Is a skeptic missing the compassionate part of their being, while only focusing on logic?

[createdtoworship]

....you say some dinosaurs flew and then say they didn't become birds, so which dinosaurs flew? *laughs* for a second I missread what you said and thought you were saying t-rex WAS a transitional form with a crocodile :> I was going to say thats a new one...

And you obviously don't know the meaning of proof, explain why the dinosaurs that evolved into birds acording to evolution would magickally and randomly just happen to have feathers if they are not related, it behooves you to explain why it both doesn't work for evolution but fits creationism. Should also point out, we knew therapod dinosaurs evolved into birds before we started finding feathered dinosaurs, if you can't take that as evidence then you are exactly what your acusing skeptics of being, your just a denialist and a cynic.

again I believe I refuted this idea. That is no more a transitional form between dino's and birds, as TREX is a transition between a dino's and the modern alligators. If your picture is enough to prove there is a transition, then me taking a picture of Trex's jaw is enough evidence to make my own transitionary form between TREX's and alligators (which would be a completely made up premise). Again there is no evidence that one evolved into the other, I Believe there were prehistoric birds that were dinosaurs the whole time. And you can't disprove that this is a perfectly logical assumption based on the evidence.

 

[loveofourlord]

again I believe I refuted this idea. That is no more a transitional form between dino's and birds, as TREX is a transition between a dino's and the modern alligators. If your picture is enough to prove there is a transition, then me taking a picture of Trex's jaw is enough evidence to make my own transitionary form between TREX's and alligators (which would be a completely made up premise). Again there is no evidence that one evolved into the other, I Believe there were prehistoric birds that were dinosaurs the whole time. And you can't disprove that this is a perfectly logical assumption based on the evidence.

no it's just ad-hoc reasoning, and against the available evidence, you don't know how science works do you? Enugh oif this, you've been entertaining, but I can't take anything you say seriously with your level of knowledge.

 

[createdtoworship]

you don't know how science works do you?

thanks from proving that skeptics can't handle the 'play nice' advice from the OP. But I am afraid attacking the mail man will never keep the letter from eventually finding your door. I have refuted the only two missing links you have provided, and it was relatively fast and easy. I am available if you wish a redo, or wish a do over. Thanks for the debate.

 

[createdtoworship]

no it's just ad-hoc reasoning, and against the available evidence, you don't know how science works do you? Enugh oif this, you've been entertaining, but I can't take anything you say seriously with your level of knowledge.

this is the phrase you take exception with:

I Believe there were prehistoric birds that were dinosaurs the whole time.

just as I HAVE to believe birds were dinasaurs the whole time, you HAVE TO believe one evolved into the other. If your view can be so easily dismissed from me making one statement, is it really objective fact? Again you must believe birds evolved from dinasaurs, because your skepticism requires it. I am providing an alternative example that matches the said data given. Until you give more facts my view is just as valid as your view, but because you lost this debate.....don't insult other posters because you are a sore loser, it is best to lose gracefully and use it as a stepping stone to further your future debates. Take care and thanks for posting your viewpoints.

 

[VirOptimus]

thanks from proving that skeptics can't handle the 'play nice' advice from the OP. But I am afraid attacking the mail man will never keep the letter from eventually finding your door. I have refuted the only two missing links you have provided, and it was relatively fast and easy. I am available if you wish a redo, or wish a do over. Thanks for the debate.

you have refuted nothing. Why lie?

I suggest;

List of 20 Free Courses on Evolutionary Science — Class Central

 

[VirOptimus]

this is the phrase you take exception with:


just as I HAVE to believe birds were dinasaurs the whole time, you HAVE TO believe one evolved into the other. If your view can be so easily dismissed from me making one statement, is it really objective fact? Again you must believe birds evolved from dinasaurs, because your skepticism requires it. I am providing an alternative example that matches the said data given. Until you give more facts my view is just as valid as your view.

Your ”view” is not valid as it does not have scientific support. Its just a religious belief.

 

[createdtoworship]

you have refuted nothing. Why lie?

I suggest;

List of 20 Free Courses on Evolutionary Science — Class Central

Your ”view” is not valid as it does not have scientific support. Its just a religious belief.

ok so a picture of a tail with feathers is proof? Like I said if I take a picture of a TREX's jaw is that also proof it was a transition between dino's and alligators? Shall I write a whole book on it and ask for federal grants on my new evolutionary transition I just made up with the same caliber evidence? Please. You have absolutely no evidence, this is clear. Thanks for the debate.

 

[VirOptimus]

ok so a picture of a tail with feathers is proof? Like I said if I take a picture of a TREX's jaw is that also proof it was a transition between dino's and alligators? Shall I write a whole book on it and ask for federal grants on my new evolutionary transition I just made up with the same caliber evidence? Please. You have absolutely no evidence, this is clear. Thanks for the debate.

Denying physical reality is, well, stupid.

The ToE explains all the data, all of it. Its an incredibly wellsupported scientific theory and your ”views” on it is incredibly ignorant.

 

[createdtoworship]

Denying physical reality is, well, stupid.

The ToE explains all the data, all of it. Its an incredibly wellsupported scientific theory and your ”views” on it is incredibly ignorant.

well this is a bandwagon fallacy. And an appeal to authority. Just because a scientist believes something does no make it true, that is an appeal to authority. Just because the consensus of scientists believe something does not make it true, that is the bandwagon fallacy. My point is this, a majority can be wrong, a scientist can be wrong. Even though spontaneous generation was disproved as bad science 100 years ago , yet most scientists not only believe the universe spontaneously generated in an infinite past, but that biological life as well spontaneously generated in a primordial ooze. So the majority can and is wrong. So please provide further evidence of said macro evolution, if you cannot, then don't say it's science.

 

[VirOptimus]

well this is a bandwagon fallacy. And an appeal to authority. Just because a scientist believes something does no make it true, that is an appeal to authority. Just because the consensus of scientists believe something does not make it true, that is the bandwagon fallacy. My point is this, a majority can be wrong, a scientist can be wrong. Even though spontaneous generation was disproved as bad science 100 years ago , yet most scientists not only believe the universe spontaneously generated in an infinite past, but that biological life as well spontaneously generated in a primordial ooze. So the majority can and is wrong. So please provide further evidence of said macro evolution, if you cannot, then don't say it's science.

I think everything you state in this post is wrong. Congratulations.

 

[createdtoworship]

I think everything you state in this post is wrong. Congratulations.

well you are allowed to have your opinion, but I used sources in my post. I didn't see sources in your refutation. So there is that.

 

[VirOptimus]

well you are allowed to have your opinion, but I used sources in my post. I didn't see sources in your refutation. So there is that.

You have not supported anyone of your ”refutations” of the ToE. You dont understand basic science, biology or even how to use data and facts.

 

[loveofourlord]

thanks from proving that skeptics can't handle the 'play nice' advice from the OP. But I am afraid attacking the mail man will never keep the letter from eventually finding your door. I have refuted the only two missing links you have provided, and it was relatively fast and easy. I am available if you wish a redo, or wish a do over. Thanks for the debate.

it was a statement of fact, you dismiss some of the best evidence for evolution with a handwave, yet you've repeated dozens of creationist lies and missunderstanding without even a shred of actual evidence. And I will give you one thing, you are right birds are dinosaurs the eagle you see thats a dinosaur.

 

[createdtoworship]

it was a statement of fact, you dismiss some of the best evidence for evolution with a handwave, yet you've repeated dozens of creationist lies and missunderstanding without even a shred of actual evidence. And I will give you one thing, you are right birds are dinosaurs the eagle you see thats a dinosaur.

I am just saying that birds have not always been the same. A bird can evolve and stay a bird. It can change colors, wing span etc. But still mate with the same animal sub group. It never evolved into a dinosaur. It may be a bird with scales, or whatever, but still a bird. I am just showing alternative viewpoints. So a good solid evidence will disprove all alternatives and provide a solid link to a transition.

 

[createdtoworship]

You have not supported anyone of your ”refutations” of the ToE. You dont understand basic science, biology or even how to use data and facts.

ok, so here is the thing. A positive statment, like 'the TOE is true" needs to be backed up. A negative refutation, for instance....me saying that the argument is not convincing, does not need evidence. Any more than me saying God exists, (then you saying, you disagree with the evidence). I at that point must clarify my evidence of God and repeat why it is solid evidence for God's existence. Denying the evidence does not need itself proof as you are not claiming anything, you are just saying the evidence is inconclusive. I hope that helps. and yes some negative statements as well need verification. for instance saying, 'God does not exist." Needs sources.

 

[loveofourlord]

I am just saying that birds have not always been the same. A bird can evolve and stay a bird. It can change colors, wing span etc. But still mate with the same animal sub group. It never evolved into a dinosaur. It may be a bird with scales, or whatever, but still a bird. I am just showing alternative viewpoints. So a good solid evidence will disprove all alternatives and provide a solid link to a transition.

birds didn't evolve into dinosaurs, birds ARE dinosaurs they never stopped being them.

 

[VirOptimus]

ok, so here is the thing. A positive statment, like 'the TOE is true" needs to be backed up. A negative refutation, for instance....me saying that the argument is not convincing, does not need evidence. Any more than me saying God exists, (then you saying, you disagree with the evidence). I at that point must clarify my evidence of God and repeat why it is solid evidence for God's existence. Denying the evidence does not need itself proof as you are not claiming anything, you are just saying the evidence is inconclusive. I hope that helps. and yes some negative statements as well need verification. for instance saying, 'God does not exist." Needs sources.

The ToE is incredibly well-supported science, I even posted links to free online courses.

You denying physical reality and being ignorant about how science works is on you, not me. I’m not responsible for your education.

The ToE explains all the data, your handwaving explains nothing.

The only reason you deny the ToE is because of your religious faith.

 

[createdtoworship]

birds didn't evolve into dinosaurs, birds ARE dinosaurs they never stopped being them.

ok so that is like saying an alligator is a T-rex, and never stopped being them. That is literally an example I just pulled out of my hat, and all I have is a picture of sharp teeth, because alligators have sharp teeth too, so of course the alligator must be related to the T-rex. You can see how unlimited and unfounded links can be drawn everywhere. There simply is not enough conclusive data to link the two.

 

[VirOptimus]

ok so that is like saying an alligator is a T-rex, and never stopped being them. That is literally an example I just pulled out of my hat, and all I have is a picture of sharp teeth, because alligators have sharp teeth too, so of course the alligator must be related to the T-rex. You can see how unlimited and unfounded links can be drawn everywhere. There simply is not enough conclusive data to link the two.

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

 

[loveofourlord]

ok so that is like saying an alligator is a T-rex, and never stopped being them. That is literally an example I just pulled out of my hat, and all I have is a picture of sharp teeth, because alligators have sharp teeth too, so of course the alligator must be related to the T-rex. You can see how unlimited and unfounded links can be drawn everywhere. There simply is not enough conclusive data to link the two.

you keep saying that, but it's based upon scientists looking at the facts, there is no evidence biologically, fossil or other that the t-rex evolved into a crocodile, infact we know the evolution of the crocodile quiet well, you do know that crocodiles were around long before t-rex right? Your arguments would hold water if you could show any actual evidence for it. Your against just going, "Uhuh." we have the the feathers on dinosaurs and modern dinosaurs like eagles and such, name any other example of where two groups hold characteristics of each other but are some how in different groups. You can deny all you want the evidence, but you have to explain reasonably why it fits so well that modern dinosaurs like birds evolved from ancient dinosaurs