1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured The watchmaker

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Disciple of Jesus, Jul 9, 2018.

Tags:
  1. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,811
    Ratings:
    +1,040
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Round and round we go. Where we'll stop... I know. Right here.
     
  2. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    23,847
    Ratings:
    +13,140
    Religion:
    Atheist
    We have no clue. Since you are the one running around in circles odds are we will not get anywhere.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,899
    If you want to stop here, that's fine. The record is quite clear.

    What I wonder though is.....why would you make such a bold claim if you couldn't back it up? Was it just an empty boast that you were hoping no one would call you on? Are you naive enough that you thought you could make a claim like that, refuse to back it up, and everyone would be ok with it? Or was it just an off-hand remark that you didn't really think about, and now that you've been called out on it you can't bring yourself to admit your mistake?

    Fascinating.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,811
    Ratings:
    +1,040
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Wow! This coming from someone that reads a page with three paragraphs, and only sees assertions. :dizzy:

    I don't know if you wear glasses, so I'll excuse you.

    I said, the entire evolution theory is based on assumptions.
    #1. a
    The link provided to show transitional fossils is nothing more than drawings and a few fossils which evolutionists claim show transition.
    They don't. They are based purely on assumption.

    Scientists are unable to test and observe what they claim takes millions of years. Yet, we live millions of years in the future, but evolution on a macro scale cannot be seen.

    Instead we see fully formed creature, come and go, just as they did when they first exploded on the scene.

    There are no intermediary fossils - none were found.
    One of Darwin's concerns - never found in over a century.

    On Origin of the Species
    Page 23
    ... one form is ranked as a variety of another, not because the intermediate links have actually been found, but because analogy leads the observer to suppose either that they do now somewhere exist, or may formerly have existed; and here a wide door for the entry of doubt and conjecture is opened.

    (One person called this a lie. I call SHAME.)

    Page 58
    Natural selection, as has just been remarked, leads to divergence of character and to much extinction of the less improved and intermediate forms of life.

    (Another lie it was called. SHAME.)

    Page 80
    ... must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved...


    I challenged persons here to show this to be untrue, and one person starts a merry-go-round on...o_O

    This is just the (a), part of the first....and I have only just begun. :expressionless:
     
  5. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,899
    First of all, your memory is failing you. THIS is the post YOU LINKED ME TO. Most of what follows was not in that post.

    Try and pay closer attention.

    Good for you. As I noted earlier, anyone with access to the internet came go into a forum and post empty assertions.

    If I say "The moon is made of cheese", do you believe me? Is the moon made of cheese simply because I declared it to be so? No? Now you understand why your equally empty assertions do not constitute a falsification of evolutionary theory.

    Another empty assertion. But let's begin here anyways.

    Would you agree that under evolutionary common descent we would expect to find "transitional fossils", with "transitional fossils" being defined as fossils that show a mixture of traits from different taxa?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,811
    Ratings:
    +1,040
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Please show me why the above are empty assertions.

    I could simply like you just say, I don't understand a thread of what you just said because it sounds like pure rubbish... but I won't.
    So please don't just dismiss my post without giving an adequate reason, and then badger me with your questions.
     
  7. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,899
    An "empty assertion" is defined as something stated without demonstration. You asserted that "the entire evolutionary theory is based on assumptions", and left it at that. You did not demonstrate how that is so.

    You made some assertions about "transitional fossils". So again, would you agree that under evolutionary common descent we would expect to find "transitional fossils", with "transitional fossils" being defined as fossils that show a mixture of traits from different taxa?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,811
    Ratings:
    +1,040
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Suit yourself.
     
  9. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,899
    Um......what?

    You've made a series of assertions about "transitional fossils". Do you even know what the term "transitional fossils" means? If so, please post what that term means to you.
     
  10. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,811
    Ratings:
    +1,040
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Please point out the exact assertions.... and explain why it's an assertion.
     
  11. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,899
    "the entire evolution theory is based on assumptions."

    "They [transitional fossils] are based purely on assumption."

    "There are no intermediary fossils - none were found"

    Those are all statements made without demonstrating them to be true.

    Now that I've answered your request, how about you actually do the same? Do you even know what the term "transitional fossil" means? If so, please post what that term means to you.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,811
    Ratings:
    +1,040
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    I did attempt to show it to be true.
    Perhaps if you stop trying to play master, and deal with the other parts of my post, you would at least attempt to show what I said to be wrong.

    I am also not going to answer the question which you are asking in your attempt at demeaning - another distraction.
     
  13. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,899
    Then you failed. You did not name any assumptions, nor did you take even one specimen and describe the assumptions related to it being a "transitional". You merely said "they are based purely on assumption" and left it at that.

    That's no different than me saying "The moon is made of cheese".

    Sure, as soon as we establish what is and isn't expected under evolutionary theory.

    So you make all sorts of assertions about "transitional fossils", but you refuse to even say what a "transitional fossil" is? How does that make any sense at all? It's like....

    "There are no examples of X!!!"

    What is X?

    "I don't have to answer your questions!"​

    Like I said, you're acting more like a guilty defendant on the stand than a participant in an open discussion.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,811
    Ratings:
    +1,040
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Was it not explained in Darwin's Origin of the Species, what an intermediate, or transitional is?
     
  15. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,899
    *sigh*

    I've already offered one definition (a fossil with a mixture of traits from different taxa) and you ignored that. Do you agree with it, or do you have a different definition.

    I hope you understand how frustrating this is for me. All you had to do was either agree with the definition I gave or provide your own. In a true conversation, that sort of thing is trivially easy. You on the other hand, have made it unnecessarily difficult.
     
    #375 Jose Fly, Jul 20, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  16. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,811
    Ratings:
    +1,040
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    I am not here to support, as I said before, evidence gathered to prop a series of ideas.

    I used information from the first idea, and showed that it failed after 150 years.
    According to the theory, the natural selection would have caused extinction of less improved and intermediate forms of life - which would have been more abundantly found in the fossil record - if the theory were true.

    So, in the earth should abound with intermediates.

    If you are saying that this refers to "a fossil with a mixture of traits from different taxa", then please mention what those traits are. If they are fossilized traits, i.e. characteristics in the fossil - go right ahead. ...and define trait.
    As far as I know, one can only determine traits from assumptions... unless you have something else in mind to what I am thinking.

    When they found Archaeopteryx they were thinking they found a missing link between dinosaur and bird, until they had to admit it was a bird.

    So, please, I await your evidence.
     
  17. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,899
    No, you haven't shown anything. You've made a series of empty assertions and dodged every attempt to get you to back them up.

    And you were provided with numerous examples of exactly that. Your only response was to collectively wave them away by declaring them all to be "based on assumption" without naming those assumptions or directly addressing even one specimen.

    If you honestly think that's a valid argument, I'll let that speak for itself.

    Ok. If humans share a common ancestry with other primates, do you agree that we should expect to find fossils that show a mixture of human and primitive primate traits?

    Traits are just the characteristics evident in the fossils themselves. For example, the cranial capacity, the shape of fingers, or the orientation of the skull relative to the spine are all "traits".

    Archaeopteryx is a very good transitional fossil. It has both avian and reptilian traits, which I think we agree is exactly what evolutionary theory says we should find.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,811
    Ratings:
    +1,040
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    If you start with assumptions, I believe it's possible to end with assumptions, on the previous assumptions.
    Give me your best example, that'a all I asked for. Why should I have to go through an entire page of drawings and images looking for what you call evidence.

    Am I asking too much?
     
  19. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,899
    Look, I've been around this tree with creationists many times before. Based on that experience, I know that unless there is an agreed to definition for "transitional fossil", it'll just be me providing and describing examples, followed by the creationist saying "Nuh uh, that's not a transitional".

    So all we have to do is agree on what constitutes a "transitional fossil". I've provided my definition and asked if you agree to it. All you have to do is say that you either agree with it, or if you don't, provide your own definition.

    Can you do that? I mean, if you're going to go around declaring that there aren't any transitional fossils, one would think you know what a "transitional fossil" is, right?
     
  20. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,811
    Ratings:
    +1,040
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    You explained what a transactional is right? What is the problem then?

    How would you like me to respond to you this way, "Well unless you accept that this scripture says ABC, then I can't show you Z?
    I hate when people do that. What is the game here? Are you afraid to present evidence?
    If it's so true, why should you care if people refuse to accept it after you show it?
    o_O
     
Loading...