Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Astrid]

I don't find it funny. If it's not proven, I don't believe it. Works for the athiest in regards to God, why should it not work for me in regard to "science"? If I can't see it, why would I believe it's true?

I guess you gotta disbelieve Australia, the bottom of the ocean
or there beiing anything inside a rock. What the sun is made of?
Whether electricity or atoms exist?

If not then maybe work it through for yourself whether there
are reasonable, ways of determining things besides seeing
and "proving", whatever that even means.

BTW, that thing about "proof of god" is a crock for only the
idiots among us, so please don't bring that up and pretend
it's like a universal for atheists.

 

[AV1611VET]

What I thought was funny was your insistence that I "prove it" after we have gone over and over the point that scientific theories are never proven.

Even I get that from the academic field.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was a conjecture based on a mistaken identification of a fossil,

That's an understatement!

... spun into a big story by non-scientists and then discovered and corrected by scientists.

And as I have asked many times before:

Where did this thing get it's binomial? from some reporter? a taxi driver?

Maybe the paperboy named it Hesperopithecus haroldcookii?

Your self-serving misinterpretation of the event weakens your position.

Then address my good points.

If they're so weak, you shouldn't have any problem.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Baloney. There are no two celled, three celled, hundred celled, thousand celled transitional forms that would need to exist for gradualistic evolution to have occurred.
It jumps from single cell life to multiple- trillion cell animals, with no transitions in between.
And there’s no way for a single celled amoeba that splits in two to reproduce, to gradually develop sexual reproduction by evolving into two different sexes.
Imagine an amoeba evolving a microscopic penis, and all related equipment, while at the same time another amoeba grows a vagina in parallel evolution, and just by chance the male and female happen to end up with compatible reproduction systems, within a close enough proximity to get together and reproduce offspring, and within the time period that both sexes are fertile?
That’s a simplistic fairy tale for atheists, and not scientific fact or possibility.

Given that the people who figured it out were active and devout christians...
you can hardly say it was for atheists.
Multi-cellularity did not happen by adding one more cell to an animal. It happened by independent cells forming colonies. And then developing a division of labour.
You seem to have this idea that it was a jump from a one celled animal to a twi celled animal, to a three celled animal.
Ir was more like a ten thousand cell colony starting to split the work among specialized cells.

 

[AV1611VET]

A human one

Was he an ape?

 

[AV1611VET]

BTW, that thing about "proof of god" is a crock for only the idiots among us, so please don't bring that up and pretend it's like a universal for atheists.

Speaking of which ... how's come they say there are no atheists in foxholes?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Kinda like finding a tooth, and the next thing you know, you have this:

Complete with his own scientific name, long hair, goofy expression, animals in the background, cloudy skies, a river, horses, camels, trees w/o foliage (as if it's winter), green grass (as if it's summer); and all from a single tooth.

Translation: researchers are intellectually dishonest as they are, starting with
a conclusion and force fitting any data to confirm the faith based predetermined conclusion.

Thats what happens when tabloid papers want to sensationalize an otherwise boring story.
Tabloids are not scientists.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Was he an ape?

Hes not a bison

 

[Speedwell]

Speaking of which ... how's come they say there are no atheists in foxholes?

To make themselves feel better about not being able to evangelize and to express the hope that some violent threat will do the job.

 

[Astrid]

It was a conjecture based on a mistaken identification of a fossil, spun into a big story by non-scientists and then discovered and corrected by scientists. Your self-serving misinterpretation of the event weakens your position.

At a guess that would be piltdown, or Nebraska man.

That the creos only have those long
ago events, heavily edited to misrepresent
them only underscores how ridiculous the
case they try to make really is.
Of course, ignorant people with itchin' ears
arebeager to be fooled eat it up and think they are dreadfully
clever.

And get all huffy about being identified as
ignorant.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thats what happens when tabloid papers want to sensationalize an otherwise boring story. Tabloids are not scientists.

So Tim the tabloid reader named this guy Hesperopithecus haroldcookii? and not one scientist said otherwise?

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, ignorant people with itchin' ears
are eager to be fooled eat it up and think they are dreadfully clever.

Dreadfully clever at what? believing scientists who said they found a missing link, complete with its own taxonomic entry?

 

[VirOptimus]

Was he an ape?

All humans are apes.

 

[Astrid]

To make themselves feel better about not being able to evangelize and to express the hope that some violent threat will do the job.

Ever hear of a Chridtian soldier rejoicing when they see the tanks coming?
"Glory be, I'm about to receive e-ternal life!"
Dreadful hypocrites they must be if they don't.

 

[Mr Laurier]

So Tim the tabloid reader named this guy Hesperopithecus haroldcookii? and not one scientist said otherwise?

No.
Harold Cook named it. And then a tabloid made up a fantastic story around it, for your "Tim the tabloid reader" to feel titillated about.
And then SEVERAL scientists discovered what the tabloid had done. And they VERY LOUDLY said the tabloid was wrong. Even demanding the tabloid publish a full retraction.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ever hear of a Chridtian soldier rejoicing when they see the tanks coming?

You mean this?

 

[AV1611VET]

No. Harold Cook named it.

He did, huh?

"In 1917, rancher and geologist Harold Cook found a human-looking tooth in Pliocene (recently redesignated Miocene) sediments in northwestern Nebraska. In March 1922, Cook submitted the specimen to Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the American Museum of Natural History and an eminent vertebrate paleontologist, to determine the tooth's affinities.

Osborn received the tooth on March 14, 1922. He wrote to Cook: "I sat down with the tooth and I said to myself: 'It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid'." (Osborn, 1922b, p. 2.) One month later, Osborn announced Hesperopithecus haroldcookii as the first anthropoid ape from America."

SOURCE

 

[Mr Laurier]

He did, huh?

"In 1917, rancher and geologist Harold Cook found a human-looking tooth in Pliocene (recently redesignated Miocene) sediments in northwestern Nebraska. In March 1922, Cook submitted the specimen to Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the American Museum of Natural History and an eminent vertebrate paleontologist, to determine the tooth's affinities.

Osborn received the tooth on March 14, 1922. He wrote to Cook: "I sat down with the tooth and I said to myself: 'It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid'." (Osborn, 1922b, p. 2.) One month later, Osborn announced Hesperopithecus haroldcookii as the first anthropoid ape from America."

SOURCE

Ok. And your point is?
So it was Osborn, not Cook.
Still wasn't your "Tim".

 

[Astrid]

No.
Harold Cook named it. And then a tabloid made up a fantastic story around it, for your "Tim the tabloid reader" to feel titillated about.
And then SEVERAL scientists discovered what the tabloid had done. And they VERY LOUDLY said the tabloid was wrong. Even demanding the tabloid publish a full retraction.

Creationist sites are just another type
of tabloid, being dedicated to irresponsible
journalism and cynical exploitation of ignorance.

 

[Mr Laurier]

You mean this?

More like this