Are there any creationists willing to debate?

fish3 · Aug 16, 2003

tailfeather said:
it is obvious that a fish jumped out of the water, seeing as he was bored of swimming, and decided to be a lizard. Then whe he got tired of that he thought that being an ape would be cool, so he did it, and then got real smart, now theres humans! now even though this was simply a guess and there isn't any physical proof, we should believe it ,huh.

good one

fish3 · Aug 16, 2003

[/QUOTE] ...if you want to have a constructive conversation, pointing out why the skeletal features of ambulocetus and rodhocetus are not transitional between land mammals and whales might be a good start.

Or you can continue to pretend that transitional species do not exist despite evidence being shown right to your face. Whatever floats your boat.[/QUOTE]

my response:
Some evolutionists have it tough. Not believing in Creation or Science cannot be very gratifying.
1. The first fish to grow lungs drowns.
2. Looking at 2 similar but different fossils and making up a story of how the "scientist" thinks one "evolved" from does not sound like science.

There is no proof that the skeletal features of amuloceutus and rodhocetus are transitional. Making a claim that they are and then saying "it must be true or proove me wrong" is not proof. Zero reproducable experiments have produced a new species. That is one thing Darwin was able to prove.

wblastyn · Aug 16, 2003

my response:
Some evolutionists have it tough. Not believing in Creation or Science cannot be very gratifying.
1. The first fish to grow lungs drowns.

Ever heard of amphibians?

2. Looking at 2 similar but different fossils and making up a story of how the "scientist" thinks one "evolved" from does not sound like science.

It's not made up.

revolutio · Aug 16, 2003

Zero reproducable experiments have produced a new species.

True, but nature does it pretty well on her own.

Arikay · Aug 16, 2003

Reproducable experiments, have not. Observations, yes. Speciation has been observed in nature. Beyond that, no one has ever been able to show any sort of mechanism that would prevent speciation or change between "kinds."

Aaron11 · Aug 16, 2003

revolutio said:
True, but nature does it pretty well on her own.

Beg that question.

Aaron11 · Aug 16, 2003

Arikay said:
Reproducable experiments, have not. Observations, yes.

This is another great example of begging the question.

LadyShea · Aug 17, 2003

1. The first fish to grow lungs drowns.

Don't anyone tell the Lungfish or Mudskippers who seem to be doing just fine in water or out.

Arikay · Aug 17, 2003

Maybe you could explain that just a little bit more.

Aaron11 said:
This is another great example of begging the question.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Aug 17, 2003

fish3 said:
Originally Posted By: tailfeather

it is obvious that a fish jumped out of the water, seeing as he was bored of swimming, and decided to be a lizard. Then whe he got tired of that he thought that being an ape would be cool, so he did it, and then got real smart, now theres humans! now even though this was simply a guess and there isn't any physical proof, we should believe it ,huh.

Click to expand...

good one

It's a good strawman. At least, it's a good strawman in the sense of illustrating what a strawman is.

In the sense of successfully pulling of some sophistry, it's pretty dire. That's not what evolution proposes, and everyone knows it.

"Frogs don't speak Icelandic. Therefore evolution is false"

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Aug 17, 2003

Saith Fish3:

my response:
Some evolutionists have it tough. Not believing in Creation or Science cannot be very gratifying.

Like any other theistic evolutionist, I believe in both. Any more strawmen you'd like to swipe at?

1. The first fish to grow lungs drowns.

Except, of course, for the millions of lungfish alive today and with a fossil history going back millions of years. But of course, you know nothing about that do you? Ignorance is the best basis for overturning existing models, is it?

I'm going to get harsh. Creationists who know naff all about biology (and demonstrate it daily by, for example, ignorance of the existence of lungfish) but think they know more than degreed scientists who have made it their life's work are arrogant [insert your own verboten expletive]-wits.

2. Looking at 2 similar but different fossils and making up a story of how the "scientist" thinks one "evolved" from does not sound like science.

There is no proof that the skeletal features of amuloceutus and rodhocetus are transitional. Making a claim that they are and then saying "it must be true or proove me wrong" is not proof. Zero reproducable experiments have produced a new species. That is one thing Darwin was able to prove.

This is how it worked.

(1) Find Pakicetus. Features of this skull indicate it is related to modern cetaceans (tooth features)

(2) Develop hypothesis - "If Pakicetus is the ancestor of modern cetaceans (or is closely related to the common ancestor), then cetacean evolution probably took place near where we found Pakicetus. Therefore, if we look in rocks in this area slightly younger than those in which we found Pakicetus, we should find more whale-like transitional forms between Pakicetus and modern cetaceans". If these are not found, the hypothesis is probably false. If they are, it is vindicated

(3) Did the digs, and found Ambulocetus etc.

This is the point. It's not a series of random skeletons. It's forms that were predicted and found in the rocks they were predicted to be found in that makes the case.

If a copper finds a knife it doesn't mean I killed someone. If a copper finds a knife with the victim's blood and my fingerprints on it hidden under my floorboards, guess what?

Exactly the same tale underlies the discovery of Acanthostega. But you knew that, because you know more than mainstream professional scientists, which is why you're able to tell them they're wrong and you're right.

Aaron11 · Aug 17, 2003

Arikay said:
Maybe you could explain that just a little bit more.

Well, the question is whether or not macro-evolution is how life has become what it is today. You say that we can not reproduce it in an experiment, but you say that we can observe it. How do you know that we are observing macro-evo? You have to assume that it happens to think that you are observing it. You have to assume the conclusion into your question and observation.

Arikay · Aug 17, 2003

Macro Evolution is basically Speciation. We have observes Speciation, one species turning into another.

we cant really reproduce it with animals as it takes awhile, however we have been able to do it in simulations.

Macro evolution is basically a large cumulation of micro evolutions and a seperation of one group and another (so they dont share their micro evolutions with each other).

So, we have observed it in nature, and we have observed that it can happen based on the current theory of evolution. There is no evidence that falsifies it, and so it works.

Aaron11 said:
Well, the question is whether or not macro-evolution is how life has become what it is today. You say that we can not reproduce it in an experiment, but you say that we can observe it. How do you know that we are observing macro-evo? You have to assume that it happens to think that you are observing it. You have to assume the conclusion into your question and observation.

Aaron11 · Aug 18, 2003

Obviously that is the question that we are trying to answer, whether or not we have observed macroevolution.

Arikay · Aug 18, 2003

We have. And AIG even agrees that we have. Well, AIG agrees that we have observed speciation (which in science is basically macro evolution) but its not problem for AIG because its not Their definition of Macro Evolution.

Vance · Aug 18, 2003

This is because they change their definition as needed.

Currently, they are abandoning the "macro-evolution" argument (without conceding it yet), in favor of the "no new information" argument.

Aaron11 · Aug 18, 2003

Exactly.

Arikay · Aug 18, 2003

exactly what?

fortheloveofmike · Aug 18, 2003

are we considering natural selection and evolution the same thing? because it isnt.

Arikay · Aug 18, 2003

Your right, Natural selection is Part of evolution.

Are there any creationists willing to debate?

Active Member

Active Member

Jedi Master

Apatheist Extraordinaire

HI

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Humanist

HI

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

HI

Well-Known Member

HI

Contributor

Well-Known Member

HI

Active Member

HI

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency