XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian   
   From: Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/2/2025 11:17 AM, Andrew wrote:   
   > "Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:10972c0$iuqh$1@dont-email.me...   
   >> Andrew wrote:   
   >>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:   
   >>>> "Andrew" wrote:   
   >>>>> "I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which   
   >>>>> one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements   
   >>>>> about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record.   
   >>>>> Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no   
   >>>>> there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to   
   >>>>> make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find   
   >>>>> reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But   
   >>>>> such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of   
   >>>>> putting them to   
   >>>>> the test." ~ Dr. Colin Patterson, paleontologist   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record   
   >>>>> persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary   
   >>>>> trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes   
   >>>>> of their branches; the rest is inference..not the evidence of   
   >>>>> fossils." ~ Stephen J. Gould, paleontologist   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and   
   >>>>> paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a   
   >>>>> contingent feature of the record."   
   >>>>> ~ David B. Kitts, Ph.D, zoologist, paleontologist   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Many species now going extinct may vanish without a fossil trace   
   >>>> March 21, 2016   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The researchers were shocked to find that more than 85 percent of   
   >>>> the mammal species at high risk of extinction lack a fossil record.   
   >>>> Viewed from the perspective of the fossil record alone, the   
   >>>> magnitude of the current mammal die-off thus appears markedly   
   >>>> reduced. The picture may be even more distorted for other land-   
   >>>> dwelling vertebrates: only 3 percent of today's threatened bird   
   >>>> species and 1.6 percent of threatened reptile species have a known   
   >>>> fossil record.   
   >>>> https://today.uic.edu/many-species-now-going-extinct-may-vanish-   
   >>>> without-   
   >>>> a-fossil-trace/   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If a species never gets fossilized can you claim it never existed?   
   >>>   
   >>> No, but neither could one claim that they did. And that does not   
   >>> negate the fact that there is no empirical evidence of transitional   
   >>> forms   
   >>> ever existing.   
   >>>   
   >>> Bottom line, you have been deceived. Which   
   >>> would not have happened if you had not been   
   >>> so gullible.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Andrew,   
   >>   
   >> Here are two neat little books; I've posted about these here before,   
   >> but you'll never read either:   
   >>   
   >> https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/1886/science-and-   
   >> creationism-a-view-from-the-national-academy-of   
   >>   
   >> with an updated version:   
   >>   
   >> https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/6024/science-and-   
   >> creationism-a-view-from-the-national-academy-of   
   >>   
   >> They are both free, of course, but I doubt that you will click either   
   >> link.   
   >   
   > If you send me a link, I will certainly go to it.   
   >   
   > So what about them do you want to discuss?   
   >   
   > They cite evidences for evolution which are   
   > true.   
   > But their origins model "excludes a priori "   
   > the possibility of an intelligent causation.   
   > For anyone, or any organization to exclude   
   > anything as a possible answer to a question   
   > is evidence that they are biased, and are not   
   > interested in the truth.   
   >   
   > And if you are interested in truth, you must   
   > go beyond that.   
   >   
      
   Did you read them?  (Really?!)  As for "intelligent causation," do   
   planets and other celestial bodies move because there are invisible   
   creatures (angels or fairies) that are pushing them??  By Occam's razor   
   (principle of parsimony) certain conjectures can be rejected a priori at   
   least until there is evidence to support those conjectures, of which   
   there are a limitless set anyways.   
      
   Dawn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)