Ok you win.

quote:

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions. Examples of common topics in which Denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming Denialism, Holocaust Denial, HIV/AIDS Denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, tobacco carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship. We believe there are five simple guidelines for identifying denialist arguments. Most denialist arguments will incorporate more than one of the following tactics: Conspiracy, Selectivity, False Experts, Impossible Expectations/Moving Goalposts, and Argument from Metaphor/violations of informal logic.

http://www.denialism.com/2007/03/what-is-denialism.html

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN excuse me? could you give us ANY examples of creationists engaged in anything but?? creationists = holocaust deniers = 9/11 conspiracy theorists. sounds like you've spent too long in those US museums that claim man existed around the same time as dinosaurs

While I know creationists are pursuing a ridiculous agenda (religion, sigh), I don't see why something of this degree of entropic enthalpy couldn't have been partly devised by some sort of "intelligence". I only use the word intelligence because whatever it is obviously will defy any vocabulary we could fathom up. At the same time, maybe not. Who knows?

Keep in mind that we are reverse engineering existence through the pivotal perspective of our own minds. Thus, in itself, we inadvertently and constantly change the medium which we study.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I'de love to debate whale evolution. I'll start.. Please list the transitional speciation of the whale from a land-dwelling creature to that of a completely sea-borne animal. Is this correct?

He is.

Whales ancestors were actually land dwelling cows.Whale DNAs are very similar to cows u get ur milk from.

and if u want proof from fossils..then start looking for old tar pits and start digging asshole.

u know how hard it is to fossilize ur bones? It takes SHEER luck to have your bones last for millions of years.

I'm not going into the actual process. You are a numbskull and I really hope u find ur 'god' someday.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN excuse me? could you give us ANY examples of creationists engaged in anything but?? creationists = holocaust deniers = 9/11 conspiracy theorists. sounds like you've spent too long in those US museums that claim man existed around the same time as dinosaurs

LOL!!

Creationists don't deny they are advocating a theistic view of the origins of the universe. You failed to understand the statement pertained to evolutionists denial that their theory is based on assumptions just like the creationists assumption of a Creator being. For evolution to be true, one must assume life came about by random processes. Science is guided by the scientific method, of which niether creationism or evolution can be proven by the scientific method alone. The only way to prove either theory is by taking on their assumptions: either there is a Creator/ or / the Cosmos itself is responsible for our origins. Science is not based on assumptions.

quote:

First off, are you going to acknowledge that you are essentially ripping your documentation entirely from Harun Yahya, the Turkish Creationist otherwise known as Adnan_Oktar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar He's a very talented fellow in his own right, unfortunately his talent is almost exclusively plagiarizing from the Institute of Creation Research (ICR) as well as threatening people in his own country who believe in anything but creationism: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rn..._12_30_1899.asp Furthermore, this same interestin fellow and his network also depicts Darwinism as the true "ideological root" of terrorism: http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution_specialpreface.php So if this is the guy you're laying you're bed with, best of luck. But let's take a look at your/his claim anyway:

I use several sources in my debates. Whatever the personal views of my sources are doesn't concern me. It is the substance of the arguements they present, and if they are useful, I'll use them.

quote:

So you see that your author changed a few things from the original article such as changing turtles to tortoises (thereby making it look more terrestrial), and claiming that snails and crocodiles are purely terrestrial (which some snail species are but not the ones mentioned). Furthermore, I emphasized that the sediments these fossils were found in are fluvial, i.e. river beds (and therefore NOT terrestrial). Are you beginning to understand why you need to have a more critical view of the sources you are using from creationists? So Pakicetus wasn't entirely fully aquatic as our modern day whales, and Gingrich's article also demonstrates the fossils were found in sediments deposited in fresh water, not just associated with terrestrial mammals but also with aquatic invertebrates and amphibious invertebrates. So if we go with a prediction of whales arising from land animals, then we would have to conclude that their ancestors arose from land with 4 legs with characteristics that were depicted here, and that is exactly what we find with Pakicetus.

Great demonstration of how assumptions work to prove evolutionary theory. When Pakicetus inachus was first found, all Mr. Gengrich had was a posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper- and lower-cheek teeth. Yet, he claimed this creature as the ancestor of the whales, when even with a complete skeleton, there is no link between the creature and whales. Are you going to say that two completely different systems somehow are related, especially when saying a wolf-like animal (relatively small) evolved into a gigantic animal totally suited for life in the open ocean, NOT flaviul riverbed environments. We have hundreds of millions of fossils, and should find no difficulty finding clear relationships between kinds. Pakicetus inachus, even if found in riverbed material does not prove ANYTHING. Evolutionists were declaring this a missing link before a complete skeleton was even found.

Can we demonstrate in a laboratory that fully functional land-dwelling animals can evolve into fully functional open-ocean dwelling animals? No, and never.

quote:

That's a "God excuse"? Actually every single researcher I've ever known simply points me to the primary literature and says, "read". Funny you should argue that.

I don't argue this, evolutionists do. When asked to demonstrate complete transitions between species through scientific methodology, "The process takes millions of years." is the excuse to explain why they can't demonstrate this assumed process (species level) here and now in the laboratory environment.

quote:

Ummm, there's more than just a "few": http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html And that doesn't even touch the plants or microorganisms.

From my point of view, these so-called transitional fossils are all fully functional animals in their own right whose species is either extinct or living. If extinct, they do not pass on their genes, so no transition to another species is possible. If not, they should still be alive, and demonstrate here and now that they are transitional.

quote:

Gullible indeed. Perhaps you should actually read Gould and others similar to him before finding those creationists who deliberately distort and misrepresent his works for their own personal propaganda.

When it comes down to it, I believe in a Creator being, and universal purpose. I'll always argue this point of view. Everyone starts at a basic assumption of which everything else they believe comes from. I've just chosen to believe that we did not come about by unguided, random change that somehow brought together an infinite number of systems into one inter-dependant system. I simply cannot ever see how there could not be a Creator.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by trewqy and if u want proof from fossils..then start looking for old tar pits and start digging asshole. u know how hard it is to fossilize ur bones? It takes SHEER luck to have your bones last for millions of years. I'm not going into the actual process. You are a numbskull and I really hope u find ur 'god' someday.

So now, I'm an asshole?

Where's Lira?

To answer your semi ad hominem argument, we have hundreds of millions of fossils with over 100 years to study them. By now, there should be at least one clear cut laboratory demonstrated lineage that cannot be denied. We are hardly there.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton When it comes down to it, I believe in a Creator being, and universal purpose. I'll always argue this point of view. Everyone starts at a basic assumption of which everything else they believe comes from. I've just chosen to believe that we did not come about by unguided, random change that somehow brought together an infinite number of systems into one inter-dependant system. I simply cannot ever see how there could not be a Creator.

Just don't forget that the reason humans have a nose bridGe is because we frolicked in the sea for a few million years

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton LOL!! Creationists don't deny they are advocating a theistic view of the origins of the universe. You failed to understand the statement pertained to evolutionists denial that their theory is based on assumptions just like the creationists assumption of a Creator being. For evolution to be true, one must assume life came about by random processes. Science is guided by the scientific method, of which niether creationism or evolution can be proven by the scientific method alone. The only way to prove either theory is by taking on their assumptions: either there is a Creator/ or / the Cosmos itself is responsible for our origins. Science is not based on assumptions.

wrong. scientists base their assumptions upon EVIDENCE. creationism is based upon myopic religious dogma. completely different kettles of fish. which is why creationism isnt taught in the science classroom.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN wrong. scientists base their assumptions upon EVIDENCE. creationism is based upon myopic religious dogma. completely different kettles of fish. which is why creationism isnt taught in the science classroom.

One huge assumption you might of forgot about was, "Life arose from non-living matter." If this is the case, why hasn't it happened again and again over all these billions of years, and why hasn't it ever been demonstrated in a laboratory? Putting together useless amino acids in a test tube does not constitute a proof of spontaneous life generation.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton One huge assumption you might of forgot about was, "Life arose from non-living matter." If this is the case, why hasn't it happened again and again over all these billions of years, and why hasn't it ever been demonstrated in a laboratory? Putting together useless amino acids in a test tube does not constitute a proof of spontaneous life generation.

its interesting you keep harping on about "proof". pretty laughable coming from a theist mate.

i'll post this again for your reading pleasure

quote:

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions. Examples of common topics in which Denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming Denialism, Holocaust Denial, HIV/AIDS Denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, tobacco carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship. We believe there are five simple guidelines for identifying denialist arguments. Most denialist arguments will incorporate more than one of the following tactics: Conspiracy, Selectivity, False Experts, Impossible Expectations/Moving Goalposts, and Argument from Metaphor/violations of informal logic.

pointing at supposed "holes" in evolution is not giving credence to any alternative theory. evolution stands up to much more rigorous scientific inquiry than ANYTHING creationists have had to offer. so until you can provide a more compelling and plausible position, supported by as much evidence as evolution is, you've got absolutely nothing to be complaining about.

the entire world is still waiting.

___________________