That Evolution is very popular is exactly tha same as Microsoft Windows being the most sold OS/ The op[erative word being "The most SOLD. Both employ high powered spin doctors.
Keith Martin4:48PM November 18, 2009
That's all very well but but could you please offer an example of a transitional fossil?....
I offered an example of many many trastional fossils. Are you not paying attention?
Chrisof MN1:24PM November 18, 2009
Eugenie Scott is a braindead evo who believes in the greatest myth in human history namely the tree of life by darwin etc.If anyone wants to believe in that then you need your head read.I know a lot of people and have met a lot of people and i tell you most of them admit theres nothing in darwins tree of life myth.They are like me they would rather believe in the tooth fairy than believe in darwinian rubbish.I dont care what sort of creationists beliefs anyones got but ill tell you one thing To say theres no god a creator is to me bordering on insanity.Theres so much design we see all around us so there is no excuse whatsoever.Im sick of evos they are all talk and no action lets do something about them before they ruin society a bit more with there poison.
Put Up Or Shut Up Evos
Show us some evidence for the tree of life.
Brad7:54AM November 18, 2009
In order to prove evolution to Ray Comfort you would have to drag him into a time machine and show him step by step evolution as it occurs.
Seeing that we don't have such a device we have to use the available evidence that we find. Ray however finds such evidence wrong or part of conspiracy of the church of evolution it will be impossible to have any form of rational discussion with Comfort.
Ray continues to use the same argument that each sex evolved differently only show his trait of dishonesty.
As a previous commenter posted it seems odd the Ray Comforts and Kurt Cameron of the world always go after Darwin, whilst in every university, college, high school, research centers, museums, and etc are increasing their knowledge of evolution and not of creation.
Jonathanof CA2:47AM November 18, 2009
site mentioned in last post belonged to Richard, sorry.
bruce5:42PM November 12, 2009
That's all very well but but could you please offer an example of a transitional fossil?....
It is worth remembering that AiG has as its mission statement a literal take on Genesis and will not vary from this ever. If God himself proclaimed that he created an old earth and an older universe and that He was responsible for abiogenesis and instigating evolution to create Man (a theory I guess that the majority? of Christians believe in) creationists would not be able to accept His word and are often happy to lie to protect their position. If they cannot accept His word then you're pissing in the wind, mate. I liked your site though, very informative (though not many laughs!).
bruce10:47AM November 12, 2009
"As Ray said, the transitional fossils are non existent"
Archaeopteryx was discovered not long after Darwin published "Origin of Species", and is exactly the sort of transitional form his theory predicts. It is an animal which has some characteristics of birds, such as feathers, and other characteristics of reptiles, such as teeth and a bony tail. It was classified as a bird at the time, but since then some authors have argued that it should be classified as a dinosaur. Since the discovery of Archaeopteryx we have found a whole range of dino/birds which show the stages by which theropod dinosaurs evolved into modern birds.
If Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form, what would such a form look like?
"and complete embarrassment to the notion that Macro-evolution could have occurred or does occur."
Macroevolution, using the term in the sense that the people who coined it use it, is evolution at the level of speciation and beyond. Numerous observed instance of speciation are described in the scientific literature, so we have observed many clear examples of macroevolution directly.
" Even if it could be demonstrated, it sheds no light on the question of origins. "
So what? Evolutionary theory makes no claims about "origins". It is a theory of what happens to populations of organisms over successive generations.
"Are you also holding to spontaneous generation after Pasteur refuted it empirically in 1859?"
This is a particularly silly straw man. It is a fact that abiogenesis happened. Creationists assert that it happened because God created living organisms. That's fine with me - it is, after all, a statement of faith, not science. If we are using the tools of science to investigate abiogenesis, we have to work on the same assumption of naturalism as every other scientific investigation. This means that we *can't* use "God breathed life into clay" as a theory of abiogeneis because it is not a proposition which can be tested using the tools of science. Believe what you want, but don't pretend that your religious conviction has any validity as a scientific proposition.
"Geniune truth seekers are willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads and are willing to change their mind."
Quite so. Creationists however refuse to change their minds no matter where the evidence leads.
I have been reading creationist sources for over 30 years, and have yet to come across any argument not based on misrepresentation, distortion or outright falsehoods. I have documented the dishonesty of a number of creationist web sites. You can find my analyses here:
http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/index.php
If you can demonstrate that I am wrong in my conclusion that creationist sources are guilty of systematic dishonesty, please provide a link to an honest creationist source. I've asked this question many times of creationists, but none have provided such a link.
I have also asked creationists to provide a link to any "evolutionist" web site they think is dishonest.
Richard Forrest3:53AM November 12, 2009
Steven J. Gould, Harvard Paleontologist stated:
"ALL PALEONTOLOGISTS KNOW that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms."
"Would just one of the evolutionists please provide an transitional fossil? If what you believe is correct then they should be everywhere. Come on - just one please."
Here are a few dozen from the Paleozoic and mesozoic
Reader Comments
Back to blog
Keith Martin 4:48PM November 18, 2009
Chris of MN 1:24PM November 18, 2009
Brad 7:54AM November 18, 2009
Jonathan of CA 2:47AM November 18, 2009
bruce 5:42PM November 12, 2009
bruce 10:47AM November 12, 2009
Richard Forrest 3:53AM November 12, 2009
Chris of MN 2:24AM November 12, 2009
Chris of MN 2:17AM November 12, 2009
Chris of MN 1:39AM November 12, 2009