For creationists: give me your arguments against evolution.

[Loudmouth]

No? I'm content with the current design?

I didn't ask if you were content. Where did that ever enter into the conversation?

A great designer would have allowed for the current
design to work just as we find it?

I didn't ask how well it worked. Here is the question again.

Would a common designer of the platypus, human, and duck make the platypus jaw more like a duck, or a human? What are your answers?

 

[Loudmouth]

Basically, LM, we would need to see all these things continuing to happen today. There are no "transitionals" in existence today, walking around with us. We have chimps and we have humans, but the only "evidence" we can gather for the in-betweens is remnants? Why'd they all have to go away?

So you agree that those fossils are transitional, and have gone extinct?

I don't want to see a fossil attached to some supposed timeline. I want to see one of my "ancestors" that is not a homo sapien sapiens, and not a chimpanzee. Alive. Today. Instead, we have point A, and point L, but B-K are just fossils.

How could it be your ancestor from millions of years ago and still be alive? Are you saying that transitional hominids should be nearly immortal, and be able to live for millions of years?

Big people have big brains. Small people have small brains. I still don't see the "size matters" logic involved here...if a midget outsmarts a 7' tall person on Jeopardy! would that falsify this claim?

Compare a modern human to a chimp. Get back to me.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

So you agree that those fossils are transitional, and have gone extinct?

Extinct, yes. Transitional...

How could it be your ancestor from millions of years ago and still be alive? Are you saying that transitional hominids should be nearly immortal, and be able to live for millions of years?

But we still have chimps. You do maintain that those are our ancestors, yes? Why have they survived this long while other transitionals - which were supposedly more evolved - died out long ago?

Compare a modern human to a chimp. Get back to me.

So we're no longer talking about just size now, correct?

 

[SkyWriting]

What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with apes?

We can only accept precepts about the past on faith.
I would no sooner do as you suggest than accept
the shroud of Turin or a sliver of wood from the Cross
or go searching for the Holy Grail that Jesus used.

History must be taken on faith, not evidence.


CSI Myths: The Shaky Science Behind Forensics - Popular Mechanics

 

[SkyWriting]

Here is the question again.

Would a common designer of the platypus, human, and duck make the platypus jaw more like a duck, or a human? What are your answers?

No, I don't believe He would make it look more like either one.

 

[SkyWriting]

Is it your contention that the bill of the platypus should have more in common with a duck than a human? ?

No, I do not "contend - argument, claim, plea, submission, allegation, assertion, declaration;"
any changes. Why do you ask?

 

[Loudmouth]

Extinct, yes. Transitional...

What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with apes?

But we still have chimps. You do maintain that those are our ancestors, yes?

NO!!!!!!!!!

Chimps are not our ancestors. They are our cousins.

Why have they survived this long while other transitionals - which were supposedly more evolved - died out long ago?

There is no such thing as "more evolved". We are just as evolved as bacteria because there are just as many years between us and our common ancestor.

So we're no longer talking about just size now, correct?

We are talking about the size of the brain vs. body mass.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I don't believe He would make it look more like either one.

How so?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I do not "contend - argument, claim, plea, submission, allegation, assertion, declaration;"
any changes. Why do you ask?

I am just showing how creationism can not produce any sensible explanations for the observations we make in biology. Creationism is just a long string of made up guesses and words.

For example, you can't even make any predictions about the jaw of the platypus. Why is that?

 

[Loudmouth]

We can only accept precepts about the past on faith.

Fossils are evidence, so no faith required.

What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with apes?

 

[SkyWriting]

Fossils are evidence, so no faith required.

What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with apes?

Your conclusion does require faith. Many transitional forms
have been faked and swallowed by people of faith, like you.

The people with less faith re-checked the evidence. Like me.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ya know...this is the second or third time someone's posted this thing, but what are they all? What is each one from A-L? Anyone can put together a bunch of skulls. Us "non-science believing" Creationists need a bit more info....

Let me help. When I create things in my woodshop I often make mockups using scrap wood. Even second and third working models often find their way into the scrap bin. It's only after several of such models that I refine my project and perfect it to my satisfaction.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your conclusion does require faith. Many transitional forms
have been faked and swallowed by people of faith, like you.

I still find it hilarious that you try to discredit evolution by making evolution look like your faith based beliefs. Why is that?

What faith does it require to compare the morphology of fossils to humans and other apes?

The people with less faith re-checked the evidence.

You won't even look at the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let me help. When I create things in my woodshop I often make mockups using scrap wood. Even my first working models find their way into the scrap bin. It's only after several of such models that I refine my project and perfect it to my satisfaction.

Do your woodshop creations fall into a nested hierarchy?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There is no evidence for creation, .......

Except for all that stuff that looks like it's been created ( if it quacks like duck.........).

 

[Loudmouth]

Except for all that stuff that looks like it's been created ( if it quacks like duck.........).

Why would created life fall into a nested hierarchy?

 

[SkyWriting]

I still find it hilarious that you try to discredit evolution by making evolution look like your faith based beliefs. Why is that?

Because science is a philosophy. I am merely removing
the credit that is is more than that.

And the tiny little sub-category of evolution regarding
origins is so much less than science.

At least the majority of evolution has some practical value.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Do your woodshop creations fall into a nested hierarchy?

Absolutely.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because science is a philosophy.
I am merely removing the credit
that is is more than that.

Science is a methodology, one that has garnered trust because it has been demonstrated to work. Notice that you never see scientists saying that creationism is just another science. All you actions do is demonstrate the superiority of science over religious beliefs when it comes to explaining how the universe works.

And the tiny little category of evolution regarding
origins is so much less than science.

Says the person who can't even answer some simple scientific questions. You are desperately trying to run away from the science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Absolutely.

Then show us how your woodshop creations fall into a nested hierarchy.