On a related note, geeky grammarians might find The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks amusing:
This is for Caddy.(164 posts) (15 voices)
"Why don't you post what you think evidence of a transitional fossil would actually be. Now I know this creates problems for you as you're either going to post some ridiculous definition that bears no relation to reality or ignore this question all together. Over to you caddy ... "
Looks as though you choose to ignore this one ... do you wonder why I think you are not honest and open?
I have a couple of books on fossils, Jabster. But I'm no expert but I would venture to say you aren't either. From what I read on one side, there is absolutely no problem. Evolutionist unequivocally KNOW ( and I use that word rather derisively ) EXACTLY what they are looking at. I remain skeptical that they really *** KNOW *** what they are looking at is not just a different size horse for example. Both evolutionist & creationists change their scientific models. Creationist should have no problem when the model changes. They do and we know they do. The same can be said for the other side.
I used horse fossils because they seem to have been a propaganda tool for evolution for 130 years now. If you've read anything concerning fossils you've read the story of T.H. Huxley coming to America in 1876 to look at Yale University's collection of horse fossils. He became convinced that these fossils proved the evolution of the horse beyond a doubt.
Huxley's enthusiasm led the American paleontologist O.C. Marsh to draw a very famous diagram of horse evolution. I just love it when we draw picture as if the pictures we draw adds to the proof! Anyhow the diagram shows parts of 6 different horse species in the order that they appear in the fossil record. It highlights differences in the hooves, legs, and teeth, apparently showing a gradual transition from a "Orohippus" type of horse to our modern horse. Orohippus was roughly the size of a medium dog, with 4 toes on its forefoot and 3 on its hind.
Opponents of evolution didn't take kindly to this new evidence. Wilford Hall described Huxley's presentation of horse evolution as a "complete misunderstanding" of evolution because, according to Hall, the change from 4-toed Orohippus to 1-toed modern horse was a degeneration.
Account after account like this have littered the discussion for over 130+ years of debating the fossil record. According ToE the door is and always been closed shut on debating the "fact." It's not going away. Evolutionists think they KNOW exactly what they are looking at. Very good evidence exists to suggest there remains one single "kind" of horse, and a diversity of species that started and ended with horses. There is undoubted diversification of horse species--from small to large to extinct horses.
If that is what the data shows then that's what the data shows. So, I don't ignore your question(s). I am as subject to my reading an presuppositions as you are. I have extreme doubts about the theory. Still even with all my doubts I will continue to state that even that theory is not a hindrance to faith. Kenneth Miller doesn't seem to think so. I only think the theory is a hindrance to men & women when they think it limits who God is and what He has done in history. It always sticks me as odd that unbelievers can absolutely believe in supposed proofs they have not seen and cannot test and cannot verify beyond a shadow of a doubt but chide believers for their faith in a historical Christ in which proof is equally removed from each and every man just as are those things evolutionary.
So, IMHO I don't care if you keep the theory or not. Long periods of time are not insurmountable for me and neither is evolutionary theory. But if you want to use it to debate God is non-existent then I will always refer you to those men who hold to the theory and also to a Historical Jesus who walked the earth, died, and rose again. Question them, not me, on why you think they believe as they do.
Caddy wrote in the wrong thread:
The most vigorous atheist in the West has grown up in a world in which love and justice are ideal. But such ideals have no objective referent outside of the biblical accounts and the moral law that we know we can't deny. We can only suppress it.
Sorry, no, that's wrong. You are pre-supposing something about humans that is wrong because you suppose there is god. You have no other reasons so you fill in the blanks with god.
Caddy - do you get how the forums work? Caddy. CADDY!
A topic has a title bearing on the subject at hand, and someone asks a question or opens a topic for discussion.
Then we answer the question and discuss it.
You don't have to get all your answers in one thread. If you know you are being off-topic, go start a new thread. If you don't know you are being off-topic, take a second and learn to read the signs. They are getting less subtle!
I think most of your questions, although somewhat evangelizing, would fit in the sub-forum "Questions for Atheists/Theists". You can follow several discussions and ask and answer closer to topic in each of them, rather than focus all the topics back to your supposition of god and then hammer away at it because we're trying to ignore your interruption of the TOPIC. It is getting hard to ignore you because you are so willfully stupid.
Your intrusions of the topic and the people (like me) who address your diversion of the topic rather than stay on topic are all contributing to disruption, so it's better if we ignore you altogether and just carry on. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS, I'm sure you've heard that before, you just can't believe we mean you! You are like a child who won't listen, and Daniel has already threatened to ban you. Are you that stupid to keep it up? Why can't you read for comprehension? Why can't you figure out how forums work, and ask your separate questions in separate places?
If you really want people to answer you, address your broad questions, or take you at all seriously, you have to figure out how this works. It's not that hard. Take a fucking hint, man!
I would like nothing better than for you to ignore me. When you pose a question I have attempted to answer those questions. It's not my problem that your usual replies are weak and also off topic as well because you are replying directly to me.
Keep in mind that when you state my name at the top of the thread, make some assertions it is my thought that you are looking for a reply. It would be nice if there were a way to respond privately, but there is none. So, if you don't want a reply or answer from me, don't put my name in the thread. It's a pretty simple concept, Kodie.
The problem isn't this thread, it's all the other ones. This thread is called "This is for Caddy". This thread was created, a unique honor, you may feel, for you to discuss everything you like to talk about. It's all for you. Nobody else has their own thread to talk about whatever they want! It is simply because you divert attention off-topic in so many threads and because you keep asking the same basic questions and then following them up with things that are only true for you, but not the rest of the thinking, reasonable world.
All the other threads you post in have not asked for your complete discourse on moral law and why we all suppress it, according to you. Nobody has to answer your questions about moral law in those other threads, no matter how much you badger them to "just answer the question." No matter how much you keep at it, in all the other threads, nobody cares much what you think about moral law and why you think we're suppressing it, because it is off-topic.
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that has been presented to you, you are being off-topic? How can you even argue about it? Are we suppressing your moral law that you know and can't not know that says you're allowed to pollute a bunch of other threads to talk about what you want to say? You are kind of an asshole if you think so.
caddy wrote: "Very good evidence exists to suggest there remains one single 'kind' of horse".
Well, at least you're using quotes properly... and I thought you ~couldn't~ learn anything new...
That's the only good news I'm afraid. Typical creationist sentence you have there - but here comes the hard part for you: define "kind" please. What is a "kind"? Are siamese cats the same "kind" as lions?
Look - there is NO controversy regarding the evolution of the horse. You don't actually say what your problem is with horse evolution so it's hard for me to correct your mistakes regarding that.
caddy wrote: "according to Hall, the change from 4-toed Orohippus to 1-toed modern horse was a degeneration."
So? How is this a problem for the ToE?
You still haven't given any actual problems with the ToE, nor answered jabster's questions.
RE: "So? How is this a problem for the ToE?"
Things are supposed to be P R O G R E S S I N G with evolution right?
Makes me wonder why our behaviors towards one another hasn't progressed!
caddy wrote: "Things are supposed to be P R O G R E S S I N G with evolution right?"
Wrong. Things are ~changing~, but not necessarily in any particular direction.
Some negative or ineffectual traits can piggyback on other positive traits and end up being selected for.
Out of curiousity - why would you say 3 toes are 'worse' than 4 anyway? I'm not sure that's true, but it's irrelevant anyway for the reason I just explained.
Oh... I guess you won't be making an ass of yourself regarding your scientific illiteracy here anymore. I see you've been banned.
awwww he didn't respond to my argument at all... :'(
but I'll settle for: http://sharkrobot.com/t-shirts/blow-me =P
You must log in to post.