The debating skills of evolutionists

spidergoat said:
Moron, a transitional species between bird and dinosaur would defy clear classification. That's what dumbass creationists always say. You show them a transitional species between ape and man, and they say, "oh, that's just a strange ape". Fuck this idiocy.
Click to expand...

I share your frustration. Evolutionists claim transitions where none exist. It isn't just creationists who have trouble recognizing them, evolutionists do as well. This is why guys like Gould finally admitted that very few of these things really exist (actually, the number is zero). This is why all of the major curators admitted the same thing. It just isn't possible to build an iron clad case for any of them. The fossil record, with its sudden explosion of vertabrates and invertebrates during the "cambrian era", everywhere testifies to a creation, followed by a world wide catastrophy. If offers nothing in support of a molecules to man evolutionary history.
 
Go ahead and put your fingers in your ears and go "la,la,la,la". Your willful ignorance is not conducive to a proper debate on the subject.
 
"Moron, a transitional species between bird and dinosaur would defy clear classification."

This issue here is that all indications are that this is a bird, by evolutionists own admission. There is nothing ambiguous about it. Some birds had teeth, some did not. Some birds fly, some do not. The only issue here is the supposed date of the find. Wait a few years and this will be thrown out and something new added.
 
spidergoat said:
Moron, a transitional species between bird and dinosaur would defy clear classification. That's what dumbass creationists always say. You show them a transitional species between ape and man, and they say, "oh, that's just a strange ape". Fuck this idiocy.
Click to expand...

spidergoat said:
Go ahead and put your fingers in your ears and go "la,la,la,la". Your willful ignorance is not conducive to a proper debate on the subject.
Click to expand...

You mean that disagreeing with you is not conducive to "proper debate" don't you?
 
Ignoring evidence in favor of an argument from incredulity doesn't count as a debate in my book.
 
nobody has ignored evidence. You have simply gone way beyond the evidence and attempted to establish proof where none exists.

Here is the deal. You seem to feel the purpose of debate is to change the mind of the opponent. It isn't. In some situations it changes the minds of observers. And it sharpens the skills of those debating. What you also fail to understand is that both of us are utimately arguing from two axiomatically held positions. I have known this all along about my position, you fail to understand this about your own. As I have debated the evolution controversy over the years I have found that the strongest argument in favor of evolution is the presumed evolutionary time scale and the misinterpretation of the geologic record. Since these are "givens" now it is virtually impossible for someone like yourself to see the serious flaws in your viewpoint.
 
mynameisDan said:
well, first of all my name is Dan, not Ben. Secondly, show me examples of oranisms living today which have gained new organs where none existed (please, no story telling). For example, we know it can be demonstrated that under certain conditions organism lose sight, lose wings etc.. Please provide observational examples of the opposite, organisms gaining eye sight, wings etc. where none existed. No excuses now. If you state that it takes too much time for these changes to take place, you cannot turn this into a positive argument for the evidence of evolution.
Click to expand...

so in short then the addition of a new morphogenic feature - a new phenotype if you prefer - is evidence of new information. Thanks for the definition

here's the example:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=80923

new information proved


Next!?
 
synthesizer-patel said:
so in short then the addition of a new morphogenic feature - a new phenotype if you prefer - is evidence of new information. Thanks for the definition

here's the example:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=80923

new information proved


Next!?
Click to expand...

I didn't say a new phenotype. There are known mutations with phentype effects. But no information gaining mutations which lead to the development of new organs such as eyes, feathers or wings where none existed before.
 
spidergoat said:
It's not an axiomatic position, it is based on overwhelming empirical evidence.
Click to expand...

you are elephant hurling again. Everytime we examine the "overwhelming evidence" it turns out to be overwhelmingly weak. Arranging fossils in sequence of presumed ancestry isn't evidence. Demonstrating that organisms speciate is not evidence. Providing examples of gene duplication is not evidence. Telling just-so stories about the presumed past is not evidence.

Providing clear undisputable examples of information gaining mutations in the genotype and phenotype is evidence.
Providing evidence of new organ development where non existed before is evidence.

Providing clear undisputed examples of transitional forms (where most of the evidence is not missing and thus only presumed) where new organs can be seen to be transitioning to the new organism is evidence.
 
mynameisDan said:
nobody has ignored evidence. You have simply gone way beyond the evidence and attempted to establish proof where none exists.

Here is the deal. You seem to feel the purpose of debate is to change the mind of the opponent. It isn't. In some situations it changes the minds of observers. And it sharpens the skills of those debating. What you also fail to understand is that both of us are utimately arguing from two axiomatically held positions. I have known this all along about my position, you fail to understand this about your own. As I have debated the evolution controversy over the years I have found that the strongest argument in favor of evolution is the presumed evolutionary time scale and the misinterpretation of the geologic record. Since these are "givens" now it is virtually impossible for someone like yourself to see the serious flaws in your viewpoint.
Click to expand...

You claiming the evidence is wrong is still ignoring it, dipshit(sorry, mods).
 
mynameisDan said:
I didn't say a new phenotype. There are known mutations with phentype effects. But no information gaining mutations which lead to the development of new organs such as eyes, feathers or wings where none existed before.
Click to expand...

Ok so we'll stick with addition of a new morphogenic feature like feathers wings, or peacock feather appendages attached to supraoccular tentacles that previously didn't exist.

the link to the paper demonstrates a new feature that did not previously exist - it fits your own definition- its that simple.
Your point is dead in the water
 
Last edited:
synthesizer-patel said:
Ok so we'll stick with addition of a new morphogenic feature like feathers wings, or peacock feather appendages attached to supraoccular tentacles that previously didn't exist.

the link to the paper demonstrates a new feature that did not previously exist - it fits your own definition- its that simple.
Your point is dead in the water
Click to expand...

sorry, I am far too lazy to go to other threads and read your blather. If you want to put forth an example, do it here and we can discuss.
 
mynameisDan said:
sorry, I am far too lazy to go to other threads and read your blather. If you want to put forth an example, do it here and we can discuss.
Click to expand...

of course you are - why bother to educate yourself when you have a preacher to tell you what to think every sunday.

Bye Bye dan
 
Last edited:
mynameisDan said:
In other words, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that this fossil was some form of bird, not a dinosaur, and the only reason it has been labeled a dinosaur is its location in the fossil record.
Click to expand...

No you got overwhelmingly nothing. It was a species between dinosaur and bird. A transitional species. You asked for one, I gave you one. Now you just seek to redefine what a bird actually is! What is it with creationists, that when given evidence, they just make up more bullshit so they can hang onto their dogma?

This was not a fossilised bird. It was a transitional species, and that blows your stupid arguments right out of the water, as do the other examples of transitional species.

Hey, why don't you show us the evidence in the fossil record for all the biblical stories! You know, there should be evidence in the fossil record for the extinction Noah evaded. You got that? Have you? No? Why not?
 
synthesizer-patel said:
of course you are - why bother to educate yourself when you have a preacher to tell you what to think every sunday.

Bye Bye dan
Click to expand...

well, well, we have come down to attacks only. Now mind you, I like attacks and am not above indulging in them on occasion myself. But SkinWalker has made it very clear that attacks only will not be allowed, so I have been on my best behavior. It appears that skinwalker, being an atheist evolutionist believer, cannot be trusted to be fair and balanced however when the attacker is coming from his own camp.
 
"No you got overwhelmingly nothing. It was a species between dinosaur and bird. A transitional species. You asked for one, I gave you one. Now you just seek to redefine what a bird actually is! What is it with creationists, that when given evidence, they just make up more bullshit so they can hang onto their dogma?"

Actually, I quoted evolutionists who acknowledged that this is a bird in every respect. The only reason it is believed to be a dinosaur is because of its position in the strata. And remember, you offered "dinobird" in reference to my challenge to provide an example of an observed mutation which brought about a new organ. No mutation was observed in this example at all. It is nothing more than the presumption of evolution becoming the evidence for evolution.

"This was not a fossilised bird. It was a transitional species, and that blows your stupid arguments right out of the water, as do the other examples of transitional species."

What does this bird possess that other birds, living and extinct, do not, which convince you that it is a dinosaur and not a bird???

"Hey, why don't you show us the evidence in the fossil record for all the biblical stories! You know, there should be evidence in the fossil record for the extinction Noah evaded. You got that? Have you? No? Why not?"

Surely you understand the difference between paleontology and archeology, do you not? There is ample evidence in archeology for the biblical narrative. And the entire fossil record is evidence for the Noahic Flood.
 
phlogistician said:
Because that niche is already occupied, ... by whales.

If you don't understand how evolution works, stop arguing, it makes you look ignorant.
Click to expand...

"Ignorant" is commonly applied to those who disagree with established views. Ignorance in the last Century was disagreeing with evolutionists in America and Germany that eugenics was wrong. Ignorance in Germany was disagreeing with scientists who felt that Jews were an inferior race. Ignorance in the 19th century was disagreeing with Darwin and his followers over the subject of racism. Today Creationists are of course villified and declared "ignorant" by folks such as yourself who will eventually be considered the ignorant ones once the truth is generally known.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top