Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[Tristen]

Hi @The Barbarian, It appears someone is abusing their "hidden" button licence again.

You said,

“The argument didn't quite work out the way you planned. Getting upset and accusing people of lying will only make it worse for you. I would have thought a PhD in genomics would have been able to put up a better argument than "you're lying!"”

You mean a “better argument” like documenting your serial dishonesty in detail – as I did in my previous post?

Anyway – I guess it's time to start drinking.

 

“Instead of focusing on the Evil Barbarian, put some work into a cogent argument. That might be much better for you. Again, I'm surprised that a PhD in Genomics would not be aware of the Genomic literature”

Hoorah!!! Another drink.

 

“So you think we can't conclude that mountains are reduced by erosion? Seriously?”

A classic Strawman fallacy. I wonder if I should add logic fallacies to the drinking game. That might be a bit much.

 

“ And all the very same facts fit the Genesis model of creation. So all the bluster about “the evidence” fitting your preferred model is meaningless.

Nope. And even honest YE creationists admit that it doesn't. Would you like me to show you, again? ”

Are you going to show me what some “YE creationists admit”? Because that doesn't have any meaning to me. But if you can show me how I'm wrong by way of logic (even once) – even an honest attempt would be impressive.

 

 

[Alive]

19 hours ago, Tristen said:

Everything you have contributed to our conversation has been founded on dishonesty. For some reason, you have decided to adopt a win-at-all-costs approach to our discussion (including permitting yourself to be intentionally disingenuous) .

 

@Tristen  This is unnecessary and against the TOS. Please debate the topic and not the person.

Thank you.

[The Barbarian]

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

You mean a “better argument” like documenting your serial dishonesty in detail – as I did in my previous post?

 

Instead of focusing on the Evil Barbarian, put some work into a cogent argument. That might be much better for you. Again, I'm surprised that a PhD in Genomics would not be aware of the Genomic literature.

 

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

Anyway – I guess it's time to start drinking.

That would have been a safer course than that which you actually began.

18 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I am saying that we can not claim that something necessarily happened if it wasn't observed – especially when there are alternative ways to explain the facts. That is, we can not claim to “know” what was not observed.

So you think we can't conclude that mountains are reduced by erosion? Seriously?

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

A classic Strawman fallacy.

Testing your claim?   Nope.  You argued that we cannot claim to know what was not observed.   I just tested your assertion with an example.  It failed.

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

And all the very same facts fit the Genesis model of creation.

Nope. And even honest YE creationists admit that it doesn't. Would you like me to show you, again?

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

Are you going to show me what some “YE creationists admit”? Because that doesn't have any meaning to me.

Honesty is always important.  It should be important to you.  Here you are:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

...

At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60(Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon[or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetuswith the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one- third smaller;67Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.

YE creationist Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

 

[The Barbarian]

On 9/2/2020 at 6:25 AM, JohnR7 said:

he point is these people are not creditable. They can not be trusted. If they could be they would not have give us this virus. 

Here, you merely assumed what you have proposed to show us.   Can you actually produce some evidence?

 

[Alive]

This thread is locked--it has devolved into insults and calling brothers liars, dishonest and all kinds of un-Christlike conduct. This is not a good witness for our Lord's sake and His children.