This is where this forum falls down.

elijah115 said:

And what are you? What do you imagine life originated from? Living things? Please enlighten me.

Click to expand...

I reserve judgment, until I have more evidence. I realize that this position is not persuasive of any particualr origins hypothesis, but I'm not trying to convince anyone that I have a complete answer to that question. You are.

But, you and FoeHammer offer your firm answers, which are opposite one another, using the same source material. My answer has zero bearing on yours and FoeHammers conflict on interpretation of Biblical scripture... Biblically, one of you is right, and one of you is wrong. But who is to know which is which? One would think that you two should sort this out, before you even start to pretend that its a scientific answer (to be taught in public schools).

I think some people are going to come away confused.

Abiogenesis: Scarce evidence
Evolution: Lots and lots of it.

Nitron said:

To sum it up in another way: we don't have a whole lot of evidence, but certainly a whole lot more than you.

Click to expand...

What evidence?
For those who claim to have evidence.

Try this, see if any of you can grasp it..... finally.
You have three fossils, fossil 1 is, say, 150 million years old, fossil 2 is 100 myo and fossil 3 is 50 myo. You write a paper declaring that, in your opinion, (as an evolutionist) and based on your evolutionary training and subsequent investigation, fossil 2 clearly shows an evolutionary transition between fossils 1 and 3, in your mind you have decided that fossil 2 is a transitional fossil.
Now, if I ask you for the evidence, what do you think it is that I want?
a) The fossils?
Or:
b) Your potentially/obviously biased opinion/interpretation of them?
Here's a clue; it ain't b.

Hopefully you are now able to see and concede my point. None of you have ever given me any evidence (which means that I cannot have "been led through the evidence by the hand" once let alone "numerous times") you have only ever given links to potentially/obviously biased opinion/interpretations of alleged evdence.

FoeHammer.

FoeHammer said:

What evidence?
For those who claim to have evidence.

Try this, see if any of you can grasp it..... finally.
You have three fossils, fossil 1 is, say, 150 million years old, fossil 2 is 100 myo and fossil 3 is 50 myo. You write a paper declaring that, in your opinion, (as an evolutionist) and based on your evolutionary training and subsequent investigation, fossil 2 clearly shows an evolutionary transition between fossils 1 and 3, in your mind you have decided that fossil 2 is a transitional fossil.
Now, if I ask you for the evidence, what do you think it is that I want?
a) The fossils?
Or:
b) Your potentially/obviously biased opinion/interpretation of them?
Here's a clue; it ain't b.

Hopefully you are now able to see and concede my point. None of you have ever given me any evidence (which means that I cannot have "been led through the evidence by the hand" once let alone "numerous times") you have only ever given links to potentially/obviously biased opinion/interpretations of alleged evdence.

FoeHammer.

Click to expand...

How can fossils evidence abiogenesis?

I was talking about abiogenesis, not evolution.

FoeHammer said:

Now, if I ask you for the evidence, what do you think it is that I want?
a) The fossils?
Or:
b) Your potentially/obviously biased opinion/interpretation of them?
Here's a clue; it ain't b.

Click to expand...

So pictures of the fossils themselves, sans context, would convince you?



There you go. That ought to do it.

(Since presenting conclusions alongside the evidence is anathema to you, I omitted the URL from which I got this image. Right-click on this image to see from where it was taken.)

FoeHammer said:

What evidence?
For those who claim to have evidence.

Try this, see if any of you can grasp it..... finally.
You have three fossils, fossil 1 is, say, 150 million years old, fossil 2 is 100 myo and fossil 3 is 50 myo. You write a paper declaring that, in your opinion, (as an evolutionist) and based on your evolutionary training and subsequent investigation, fossil 2 clearly shows an evolutionary transition between fossils 1 and 3, in your mind you have decided that fossil 2 is a transitional fossil.
Now, if I ask you for the evidence, what do you think it is that I want?
a) The fossils?
Or:
b) Your potentially/obviously biased opinion/interpretation of them?
Here's a clue; it ain't b.

Click to expand...

What, exactly, would you do with these fossils, if they were given to you?

Hopefully you are now able to see and concede my point. None of you have ever given me any evidence (which means that I cannot have "been led through the evidence by the hand" once let alone "numerous times") you have only ever given links to potentially/obviously biased opinion/interpretations of alleged evdence.

Click to expand...

If your point is "the internet is good for transmitting electrons, but bad for transmitting fossils", then yes, your point is conceded. If your point is that any evidence not placed into FoeHammer's hands is potentially/obviously biased, then no, you haven't made your point at all...

If you refuse to accept anything other than material physical evidence in your hands, that begs the question what exactly are you doing on a scientific internet discussion forum in the first place?

Oh, wait, I know, you're trolling...

From Post 121;

I come here to see for myself, and expose, the insecurity of the atheists in their vain attempts to justify their denial of God.

Click to expand...

Nitron said:

How can fossils evidence abiogenesis?

Click to expand...

They can't!

I was talking about abiogenesis, not evolution.

Click to expand...

Chemical or biological evolution, the point is the same.

FoeHammer.

Dal M. said:

So pictures of the fossils themselves, sans context, would convince you?

There you go. That ought to do it.

Click to expand...

Nope, talkorigins (wash my mouth) is not bias free and doesn't share my own.

FoeHammer.

Chemical or biological evolution, the point is the same.

FoeHammer.

Click to expand...

I just got Hovin'd!

"Chemical evolution" and "Biological evolution" are terms made up by Kent Hovind to describe two completely different concepts- abiogenesis and evolution respectively. Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life and is a sort of "umbrella term" for various hypotheses about this. No-one is yet sure how it happened because evidence right now is quite scarce. On the other hand, evolution deals with the development of life after it got there and is wonderfully well-evidenced.

They can't!

Click to expand...

Then you set up a strawman.

FoeHammer said:

Nope, talkorigins (wash my mouth) is not bias free and doesn't share my own.

FoeHammer.

Click to expand...

What bias does talkorigins harbor?

Normally when I post a link for evolution I avoid Talkorigins because it is put together as a single-source of information and not as impressive as a primary source. But so far I've not seen any overt bias on the site.

Now, perhaps you meant "disagreement with your stance", but that isn't bias per se.

I would very much like to see where their science is biased or indicative of an unbalanced assessment of the data.

Nope, talkorigins (wash my mouth) is not bias free and doesn't share my own

Click to expand...

So you are dismissing the pictures out of hand because they come from a website you don't like? Cool! I want you to be my daddy!

atomweaver said:

What, exactly, would you do with these fossils, if they were given to you?

Click to expand...

Have them interpreted for me by a scientist who shares my own bias of course.

If your point is "the internet is good for transmitting electrons, but bad for transmitting fossils", then yes, your point is conceded.

Click to expand...

Something like that.

If you refuse to accept anything other than material physical evidence in your hands, that begs the question what exactly are you doing on a scientific internet discussion forum in the first place?

Click to expand...

I am pointing out that although there are claims in this forum of a mountain of "evidence" for evolution by evolutionists they have nothing of the sort, all they have are numerous links to potentially/obviously biased interpretations of alleged evidence.

Oh, wait, I know, you're trolling...

Click to expand...

Are you really 34?

FoeHammer.

FoeHammer said:

Have them interpreted for me by a scientist who shares my own bias of course.Something like that.I am pointing out that although there are claims in this forum of a mountain of "evidence" for evolution by evolutionists they have nothing of the sort, all they have are numerous links to potentially/obviously biased interpretations of alleged evidence.Are you really 34?

FoeHammer.

Click to expand...

Do you accept the claims of Christianity? What material evidence have you held in your hands for those claims? Do you apply the same standard of evidence to that as you do to evolution?

It seems to me that bias is the only thing you have.

FoeHammer said:

Have them interpreted for me by a scientist who shares my own bias of course.

Click to expand...

You are aware that scientists spend an almost obsessive amount of time worrying about "bias" right? I mean, in the area I work in (chemistry), in which quantities can be easily quantified, bias is a major focus of statistical design of experiment. Eliminating bias and Gage R&R are in place precisely to eliminate the impact of bias as much as possible.

But you can't just throw around the word "bias" as if it will mush up all the things that you might find disagreeable.

If you perceive a bias, then what is that bias precisely?

I am pointing out that although there are claims in this forum of a mountain of "evidence" for evolution by evolutionists they have nothing of the sort, all they have are numerous links to potentially/obviously biased interpretations of alleged evidence.

Click to expand...

Bias is a serious concern for all scientists.

In the case of geology and paleontology there is a lot of evidence for many of the core ideas. Are there unique, one-off fossils that people extrapolate from? Sure. Fossils are hard to come by for transitional forms, but over time, and with sufficient finds it is possible to find general patterns of "Change Over Time".

But I'm still having difficulty with how you might be applying the concept of "bias" here. Maybe I'm missing your point, but what bias are you precisely pointing to?

FoeHammer said:

Nope, talkorigins (wash my mouth) is not bias free and doesn't share my own.

FoeHammer.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. There's the evidence, presented without interpretation, just as you asked for. Now you can stop claiming you've never been given the evidence.

flatworm said:

Do you accept the claims of Christianity? What material evidence have you held in your hands for those claims? Do you apply the same standard of evidence to that as you do to evolution?

It seems to me that bias is the only thing you have.

Click to expand...

If he applied the same standards to his religion that he applies to science he'd be an atheist.

FoeHammer said:

I am pointing out that although there are claims in this forum of a mountain of "evidence" for evolution by evolutionists they have nothing of the sort

Click to expand...

Your basis for this claim is that it is 'nothing of the sort' simply because they cannot deliver the original evidence to your armchair. Again, your laziness is no criteria by which to judge whether evidence is valid, or not... If you need to interpret the evidence in person, it is upon you to do so, its not upon others to deliver it to you.

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/Education/holidayguides/home.html

Take a holiday. Lean something...

Inan3 said:

One needs only to look at the human body (and not very deeply) to recognize that it is remarkable. If you choose to look further though, you will be overwhelmed by it's intensity and complexity.

To ask the questions above is just plain avoiding the truth.

Click to expand...

Let's do that:

The spinal column of the human body is the wrong shape for a bipedal upright walking animal. The 'S' shape is the worst possible shape for carrying vertical loads. Our spines are best suited to tree dwellers.

Our Jaw has too many teeth; all cramed in a small area resulting in increased tooth decay.

Now what engineer would DARE come up with design flaws such as the above without risking having his license revoked? Oh! It wasn't an engineer; GOD DIDIT!

FoeHammer said:

What evidence?
For those who claim to have evidence.

Try this, see if any of you can grasp it..... finally.
You have three fossils, fossil 1 is, say, 150 million years old, fossil 2 is 100 myo and fossil 3 is 50 myo. You write a paper declaring that, in your opinion, (as an evolutionist) and based on your evolutionary training and subsequent investigation, fossil 2 clearly shows an evolutionary transition between fossils 1 and 3, in your mind you have decided that fossil 2 is a transitional fossil.
Now, if I ask you for the evidence, what do you think it is that I want?
a) The fossils?
Or:
b) Your potentially/obviously biased opinion/interpretation of them?
Here's a clue; it ain't b.

Hopefully you are now able to see and concede my point. None of you have ever given me any evidence (which means that I cannot have "been led through the evidence by the hand" once let alone "numerous times") you have only ever given links to potentially/obviously biased opinion/interpretations of alleged evdence.

FoeHammer.

Click to expand...

Now that you have the fossils can you please tell us why these are not intermediates?

Or better yet, please list for us an unbiased list of morphological features that a real intermediate between humans and our common ancestor with chimps should have. Also give us an unbiased list of genetic evidence that should be there if all apes, including humans, share a common ancestor.

Are you willing to do this, or are you afraid of being pinned down?

Nope, talkorigins (wash my mouth) is not bias free and doesn't share my own.

Click to expand...

Please find me a single example of bias in talk origins. I'm willing to believe there is, becuase it's a repository for information, rather than a primary source. But will at least give us something to start with, rather than you jsut going "uhuh! Biased!"