Free Thinkr

Randman: Listen up. Hey, over here! Listen!

It is a fruitless venture for one of us to try to list transitional species preceding and following archy. Why is that? Let us fill in some placeholder species into your imfamous blanks:

1. Creature A
2. Creature B
3. Creature C
4. Creature D
5. Creature E
6. Archy

We already know what your next plan of attack is! Next you'll say "Wait, where are the transitional forms from creature E to Archy?" With the limited fossils out there it is simply impossible for us to document and delineate every specie leading from dinosaurs to birds.

I for one don't believe for even one second you are sincere in posing that question. You know damn well that it is practically impossible to answer to your satisfaction. Such dishonesty from a man who sincerely believes a giant sky-man may or may not throw him in a lake of fire for eternity!

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Free Thinkr ]</p>

Dark Jedi

The problem is that the criteria of evidence changes when challenged.

"Show a transitional form"

Ok, here ya go.

"I mean a transitional form at both ends."

Ok, Here ya go.

"No, I need three transitional forms, with a timeline and family tree, from both ends."

Ok, here ya go.

"No, I mean five forms, a family tree for each, the specific DNA deviations, fossils for each form, and the names that their mothers used when calling them."

Ok, here ya go.

"Ha! you didn't tell me what color their dorsal feathers were during the winter of their adolescence at sunset! See, there are no transitionals!"

Ok, here ya go.

seebs

They've been pretty good so far. I *have* seen people get banned for consistent hostility, but they're quite good about the open debate fora. AtheistArchon managed to get banned, but I think that only happened 'cuz he lost his cool after debating with theists who refused to conform to his "plan of attack". Poor guy; proselytizing is hard, and we coulda told him not to get his hopes up, if he'd asked nicely.

I certainly think a post like your detailed analysis of the correct way to understand archy's position in the world would be welcome, and I don't think you'd get any more hazing than I do.

(You saw LouisBooth's remark. He's like that; I think he thinks I'm not a "real" Christian, and resents my presence.)

Gar

Randman, scientists don't make shit up to fill in the gaps in their theories. They are obviously not going to know every intermediate species in an evolutionary porgression because thry are limited to fossil evidence in most cases. Its called a *theory* because we don't know that it is the absolute truth.

B. H. Manners

My mother took pictures of me as a baby. She also took pictures of me when I'm 4,5,9,11,13,18, and, 22. I am now 23. Although we are missing pictures from when I was 2,3,6,7,8,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,20, and 21, my girlfriend (who didn't see me grow up) is pretty certain that those pictures of me as a baby are of me. She is also very certain that during my life, I was 6,7,and 8 at one time or another. Just because I can't provide evidence for my appearence every second of my life, you would consider me to have always been an adult, that I haven't changed in the last 23 years. However, my girlfriend has more sense and correctly concludes that I did grow up and can infer what I looked like at 7 or 13, even though she doesn't have a picture.

~~RvFvS~~[/QB][/QUOTE]

Great analogy Rufus Atticus. Randman you are so full of shit flushing the toilet 10,000 times a day over a 100 year period would not enable you to get rid of all of it.

randman

Gee, I didn't realize fossils were pictures of the same species (person). Oh that;s right, I am suppossed to assume all of these extinct species are actually the same thing. What a great way to add interpretation to data, and then call the interpretation data. Thanks for clearing that up.

If ya'll want to debate me, go to the other site, preferably later though. It's getting late.

RufusAtticus

We already debated you months ago. I really don't know if I care about winning the same discussion twice.

~~RvFvS~~

seebs

There's three standards of "winning" a debate:

Logical proof, or preponderance of evidence.

Opinion of the lurkers.

Convincing the other guy.

The last one is the hard one. *sigh*. I'm probably gonna bow out of that thread again; the personal attacks are not helping my mood any, and I'm sick of being called "not a Christian".

Jerry Smith

Seebs,

If you are talking about one of the threads (or all of them!?) from the CF, I understand why you would want to throw in the towel... Still you are an MVP over there and you are appreciated!

And from a non-Christian to a Christian: you are a credit to your faith. Those who are making you out to be a non-Christian are making their faith much less attractive to the rest of us.