Evolution's Brick Wall

[DogmaHunter]

1) Something can come from nothing. (Please do not waste our time here by trying to redefine nothingness.)

2) Time plus chance makes anything possible.

Nice strawman.

Off course, you are wrong on both points.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ahh yes, the ole appeal to ignorance

Acknowledging ignorance, is not the same as an appeal to ignorance dude.

Many claiming such a view are actually attempting to find a place of assumed neutrality. Assuming that such supposed neutrality will lend to themselves at least the appearance of an unbiased position.

When something is unknown, then the only rational position is saying you don't know.
This is not "assumed neutrality to give appearance of unbiased position" (whatever that means). It JUST means that you don't know and that you are honest about it.

You don't value honesty?

But actually an appeal to ignorance (agnostic on the existence of God or creationism/evolutionism) does the Agnositc's position no real good.

Again, learn the difference between acknowledging ignorance and appealing to ignorance.

I'll help you out:
Acknowledging ignorance: I don't know, let's wait till we find out
Appealing to ignorance: I don't know, therefor god

 

[DogmaHunter]

It was your baby, ironclad you thought... and you 'took it to the bank'. Then someone in the scientific camp comes along with evidence that compromises your claim. You won't give up on it... you can't.

@xianghua is anything but someone from the scientific camp.

There is nothing their that "compromises" the claim and we have explained to you at length and in detail why it's not the case.

That you are too stubborn to be intellectually honest about it, is not our problem.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So the atheists and presumed agnostics on this site can "preach" to others, but belivers in Christ Jesus cannot? What and if I am getting "preachy"? That has nothing to do with the merits of my arguments.

So far, your arguments are a collection of strawmen coupled with failed mindreading, confusing "evidence based trust" with "blind faith" as well as confusing "acknowledging ignorance" with "appealing to ignorance".

Needless to say, it's all very unimpressive.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Broadly speaking, attempting to interpret past events based on presupposed "facts." A prime example is the numerous assumptions made by evolutionists concerning radiometric dating methods.

What assumptions?

 

[AV1611VET]

So far, your arguments are a collection of strawmen coupled with failed mindreading, confusing "evidence based trust" with "blind faith" as well as confusing "acknowledging ignorance" with "appealing to ignorance".

Academians wouldn't want it any other way, would they?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Academians wouldn't want it any other way, would they?

You hate academians - we get it.

 

[AV1611VET]

You hate academians - we get it.

I'm not going to dignify this with a denial.

I have over four times the number of academians following me than you do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm not going to dignify this with a denial.

I have over four times the number of academians following me than you do.

But my daddy is stronger then your daddy...
So, there!

 

[Spikey]

Yeah but I've got a faster bike than you.

Ninjad

 

[tas8831]

The art of applied philosophical assumptions. Committed macro-evolutionists: extraordinary bearers of faith.

Most insightful.
Perhaps you can be the first anti-evolutionist to explain exactly how macroevolution differs from microevolution, and provide supporting evidence.

 

[tas8831]

In addition, do you not know that even though you are an apparent materialist, you do in fact effectively make appeal to the supernatural with those two faith-based assumptions?

So precious...

 

[tas8831]

And @inquiring mind you never explained how the prediction was made. Nor do you have examples of fossils in places that would contradict evolution.

And that is why it is you with your head in the sand.

I should think that an "inquiring mind" might actually, you know, inquire, rather than dismiss and play games...

 

[tas8831]

Have you been troubled? You are on a Cristian oriented website.

This is the creation&evolution forum, in the physical science section, where non-Christians are allowed.
If you are not up to snuff on the science, then what are you doing here?

 

[inquiring mind]

@xianghua is anything but someone from the scientific camp.

There is nothing their that "compromises" the claim and we have explained to you at length and in detail why it's not the case.

That you are too stubborn to be intellectually honest about it, is not our problem.

xianghua is pretty smart, but I was referring to the track-find team... the one that made your claim look like the Syrian countryside.

 

[inquiring mind]

Nor do you have examples of fossils in places that would contradict evolution.

I'll just stay with the 'lack of them'... that seems to be working pretty well.

 

[DogmaHunter]

xianghua is pretty smart, but I was referring to the track-find team... the one that made your claim look like the Syrian countryside.

Did it?

Here is the claim: early devonian was dominated by fish. late devonian had many tetrapods. Where do the tracks and tiktaalik show up? Mid devonian.

Well, how about that.... both the tracks as well as the transitional fossils show up in the correct rock in the correct period, as predicted.

Tell me again how this compromises the claim?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'll just stay with the 'lack of them'... that seems to be working pretty well.

A lack of fossils that would pose problems for evolution, somehow support your anti-evolution stance?

For real?

Not having evidence against evolution, is evidence against evolution?

Awesome.

 

[inquiring mind]

Did it?

Here is the claim: early devonian was dominated by fish. late devonian had many tetrapods. Where do the tracks and tiktaalik show up? Mid devonian.

Well, how about that.... both the tracks as well as the transitional fossils show up in the correct rock in the correct period, as predicted.

Tell me again how this compromises the claim?

"Our discovery of diagnostic and securely dated tetrapod tracks from the marine Eifelian (early Middle Devonian) of Poland shows that the current consensus based on body fossils is substantially mistaken in both the timescale and, probably, the environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition.” Quote from track article http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/trackways.pdf

 

[inquiring mind]

Not having evidence against evolution, is evidence against evolution?

Awesome.

Ain't it though... just shows one more way God can work when you reject His Word.