XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian   
   From: andrew.321.remov@usa.net   
      
   "Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:1097qmo$q22v$1@dont-email.me...   
   > Andrew wrote:   
   >> "Dawn Flood" wrote:   
   >>> 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?!)   
      
   Did you read my response? No?   
      
   OK.   
      
   Did you want to discuss -anything-   
   they say? No?   
      
   OK.   
      
   > As for "intelligent causation," do   
   > planets and other celestial bodies move because there are invisible   
   > creatures (angels or fairies) that are pushing them??   
      
   That's called a "straw-man fallacy". A tactic   
   used by those who argue *against* the truth.   
      
   > 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)