Intelligent Design / Evolution

[JoeyArnold]

Cool, it should be easy to quote a paragraph or two, then, shouldn't it?

Evidence for design is also overwhelming & tough to digest, swallow, & take in.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Evidence for design is also overwhelming & tough to digest, swallow, & take in.

So... we're waiting...?

 

[JoeyArnold]

So... we're waiting...?

It's funny because you've actually encountered evidence for design countless of times.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

It's funny because you've actually encountered evidence for design countless of times.

still waiting...?

ETA: let me guess, appeal to credulity?

 

[JoeyArnold]

still waiting...? ETA: let me guess, appeal to credulity?

I'm a bit scared. You might not accept the overwhelming evidence for design.

 

[Cabal]

It's funny because you've actually encountered evidence for design countless of times.

Just post it already.

Show that you actually have something to bring to the table here.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Just post it already. Show that you actually have something to bring to the table here.

You're funny because the overwhelming evidence for design, for creation, for order, is already on the table, on the floor, & all over the place.

 

[Cabal]

You're funny because the overwhelming evidence for design, for creation, for order, is already on the table, on the floor, & all over the place.

So post the best piece of it then, and let's discuss it.

Of course, all this obfuscation and deliberate evasion could just be a sign that you actually have no evidence for your case.

(The oracle-from-the-matrix pseudo-profundity doesn't really come over too well, by the way.)

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Of course, all this obfuscation and deliberate evasion could just be a sign that you actually have no evidence for your case.

(The oracle-from-the-matrix pseudo-profundity doesn't really come over too well, by the way.)
__________________

Hes got nothin'. He knows it.

 

[JoeyArnold]

The evidence for design is already on the table.

The evidence for design is too hot to handle.

So post the best piece of it then, and let's discuss it.

You guys have already seen it & have already dismissed it.

He's got nothin.' He knows it.

Prove it.

 

[Cabal]

The evidence for design is too hot to handle.

Lots of smack talk, but nothing substantial provided by you.

Understandable, really.

You guys have already seen it & have already dismissed it.

Too right, because there isn't any evidence for design.

You think you've got something all the others putting the argument for design forward haven't? Actually post something of substance rather than one-liners.

Prove it.

Delusions of profundity strikes again. Well, at least you've learnt how to spell "prove".

To wit, you haven't presented anything - just the same one-line non-posts you always do.

Change that whenever you feel like being taken seriously.

(Either you're a rather persistent Poe, or what do you really think is going to happen here? "Yes JoeyArnold, your incredibly unpithy one-liners devoid of any factual content have shown me the light, I believe!")

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Prove it.

You're proving it yourself, with your ridiculous excuses.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Forget evidentialism, it makes a good read.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

And like that, he was gone, leaving no evidence behind him

 

[idscience]

Here is a whale lineage chart with three so called transitional whales sporting tail flukes, starting with rochocetus. Philip Gingerich, Professor of Funny business and Environmental Sciences and Whale fossil finder extraordinaire, just put it on the drawings as the fossil has no end of the tail. He said he imagined that is what it looked like.
The next one (Gaviocetus) was a total fabrication from a rib bone and two vertebrae. Now there is some good science for ya. As you can see, the nice smooth transitional evidence for the whale is all washed up.

Gingerich says, ambucetus is off the line since its a crocodile not a whale. Mesonychids are out as well Gingerich says and dalanistes is older than the 49 mya fully aquatic whale fossil, so that just about does it. Clear case of making the evidence fit the hypothesis. Bias, seeing what it wants to see.

 

[idscience]

Oops, interesting why evolutionists continually color the facts with imagination. Drawings of intermediate whales with webbed feet, exaggerated drawings with added features that have no business being there other than to bolster the weak evidence.

In this video we hear from the scientist himself (Philip Gingerich) why a tale fluke was drawn on a whale intermediate (rodhocetus) when the they don't even have a tail fossil. Rodhocetus is far from being a whale, not to mention a fully aquatic whale fossil was found that predates rodhocetus anyway.

The nice imaginative drawings of intermediate whales are falling apart. So much for the best example of transitional forms.

The assumptions are grand, and the evidence is stretched.

WHALE EVOLUTION - WHY THE DECEPTION ? - YouTube

The bias of scientists is clearly represented in enumerable accounts of padding the facts. From bacteria, to missing human links, to fantastic imaginary drawings of what they envision life to look like. Another interesting observation is how many times this goes un contested by other evolutionary scientists.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Idscience, let me ask you this: Is there any amount of evidence that would change your mind?

 

[idscience]

Idscience, let me ask you this: Is there any amount of evidence that would change your mind?

That question cuts both ways?

Any evidence would go a long way.

 

[RickG]

Oops, interesting why evolutionists continually color the facts with imagination. Drawings of intermediate whales with webbed feet, exaggerated drawings with added features that have no business being there other than to bolster the weak evidence.

In this video we hear from the scientist himself (Philip Gingerich) why a tale fluke was drawn on a whale intermediate (rodhocetus) when the they don't even have a tail fossil. Rodhocetus is far from being a whale, not to mention a fully aquatic whale fossil was found that predates rodhocetus anyway.

The nice imaginative drawings of intermediate whales are falling apart. So much for the best example of transitional forms.

The assumptions are grand, and the evidence is stretched.

WHALE EVOLUTION - WHY THE DECEPTION ? - YouTube

The bias of scientists is clearly represented in enumerable accounts of padding the facts. From bacteria, to missing human links, to fantastic imaginary drawings of what they envision life to look like. Another interesting observation is how many times this goes un contested by other evolutionary scientists.

Well, there you go again. Making an assertion that scientists just make stuff up and don't contest one another. And it is all based on a youtube video that is obviously anti-evolution and heavily edited. You know, like when there is only applause and cheering when the anti-evolution person says something they like.

The thing you ought to be pointing out is the overt honesty of those scientists.

Example: "so you admit that there are gaps in the fossil record".

Then the video uses that to create doubt and the idea that they are fantasizing. If you would ever take the time to study a little paleontology from the academic field itself, you would find that there are plenty of holes in the creatonist/ID argument.

Sure there are lots of gaps in the fossil record, but there are also many, many, many connections as well. You just can't get from single cell life forms to multi-celled life forms to more and more complex life forms throughout geologic history without evolution.

 

[selfinflikted]

That question cuts both ways?

For me, it's simple: Show me god.