His reply came a couple of days later:Links? See http://www.talkorigins.org. As for the details:E-Mail: [email protected]
Comments: you say that there are no huge gaps in the fossil record. i would like to hear of some of these fillers. specifically in land mammal to sea mammal evolution, unicellular to multicellular, evidence that suggests that folds in skin(i.e. scales)can turn into extremely complex feathers(which are more similar to HAIR in construction, including follicles, growth, etc), and evidence(not just good old archeopteryx) of transitional fossils from dinosaurs to birds. website links are just fine. even more so, a refutation of irreducibly complex system attacks.
please reply quickly.
thxYour attitude is that of "make me understand against my own will, or I will declare victory". Even if some of this evidence was still unavailable, this argument would still be fatally flawed. Why? Because it is an example of the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy in logic, in which a conclusion is quite literally drawn from ignorance. Rather than defend creationism, you attack evolution. Rather than draw conclusions from facts, you draw conclusions from a lack thereof. Indeed, you argue with a perfectly straight face that if evolution cannot explain absolutely EVERYTHING, then we should throw it away and replace it with a theory that explains absolutely NOTHING.
- Land mammal to sea mammal evolution: whales and dolphins STILL have vestigial finger-bones in their flippers, not to mention the fact that they have lungs and breathe air like land-locked mammals. Hippos also demonstrate numerous characteristics trending toward whale anatomy. Of all the "missing links" touted by creationists, this one is by far the dumbest. One need not produce transitional fossils when one can produce transitional LIVING SPECIMENS.
- Unicellular to multi-cellular: please explain what you would accept as a transitional between unicellular to multi-cellular, when the "jump" from one cell to two cells is enough to bridge that gap. Remember that unicellular organisms reproduce asexually, so there's a moment in the
life cycle of every unicellular organism when there are two identical cells attached to each other. It's not exactly a giant leap from there to a two-celled organism.- Folds in skin becoming feathers which resemble hair: did it ever occur to you that they probably WERE like hair? Some types of feathers still resemble hair to this day! Why should a "fold in skin" magically transmute into a feather when a hair-like growth (as you inadvertently point out yourself) is a much better candidate? Creationists have a long history of deliberately distorting facts to make them seem more implausible than they are, and this is no exception.
- Dinosaurs to birds: you mention one example already. Are you saying that if I produce one piece of irrefutable evidence, you will simply ignore it and demand another? What evidence would make you happy?
Aren't you tired of these dumb-fucks who accuse everybody of distorting facts to fit into our "materialistic philosophy" even though they can't find a single example to back up their claims?8, actually. And that's hardly surprising for bird-like creatures from so long ago. Not every creature crawls along in watery shallows and has a high likelihood of fossilization.ok, granted, there are parts of an organism that seem to be vestigial. but i want to know, as per the dinosaours to birds theory:
-you see, thats all they really have, one or 2 skeletons of an animal.Obviously, you have distorted the process into "T-rex becomes seagull". Did it ever occur to you that the big dinos simply died out, and the smaller, more birdlike dino species became somewhat more birdlike over time until they eventually became birds? Some dino species were basically large birds already!basically they say that it goes: dinosaour to A to B to C to D to E to F to G to H to I to J to K to L to M to N to O to archeopteryx(location given as ambiguous, but it illistrates the point) to Q to R to S to U to V W to X to Y to Z to primitive birds. And even more importantly, this is an extreme reduction of the steps they propose, due to my laziness to actually type out all several million REQUIRED changes to get a bird from a dinosaour.There is no evidence whatsoever for the Biblical model. The Biblical model requires, among other things, a global migration pattern of all animals and all species from one single point roughly 4000 years ago (when Noah touched land). The fossil record is so hopelessly incompatible with this laughable fiction that no one, not even the most avid creationist, has ever tried to seriously look for this pattern. Instead, they attack science and appeal to ignorance, in the hopes that no one will notice how ridiculous their proposed alternative is.as for evidence required for the backing of the biblical model, there is lots of evidence, not wholly biological in nature however, but i cant really go into it, not enough time. [I like the way he demands that I answer "quickly", and then protests that he can't make the time to provide even a shred of evidence for his own position]Ad hominem? At what point did I try to distract from your arguments by attacking you, rather than attacking the arguments themselves? Do you realize what "ad hominem" means?also, you have made many ad homonym arguments, even directed attacks at me. i did not "inadvertently point [it] out" it was a deliberate act.If you make arguments which turn out to be faulty, you should either concede or defend them, regardless of who originally made them. Your USE of those arguments makes them yours for the purpose of debate.i wish to have all the possible information, wiegh them against the contentions, and decide from there. dont presume to know me. i was putting out arguments made by the opposition to evolution.Wrong. Your last message's central argument had nothing to do with appeals to Biblical authority (which is yet ANOTHER fallacy in reasoning) and took the form of "I do not know that A is true, therefore A is false", which is a TEXTBOOK appeal to ignorance.even more, appeal to what is claimed by the bible is not an appeal to ignorance, and it does help to explain many things, however, not all of which being dogmatically materialistic science in nature.You do not strengthen your argument by touting your skills or making sly suggestions about mine.i am a lover of science, i am like a sponge to information, however, i can identify when people conform mere observations to conclusions specifically created to force the religion of secular humanism. not to say that it is intrinsically bad, but that they are forcing it with swoon theories required to maintain a naturalistic materialistic philosophy.I hope so.thanks for the talkorigins webiste. ill read it through and through.
--
Be Seeing You ...
Michael Wong
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike
