Re: If you don't create such a stupid subject, it's a pretty

If you will take the time to lay out some cogent arguments yourself instead of just posting links to questionable sources I will be glad to debate you on the issue.

Very briefly, in regards to your first link;

If you want to make the argument that we should argue based on strict evidence as opposed to faith, how can you possibly argue from Christian perspective since Christianity is by definition based on faith? I'm not faulting anyone for being a Christian by any means, but I just believe in regards to evolution we should begin the argument based on conclusions drawn specifically from scientific evidence alone. Ergo, going by the logic of your own source we should disregard both the Christian creationist perspective as well as the evolutionary perspective and argue based specifically on scientific facts and inferences made from those facts.

In regards to your second long;

I find it interesting that people are still trying to argue that there are transitional fossils in the fossil record by quoting Darwin's "Origin of Species" from 1859. It makes perfect sense that the fossil record was lacking in 1859 given how new the science of paleontology was at the time as well as the fact that the theory of evolution was brand new. These arguments may have worked 100-160 years ago, but they no longer hold water.

I won't deny that there are plenty of areas where the fossil record is far from complete, but that will always be the case given the nature of the fossil record. It is extremely rare for remains of an animal to turn into a fossil at all, and even rarer to find enough of a fossil to be anywhere near complete. However, this alone doesn't disprove anything nor explain away the number of fossils that do indeed fit into the evolutionary model.

Finally, I find it funny that you (actually truthiscience.org) quote Prof. Steve Jones as a source in favor of Creationism given that Professor Jones is an outspoken critic of creationism and Christianity in general. That website along with numerous others attempts to disprove evolution by cherry-picking data to support their preconceived worldview without actually taking the time to actually analyze the data or go through the entirety of the arguments in favor of evolution.

cornstock

Orange Blooded [2340]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 2597

Joined: 9/5/05

Re: So if evolution is true

Dec 24, 2018, 4:15 PM

Are you suggesting that I didn't respond to the arguments made in the two sources you posted? That certainly wasn't my intention.

Also, I wasn't suggesting that you shouldn't post any links to references to reinforce your position, only that a healthy debate is better served with your own responses supported by links to other sources.

In regards to the question of faith, my argument is that I agree that the debate should be based on objective facts alone and not faith in anything. Are you suggesting that there are very little examples of transitional fossils of early human evolution just like Dr. Kidder? That in itself is a reasonable argument. However, just because it's true that there are very few early human transitional fossils does also mean that there are very few transitional fossils of other animals.

In essence, you can make the argument that we have not yet (and may never) found sufficient evidence specifically of early primate fossils that will by itself prove evolution. However, I would counter that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In this particular case we can reasonably infer that the process in which humans evolved is the same process in which other organisms evolved. We do indeed have ample fossil evidence to support evolution of other non-human species.

Also, it isn't valid to only argue against evolution based solely on the fossil record alone, whether it is limited to primate fossils or all fossils. There is overwhelming evidence from other areas that range from genetics, retroviruses, comparative anatomy, vestigial structures and paleontology. In 1859 it was much more reasonable to argue against evolution since Darwin was basing his theory primarily on fossils and comparative anatomy of current species. However, arguing in the contrary today requires one to address several other areas that have since advanced considerably.

Perhaps you do indeed have arguments against evolution in all of these areas. I'm not sure at this point, but I'm happy to debate you on the preponderance of the evidence as opposed to only one carefully selected piece of evidence or lack of evidence that supports your position.

In regards to the fossils that have been hoaxed or misidentified, I do not dispute that whatsoever. Because there is fame and money to be made by anyone who finds previously undiscovered transitional fossils, there will always be a motive for someone to make false claims. However, just because some instances of transitional fossils have turned to to be fake (specifically early primates) does not invalidate the other instances of transitional fossils in support of evolution.

As far as the dating method(s) are concerned, there has always been questions when relying on solely on individual method of dating. However, when multiple methods of radiometric dating ranging from radioactive carbon, potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and Rubidium–strontium are all used together it becomes much more difficult to argue against. Because of this issue it is extremely important to document where a fossil is found as opposed to only attempting to obtain a Carbon-14 reading from the fossil itself.

I'm happy to continue this debate as long as your interested either by refuting any specific arguments you may have against evolution or by laying out my own additional arguments that support evolution.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

So if evolution is true

If you don't create such a stupid subject, it's a pretty