The Problem With Evolution- Part 1, Ape to Man Ridiculousness

[The Barbarian]

2 minutes ago, Sparks said:

If Darwin were alive today, he would admit fossils are not evidence of evolution because he did so when he was alive. 

Actually, if he were alive today, he'd be pleased to know that his prediction was correct...

For my part, following out Lyell’s metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear.

Charles Darwin  On the Origin of Species

It is true that fossilization is a very rare thing for most species.  But Darwin was correct in saying that scientists of his time had only a tiny part of the fossil record discovered.  There have been, in my lifetime, a great number of new fossils located that confirm many of Darwin's predictions.   Dinosaurs to birds.   Stem anapsids to turtles.   Reptiles to mammals.    Fish to tetrapods.   Wasps to ants.    And many, many more.   And that just in my lifetime.  Pick one, if you doubt me; I'll show you in detail.

14 minutes ago, Sparks said:

f he had lived through the fake transitional fossils created by man, I bet he would have called for people to stop fabricating them.

And no, scientists are not "all lying" about these numerous transitional forms, as your fellow YE creationists have admitted.    Many YE creationists have found ways to accept the truth without losing their faith in creationism.    But many of them have also lost their faith in God, because they were indoctrinated to believe that YE creationism is part of Christian belief.    This is the real damage that YE does to His church.   

 

[The Barbarian]

23 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Ignoring the truth that is still playing out does not make you the winner of the debate, it just makes you the 'ignorer' of it,

I'm just showing you the facts.  Your guy made claims that were mathematically impossible.   And he got offended because people laughed at him for that and for posing as a government "whistleblower" when he had no government position at all in New Zealand.    Those are facts.    I showed you them.

25 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You never have lost a debate here

I never bother to check who won.    I'm merely advocating the facts.    If someone thinks I won, fine.  If not, fine.    I'm just putting the facts forward, and showing you why scientists have found what they have.   

Keep in mind that while these facts certainly support common descent, (what Dr. Wise calls "macroevolutionary theory", it is still true, as both Dr. Wise and Dr. Wood assert, that there might still be an explanation for these facts that is consistent with YE creationism.   No scientific theory is proven logically; there is always the possibility that it might be modified or replaced by new findings.   Dr. Wise suggests avoiding denial, and seeking a consistent creationist theory for those facts.    Which is honest and consistent logically.   And both Dr. Wise and Dr. Wood point out that one may admit the evidence, but still prefer one's interpretation of scripture, as they do.

You might consider reading some of their work on the subject.

 

[Sparks]

33 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Actually, if he were alive today, he'd be pleased to know that his prediction was correct...

Only the fake transitional fossils could be considered evidence, if they were not fakes.  So, Darwin would be disappointed that people had fabricated the fakes.

23 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I'm just showing you the facts.  Your guy made claims that were mathematically impossible.  

You showed me nothing and didn't look fully into the matter.  That's coincidentally how the 'drive-by media' works.  They get a small portion of the facts, draw the wrong conclusion, and then run with them as if they have revealed the truth.  

For you to have debated Kirsch, you would have had to put up your own 1 million dollars, and been willing to lose it when you could not make your point.  Here, it's a little safer for poorly drawn conclusions.  But enough on something you refuse to properly research.

[The Barbarian]

18 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You showed me nothing

For example, I showed you that your guy's claim was mathematically impossible.

19 minutes ago, Sparks said:

and didn't look fully into the matter

I looked into it well enough to find out his claim to be a "government whistleblower" was a hoax.   He has no connection with any government agency in New Zealand.

20 minutes ago, Sparks said:

That's coincidentally how the 'drive-by media' works.

Yep.   If we had accepted their claim without checking, we never would have found that "drive-by whistleblower" was a complete hoax.

21 minutes ago, Sparks said:

They get a small portion of the facts

No.  There were no facts.   He made it all up.  He wasn't a government official, and his claim was mathematically impossible.    It remains to be seen whether or not he'll pay off, now that his story has been refuted.   I'm guessing that his wager is a hoax, too.

 

 

[Sparks]

1 minute ago, The Barbarian said:

For example, I showed you that your guy's claim was mathematically impossible.

I looked into it well enough to find out his claim to be a "government whistleblower" was a hoax.   He has no connection with any government agency in New Zealand.

Yep.   If we had accepted their claim without checking, we never would have found that "drive-by whistleblower" was a complete hoax.

No.  There were no facts.   He made it all up.  He wasn't a government official, and his claim was mathematically impossible.    It remains to be seen whether or not he'll pay off, now that his story has been refuted.   I'm guessing that his wager is a hoax, too.

If you completed your research, you would have the facts.  Enough of what you won't research. 

[The Barbarian]

19 minutes ago, Sparks said:

If you completed your research

I would have discovered that he was not telling the truth about being a "government whistleblower" and that his claims were mathematically impossible.

But that's what I did find.   Those are the facts.   I can show you again.  

[Sparks]

47 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I would have discovered that he was not telling the truth about being a "government whistleblower" and that his claims were mathematically impossible.

But that's what I did find.   Those are the facts.   I can show you again.  

You have to get in the last word, so OK. 

[Starise]

The last word isn't ever necessarily the right word.