XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian   
   From: Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/3/2025 4:45 AM, Andrew wrote:   
   > "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   
      
   Tell me that you've read both documents (I have), and we'll discuss!  I   
   want page #s.   
      
   Dawn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)