into each other. You can't show me that they did, so we're not rejecting science, we're rejecting your religious beliefs. That's all.

Quote:

that is based on pure assumptions without any proofs at all.



Creationism is just a rejection of the assumptions. We believe that animals do exist, and that they started existing at some point. Evolution is the assumption. But we're running around in circles here, stating our beliefs and not much else. I just didn't want anyone to think there was a 'confession by silence' or something like that.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/06/06 23:29.
"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."