At what point does it become dishonest?

AV1611VET said:

What's a "falsehood of creationism" from a scientific perspective, anyway? The earth before the sun?

Click to expand...

Woman from man's rib?

paug said:

Woman from man's rib?

Click to expand...

Figures Creationism would even get the mythology wrong -- that wasn't a rib.

Case in point in this thread about evolution not being a good lawyer.

This should be easy for the evolution thumpers here.
If there are transitionals then its up to you to SHOW them.Simple. Knock us down and out with these transitions. Simple.
If you have them then you have made a persuasive case.
On behalf of organized creationism, no actual authority, show us the money.
No excuses. No lagging.

WAIT A MINUTE.
When we are discussing transitionals we mean just that. Transitions from something to something very different. A cell to a cow.
A large collection of in betweens. A line of examples from this to that.
Not a single thing between some great groups.
We rightly so dismiss a fossil that is in between too great a distance on its flanks.

Pick a line of some creature. Say a rabbit or cow or snail and show about 50 to 60 transitions back to something it is related biologically too but doesn't look like.
Its impossible.

All you do is show something with bits and pieces or just bits like something else and claim its a transition. when its a creature in its own fixed kind that just had a few bits like other creatures.
Everything has eyes but its not evidence we are all related from a common origin.

Even if evolution was true it would be impossible to show transitions from this to that.
Your pinprick fossils can be always interpretated as fine in their kind and not going any where.
Transition evidence must be many items in a row.
By the way evolution has admitted defeat on finding transitional forms and rather now looks for features. A retreat due to pressure from lack of evidence and critics.

Just trying to help.

hows this?














yes, the attached image was so detailed and so big that i needed to shrink it down. If you cant read the names of the fossils, well too bad. Theirs just that many of them.

Creationists answer:
They don't count because they're only drawings.

the image is alittle big. does anyone want me to change its size? or will this get Robert Byers attention?

I don't think Robert will agree that those drawings show transitional fossils, MoonLancer. Robert has a distorted and false view of what evolution is - it is this distortion that leads him to request transitional fossils between a cell and a cow.....

There have been many threads in this forum about transitional fossils, showing many different traces of evolution to a "final" species - yet the question keeps on coming up. I think it pops up because of this lack of understanding of evolution.

To a scientist, every fossil is a transitional, indeed, every species is a transitional species.

RobertByers said:

By the way evolution has admitted defeat on finding transitional forms and rather now looks for features. A retreat due to pressure from lack of evidence and critics.

Click to expand...

Lie for Jesus much?

consol said:

Creationists answer:
They don't count because they're only drawings.

Click to expand...

Nah, he'll definitely go with the "there are now more gaps between all of those fossils" route. Or he'll just ignore them and hope they go away. Anyone want to place their bets?

RobertByers said:

Even if evolution was true it would be impossible to show transitions from this to that.

Click to expand...

Wow, this is a very telling sentence. You're basically admitting that your demands are unfair and ridiculous.

I think it answers the opening post question perfectly. This is where it becomes truly dishonest; i.e. when people put up mental barriers in order to protect their belief system, yet still ask for evidence as if they are open to conflicting ideas.

Peter

plindboe said:

Wow, this is a very telling sentence. You're basically admitting that your demands are unfair and ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Why?

If A is supposed to eventually give rise to Z, then what's wrong with asking for B - Y?

AV1611VET said:

Why?

If A is supposed to eventually give rise to Z, then what's wrong with asking for B - Y?

Click to expand...

There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for it. But what happens when we provide the information?

Molal said:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for it. But what happens when we provide the information?

Click to expand...

I, personally, would just shrug it off --- knowing what God said about it. I can't answer for others, though. I suppose TEs would be celebrating with the Atheists or something, but again, I can't say.

AV1611VET said:

Why?

If A is supposed to eventually give rise to Z, then what's wrong with asking for B - Y?

Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with asking for evidence that would exist if a proposition was true. That's not what he's doing though. He's asking for evidence that he admits can't be provided even if the proposition is true.

Peter

plindboe said:

There's nothing wrong with asking for evidence that would exist if a proposition was true. That's not what he's doing though. He's asking for evidence that he admits can't be provided even if the proposition is true.

Click to expand...

Like creatio ex nihilo?

AV1611VET said:

Like creatio ex nihilo?

Click to expand...

I think what Plindboe means to say is that Robert has a distorted view of evolution and his assumptions about what a to y would look like are wrong, so he would not recognize the evidence if he saw it.

All that would really be required is to show something changing from one life form to another that transcends kind right?

I think the whale and dinosaur pictures show that.

AV1611VET said:

Like creatio ex nihilo?

Click to expand...

If a person admits that evidence for creatio ex nihilo can't be provided even if true, yet still demand that you to show evidence for it, sure, that would be unreasonable.

Of course the big difference between evolution and creatio ex nihilo is that there are mountains of evidence for evolution in existance. That's why it's so grotesque to ask for the impossible, when you can make plenty of reasonable requests.

Peter

Moonlancer
The whale thing fails because first I accept the whale as a land creature originally.
Second it is only speculation that these fossils are intermediates. they are not. they are living creatures in their own right or at best species of some kind of animal which also had one that entered the sea.
Mammals in the sea with clear anatomical evidence of previous anatomical life styles doesn't count as evidence of the claims of evolution or the claims of transtionals inbetweens. No evolution here but fossil prints of variety living together.

The camel thing likewise. Plus its not from a actual cell to a cow. Its just a camel all the way.

At least you tried but it can't be done. Its not true. I'm not unreasonable but you need actual examples of the inbetweens on some line.
Say some rodent thing to a hippo. They must show different skeletons along the way and explain why your claiming they are related.
No obvious creatures like sea mammals.
You should also demonstrate they are not just varieties of something living down the street that got fossilized in the same day.

Its up to your side to show transitions or admit you can't.
Knock us out.

RobertByers said:

Moonlancer
The whale thing fails because first I accept the whale as a land creature originally.
Second it is only speculation that these fossils are intermediates. they are not. they are living creatures in their own right

Click to expand...

What do you think "intermediates" are supposed to be? Monster chimaeras that can't live "in their own right"?

No, evolution sees intermediates as well adapted to their own way of life as any other species. A mudskipper (favourite, favourite example *loves mudskippers*) is pretty well adapted to the life it lives, and so would have been an ancestor of a whale not yet fully committed to life in the sea.

To be intermediate between two animals well-adapted to two very different life styles, you should not be poorly adapted to two different life styles. You should be well-adapted to one intermediate life style.

Mammals in the sea with clear anatomical evidence of previous anatomical life styles doesn't count as evidence of the claims of evolution

Click to expand...

Then what does it count as evidence for? What is your explanation of the hind leg buds a whale embryo grows and then reabsorbs?

The camel thing likewise. Plus its not from a actual cell to a cow. Its just a camel all the way.

Click to expand...

Think about the scale, please. The story you ask for would be rather... longer than the land mammal to whale transition. From "cell" (I'll arbitrarily take that to mean "eukaryotic cell") to "cow" (presumably the extant Bos taurus) took something on the order of 1-2 billion years. The average fossil animal species lasts a few million years (mostly single figures). Estimate the number of cell-cow transitional species for yourself.

Plus, even if we were willing to research for you thousands of species, we wouldn't be able to show you every single transition in a fossil simply because the fossil record is extremely patchy, especially back when eukaryotes and, somewhat later, animals came about. Some important stages probably could not leave a fossil record at all - things like milk production, for example.

Of course we could give you a series of intermediates at a somewhat higher scale, but detailed transitions like the horse, whale or camel stories only span shorter periods of animal history.

(If you really want us to, maybe we could reconstruct what some of the stages would have looked like even when we don't have physical fossils (although, recently faced with exactly that problem I can tell you it's not easy).)

At least you tried but it can't be done. Its not true. I'm not unreasonable but you need actual examples of the inbetweens on some line.

Click to expand...

Ok, I think there's some serious misunderstanding here. I don't think you know what kind of "in-betweens" evolution actually predicts. Let's see if we can clear that up... (hope dies last)

I give you two types of animals that are thought to be related by descent (they aren't any specific animals, they are meant to be generalised and typical of their respective groups).

The first is your ordinary, scaly lobe-finned fish swimming around in a lake: it has fleshy fins somewhat like a coelacanth's, proper internal gills, shoulder blades attached to its skull (i.e. no neck). It probably also has a swim bladder that it uses as a rudimentary lung when there's little oxygen in the water.

The second is your basic land-dwelling tetrapod: it's shaped vaguely like a salamander, walks on four well-developed, sprawling legs, has simple lungs but no gills (at least as an adult), a short neck and no fish-like fins or scales.

If our generalised tetrapod evolved from the generalised lobe-fin, what should the intermediates look like in your opinion?

(Oh, by the way, remember my previous exercise? I'd very much like you to give it a go. What "kind" does this animal belong to?)

Say some rodent thing to a hippo. They must show different skeletons along the way and explain why your claiming they are related.

Click to expand...

You want that? And what do you say when we do explain why we think they are related? (Clue: if you already know the answer to that you are giving a knee-jerk response)

No obvious creatures like sea mammals.

Click to expand...

If I show you creatures you probably never heard about and don't know the first thing about (though I suspect the latter's equally true for basically any organism in your case).

Will you then bother to examine my reasoning or will you just dismiss my example with a "give me something more obvious"?

Its up to your side to show transitions or admit you can't.

Click to expand...

It's up to you, dear Robert, to exercise your brain and consider the transitions you've already been given. Because at this point you are repeating the same thing - basically, "you're just WRONG" - over and over again, without any sign of actual thinking going on on your part.

RobertByers said:

Moonlancer
The whale thing fails because first I accept the whale as a land creature originally.
Second it is only speculation that these fossils are intermediates. they are not. they are living creatures in their own right or at best species of some kind of animal which also had one that entered the sea.
Mammals in the sea with clear anatomical evidence of previous anatomical life styles doesn't count as evidence of the claims of evolution or the claims of transtionals inbetweens. No evolution here but fossil prints of variety living together.

The camel thing likewise. Plus its not from a actual cell to a cow. Its just a camel all the way.

At least you tried but it can't be done. Its not true. I'm not unreasonable but you need actual examples of the inbetweens on some line.
Say some rodent thing to a hippo. They must show different skeletons along the way and explain why your claiming they are related.
No obvious creatures like sea mammals.
You should also demonstrate they are not just varieties of something living down the street that got fossilized in the same day.

Its up to your side to show transitions or admit you can't.
Knock us out.

Click to expand...

Your basic assumptions about evolution are wrong, therefore you will never see the evidence that you will recognize as evidence. The current evidence for evolution that is known today will never satisfy your straw man.

all life is a transitional species's. They are always fully formed and functional.

The more fossils science shows you, the more gaps you think exist. that's some batty logic.

Its akin to asking for letters in between A and B. Good luck with that.
your one dishonest frack if you think the the first creature shown before camel is anything like a camel. Also it doesn't matter if you already think whales where land creatures. You think that because of the findings of science. The bible lists them as a fish.