Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The_Unknown_Banana · 07-13-2003, 07:24 AM

Hi, I'm trying to prove to a friend that creationist claims against evolution are in fact unfounded, and incorrect. The site in question at the moment is the "Top evidence against the theory of Evolution", http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid1.htm, starting at point 1. I am by no means an expert, and would just like to know if anyone is aware of a good argument against this site's claims?

Otherwise, this is what I am about to send (Editted, and mainly contains snippets from websites or from Infidels itself) - is this a good argument? Am I asking too much of you to read my compilation? lol. Thanks for your time anyway

Quote:

It claims that there are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Even creationists recognize that there is evidence in the fossil record of one creature becoming another kind. Taken from the creationist site, �Answers in Genesis� (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...q/dont_use.asp), in its list of arguments not to use against evolution:

"...Since there are candidates, even though they are highly dubious, it�s better to avoid possible comebacks by saying instead: �While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.� ..."

While this doesn�t say that there is definite evidence, it is certainly a step in the right direction, right? So stating that �There is no evidence of transitional links� is admittedly not correct, by either side�s standards. This admittedly doesn't prove anything, and I only include it to reveal the possible bias apparent in the web site in question. Now how about that evidence�

[Showed the picture of "ape" and human skulls, as well as a picture of the fossilised remains of a sea cow with legs]

These are just a couple. For more, see any of the following:

29+ Evidences for MacroEvolution � All you should need:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/...ermediates_ex3

You could also take a look at the rest of the page I put in earlier, if you don�t mind a long boring read (Actually, they�re all pretty long and boring lol):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Sequence of skulls on mammal-like reptiles:
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/...il_series.html

A site about "early mammal-like reptiles":
http://www.museums.org.za/sam/resour...uver/early.htm
And the sequel, "later mammal-like reptiles":
http://www.museums.org.za/sam/resour...uver/later.htm
"Evolution: From Reptiles to Mammals":
http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/f.../rept_mam.html
A site addressing some creationist critiques of the reptile/mammal evidence:
http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/ce06.htm
A site listing the various kinds of therapsids (an 'advanced' group mammal-like reptile, or alternately a group of 'primitive' mammals):
http://home.houston.rr.com/vnotes/unit10.5.html
A site about "transitional fossils" which has a section on the reptile/mammal transition, including some nice images�definitely worth checking out:
http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Miller.html
And here's a brief summary of the skeletal features distinguishing reptiles from mammals, and the evidence of a gradual transition, from this site:
http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-arc...4Jul/0032.html

If you�d like a more in depth discussion on why they are transitional, and also the definition of �transitional� in evolutionary terms, just tell me. (This can go into the realm of �How many possible transitional fossils are there between animal A and animal B?�. Or similarly in my opinion, �How many numbers between 2 and 3?�)

We are at the mercy of the fossil record when it comes to discovering how life actually evolved. If a species left no fossils, how are we to learn anything about them? If a species did leave fossils, but they were destroyed by geological processes, how are we to examine them? What if the fossils are still buried deep in the ground? Or they were already exposed and washed downstream? Or they are sitting exposed, but no one is there to pick them up? How are we to discover them?

There are many good reasons why we don't have all of the fossils we would like. However, the fossils we do have support evolution.

If you can accept that transitional fossils exist given this evidence, then I believe there is no need to go through the other points made in part 1 in any detail, as they are all based on the notion that there is a major lack of evidence.

Duvenoy · 07-13-2003, 07:51 AM

Oops! I posted a link for you, then saw that you already had it. As far as I can see, it's not too shabby, not too shabby at all.

But be warned, it's gonna be an uphill battle. "God did it!" is hard to refute with mere facts.

Wishing luck.

doov

Dr.GH · 07-13-2003, 12:25 PM

Looks good to me. One problem that you will soon run into is the "You just post web links- say it in your own words." or "My web links are just as good as your web links." or "Anybody can post web links- how do we know yours are any good."

I have seen this used by both sides in the evo/creato argument. It leads to either an argument from authority, or a sort of postmodern "What is truth?" position.

The way to avoid this is to re-assert that simple question of empirical support, and predictive value.

Joe Meert · 07-13-2003, 01:56 PM

I always like to ask the creationist what sort of organism they would accept as transitional. No point in arguing if they can't tell you what they are looking for. For the most part, they view transitional in cartoon terms. For example, one creationists said he would accept a half cow-half horse. When the conversation gets to that point, what can you do?

Cheers

Joe Meert

Dr.GH · 07-13-2003, 03:40 PM

Quote:

For example, one creationists said he would accept a half cow-half horse. When the conversation gets to that point, what can you do?

This will turn out to be the problem with "Genesis" at the No Answers in Genesis web page debate.

The_Unknown_Banana · 07-13-2003, 09:46 PM

Thanks a lot guys, I feel better about sending it now!

Will keep you posted on how it develops, or post the rest of the argument as it occurs if you like.

Wyrdsmyth · 07-14-2003, 06:13 AM

Knock him on his tailbone.

Then, remind him he has a tailbone.

While he is rubbing his injured tailbone, he should start to think why he even has one. This should be enough to enlighten anybody.

MrDarwin · 07-14-2003, 06:22 AM

You will never "prove" evolution to anybody who is already skeptical of it. The best you can do is show them that what they think they know about evolution is mostly wrong by showing them that what they have been told about evolution is mostly wrong (or in some cases outright fabrication), and let them make up their own mind based on factual information.

Meatros · 07-14-2003, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyrdsmyth
Knock him on his tailbone.

Then, remind him he has a tailbone.

While he is rubbing his injured tailbone, he should start to think why he even has one. This should be enough to enlighten anybody.

You would think that wouldn't you?

I've found that unless the totally useless trait (explained by evolution, not YEC) is actually freak'n harmful, the excuse given in defense of it will be:

Quote:

could have god designed us that way because he knew we were gonna do that? Could he have set those things in place for punishment? maybe!
What do wisdom teeth and apedixes have to do with good design anyway... They really aren't bad, thats for sure.

(actual quote...sadly)

Wyrdsmyth · 07-14-2003, 04:10 PM

Right... But these answers will seem lame, even to them. Even if they don't admit it, at first.

The tailbone is a thorn in the flesh of Creationism, indeed.

Keep bringing it up.

Post it over and over again on creationist and superstitious design websites.

Tailbone. Tailbone. Tailbone.

Let it be our mantra.

07-13-2003, 01:56 PM	#4
Joe Meert Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Gainesville Posts: 1,224	looks good I always like to ask the creationist what sort of organism they would accept as transitional. No point in arguing if they can't tell you what they are looking for. For the most part, they view transitional in cartoon terms. For example, one creationists said he would accept a half cow-half horse. When the conversation gets to that point, what can you do? Cheers Joe Meert

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-13-2003, 07:51 AM	#2
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	Oops! I posted a link for you, then saw that you already had it. As far as I can see, it's not too shabby, not too shabby at all. But be warned, it's gonna be an uphill battle. "God did it!" is hard to refute with mere facts. Wishing luck. doov

07-13-2003, 12:25 PM	#3
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	Looks good to me. One problem that you will soon run into is the "You just post web links- say it in your own words." or "My web links are just as good as your web links." or "Anybody can post web links- how do we know yours are any good." I have seen this used by both sides in the evo/creato argument. It leads to either an argument from authority, or a sort of postmodern "What is truth?" position. The way to avoid this is to re-assert that simple question of empirical support, and predictive value.

07-13-2003, 09:46 PM	#6
The_Unknown_Banana Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: New Zealand Posts: 179	Thanks a lot guys, I feel better about sending it now! Will keep you posted on how it develops, or post the rest of the argument as it occurs if you like.

07-14-2003, 06:13 AM	#7
Wyrdsmyth Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Sarver, PA, USA Posts: 920	Knock him on his tailbone. Then, remind him he has a tailbone. While he is rubbing his injured tailbone, he should start to think why he even has one. This should be enough to enlighten anybody.

07-14-2003, 06:22 AM	#8
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	You will never "prove" evolution to anybody who is already skeptical of it. The best you can do is show them that what they think they know about evolution is mostly wrong by showing them that what they have been told about evolution is mostly wrong (or in some cases outright fabrication), and let them make up their own mind based on factual information.

07-14-2003, 04:10 PM	#10
Wyrdsmyth Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Sarver, PA, USA Posts: 920	Right... But these answers will seem lame, even to them. Even if they don't admit it, at first. The tailbone is a thorn in the flesh of Creationism, indeed. Keep bringing it up. Post it over and over again on creationist and superstitious design websites. Tailbone. Tailbone. Tailbone. Let it be our mantra.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.