My Lunar Dragon Challenge

[Split Rock]

Thats a good one. That settles it then.We have hiccups therfore we use to be fish. None of the prior rebutles to my post even came close to convincing me of the fairy tale that we use to be fish. But hiccups, give me time to think on that one. Long Pause........Nope. Sorry cant sell that here. It is funny though. Are you guys stand up comedians by any chance? You dont believe God did it , but you believe we use to be fish? How ironic.

It is ironic indeed. The hiccup response is inherited from our fish-early tetrapod ancestors who used a similar response for gill ventilation. See: BBC NEWS | Health | Why we hiccup

Interesting that you have no answer at all, yet mock what science tells us.

Have you found any transitional fossils that are most certainly in the Homo sapien line that are intermediate between say the first cell and fish? Now they would have to be without a doubt, absolutely for sure, definately in the line of the first cell and a fish on its way to us. If you cant prove it without a doubt then its a guess, a hope, a faith. No two ways about it.

Sure. The fishapods from the Devonian I mentioned earlier are one group. There are numerous example in the fossil record of mammal-like reptiles (therapsids) who formed another group in the past (can you guess which groups they are transitional between?). There are many more, but I doubt you care.

The evidence taken together from the fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy, embryology, etc. all infers common ancestry. The evidence provides proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The same standard we apply in our justice system. If you want proof beyond any doubt, you won't get it from science... nor any where else.

Dont you find it interesting all you find is bones? As I said in another post , say in a million or so years from now, what ever we have evolved into .(lol) Do you think they will find just bones from our present day? What the heck were we doing for millions of years, then all of a sudden in the last two hundred years we are walking on the moon and a whole lot of other stuff. Its ok, if you want to guess what we were doing thats fine. Just hunting and gathering? Playing kick the rock? Carving some hand tools?

Yes we find fossilized bones, but also molds, impressions, shells, etc. For early hominids we also have other evidence such as stone tools, etc. What were we doing? I guess you could ask what were we doing 6,000 years ago? Why weren't we walking on the moon then? Why didn't the Egyptians and summarians send sattelites into space? Technology snowballs. The more you have the quicker you get more. It took time to go from obsidian spear points to the Saturn V rocket.

Hiccups and three little bones in our middle ear. Well I am sure glad you guys are SO gullible because that would not convince me in the LEAST. I know . I know, I just dont under stand evolution. That seems to be all your responses to those who wont swallow your fairy tales. Did you find that transitional yet between the first cell and the fish? Or are you still hoping, guessing and having faith?

You have a strange understanding of faith. I will give up evolution if teh evidence show it is wrong. What would it take for you to give up on creationism? There is no evidence that would convince you... is there? That is faith.

Science writer Lisa Shawver once observed that trilobites had “the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature” How they know this I am not sure, but its an interesting observation. After all we have to see so why not have eyes? Why not start out with the best?

Arthopods are not our ancestors. Obviously our line did not start out with "the best." How could it? Ask your creator, on the other hand, why He did not give us "the best."

So now you have indisputable, absolutely for sure, can gaurantee without a shadow of doubt that the trilobite is a intermediate form between the first cell and a fish in line with the Homo sapien? Your not hoping or guessing or having faith at all? You can PROVE this? Please do. And no fairy tale hypothesis please.

Yes, that is a fairy tale, and one you made up. Trilobites are not our ancestors. Guess what? We don't find any intermediates between them and us. What a coincidence!

This keeps getting funnier. Hiccups, three tiny bones and now gill slits in human fetal development. You see and want gill slits because you need all the help you can get to pass your fairy tale on to others. Did they not stop calling them gill slits like a hundred years ago? They call them Pharyngeal "pouches" and they have absolutely nothing to do with breathing or resperation.

They were called "gill slits" long before evolution was accepted. Why? Because that is what they looked like to early biologists. They do indeed develop into gills in fish, however. Why is that, I wonder?

No, not worm, reptile, fish or pig. The embryo is human right from the moment of conception. Haeckel can take a hike.And dont bother with the HOX genes, I have had enough laughs for now

Haeckel's theories are invalidated and not used by scientists any more. Why do you use them? Of course I won't bring up HOX genes.. that would be physical evidence and you have no use for that. You have your Faith.

You can live in your fairy tale land all you want, thats your choice, monkeys dont have that option.

Calling scientific theories "fairy tales" just shows you have no real argument. Just your Faith.

 

[MoonLancer]

why do creationists butcher the word 'faith' like its a bad word? Are they ashamed of there own faith of Christ. Insecure that they have no evidence for God and afraid of being left in the dark ages?

 

[Split Rock]

why do creationists butcher the word 'faith' like its a bad word? Are they ashamed of there own faith of Christ. Insecure that they have no evidence for God and afraid of being left in the dark ages?

Yes, I noticed that trend. In their rush for parity with science, they have mangled the word "faith" and made their own faith seem like a casual thing.... like "faith" that the pizza delivery boy will arrrive in 30 minutes or less. It is all a part of the contradictions inherent in creationism, I suppose.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I have found that creationists typically employ two basic tacts when arguing ToE.

1. Put ToE on same level as their faith. They try to equate a scientific theory to the level of their eternally existing faith. This is very telling, actually, because what they are saying, between the lines if you will, is that 'we know creationism is unsupported by the facts, but if we instruct our argument as to include all scientific theories as faith, then the argument can be made that either faith is equally valid'.

Of course to do this, a creationist must stay ignorant of relevant facts, or ignore facts they become aware of them. Or, alternatively, admit all known facts are true, but claim faith in creationism regardless.

2. They are adroit at creating false dichotomies and strawman arguments.

What they fail to understand, is that it is not enough to simply prove false an existing theory, but it must be replaced with one that better explains the hypothesis.

Unfortunately, creationism has no facts whatsoever to support it. It is an untenable position at best. Sadly, most creationists take at face value that which they have been taught from the pulpit and YEC sites. It is sad and shameful really.

 

[Split Rock]

IWhat they fail to understand, is that it is not enough to simply prove false an existing theory, but it must be replaced with one that better explains the hypothesis.

I think the false dichotomy here is not that if you show evolution is false that you need to replace it with another theory. Rather, proving evolution false does not prove creationism is true.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Yes, exactly.

What they refuse to realize, is that, if another theory came along tomorrow that better explained ToE, I would accept it. It's as simple as that. I put no personal faith whatsoever into ToE. Which is why it always makes me smile when they pull out the 'ol it takes more faith to believe in ToE' canard.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have found that creationists typically employ two basic tacts when arguing ToE.

1. Put ToE on same level as their faith.

Not this creationist.

I assert it takes more faith to be an atheist.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Not this creationist.

I assert it takes more faith to be an atheist.

Thanks for proving my point!

 

[Alunyel]

Not this creationist.

I assert it takes more faith to be an atheist.

I assert that it takes absolutely no faith to be an atheist.

Faith is blind belief. Belief without evidence.

An atheist is someone who consciously refuses to blindly believe in a deity.

Of course you'll disagree, because faith is all you have, all you ever have had, and quite clearly all you ever will have, it must be near enough impossible for you to accept the notion that anyone could ever have anything more than faith, because it's quite literally all you've ever known.

Instead, you'll try to forge your own definitions onto words that are not only wrong, but are the exact opposite of what the word means.

We know you do it, it's obvious when you do it, and serves only to highlight what a fool you are for doing it.

 

[MoonLancer]

Not this creationist.

I assert it takes more faith to be an atheist.

so do you admire atheists or detest them? after all from your point of view they have more faith in something then you have in your lord and savior Jesus Christ.

Remember faith is a believe without evidence. so with that claim, you would be able to show more evidence for god then scientists show for evolution, correct?

 

[Split Rock]

Not this creationist.

I assert it takes more faith to be an atheist.

Your faith must be pretty weak then. No wonder you are a creationist... creationists use deceit and sophistry to bolster their weak faith. Without them, their faith cannot hold up to simple reality.