What's a "falsehood of creationism" from a scientific perspective, anyway? The earth before the sun?
Woman from man's rib?
Upvote
0
What's a "falsehood of creationism" from a scientific perspective, anyway? The earth before the sun?
Woman from man's rib?
Lie for Jesus much?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.
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?Creationists answer:
They don't count because they're only drawings.
Even if evolution was true it would be impossible to show transitions from this to that.
Why?Wow, this is a very telling sentence. You're basically admitting that your demands are unfair and ridiculous.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for it. But what happens when we provide the information?Why?
If A is supposed to eventually give rise to Z, then what's wrong with asking for B - Y?
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.There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for it. But what happens when we provide the information?
Why?
If A is supposed to eventually give rise to Z, then what's wrong with asking for B - Y?
Like creatio ex nihilo?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.
Like creatio ex nihilo?
Like creatio ex nihilo?
What do you think "intermediates" are supposed to be? Monster chimaeras that can't live "in their own right"?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
Then what does it count as evidence for? What is your explanation of the hind leg buds a whale embryo grows and then reabsorbs?Mammals in the sea with clear anatomical evidence of previous anatomical life styles doesn't count as evidence of the claims of evolution
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.The camel thing likewise. Plus its not from a actual cell to a cow. Its just a camel all the way.
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)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.
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)Say some rodent thing to a hippo. They must show different skeletons along the way and explain why your claiming they are related.
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).No obvious creatures like sea mammals.
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.Its up to your side to show transitions or admit you can't.
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.