At what order of complexity...

Originally posted by C Hess
I looked at the beginning of the first video (silly me for thinking you'd produce some look-
worthy links), and I have to say it's getting embarrassing at this point. In order for a
creationist to win an argument these days, he must cut out all the replies. You know, when
the replies in a debate has to be cut out, it usually means you're on the wrong side of the
argument.

Just saying. 😕

I am sure the purpose was to shorten his video. I believe you can find the full video of that debate if you wish to look.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am sure the purpose was to shorten his video. I believe you can find the full video of that debate if you wish to look.

Well they completely disregard the transitional fossils shown. That is just verbal BS with no science to back them up. They just go NAY NAY NAY when evidence of transitional forms are shown. If there were further transitional forms shown they would just nay nay nay them too. It wouldn't matter if they were thrust into a time machine and watched evolution play from a billion years ago to today, they would just say its all fake and all this evolution crap is just something made up by Obama.

This is not debate. This is a deliberate attempt to destroy the credibility of a science for religious/political reasons, a weaponizing of anti science in their video's which, if you notice, never ends up with real science papers but only playing out their drama's on these kind of anti science stance videos which has zero credibility to people with real minds who can actually think for themselves without having to refer to an ancient book that had no knowledge of DNA or even microscopes so there is no credibility in the assinine statements of your bible.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well they completely disregard the transitional fossils shown. That is just verbal BS with no science to back them up. They just go NAY NAY NAY when evidence of transitional forms are shown. If there were further transitional forms shown they would just nay nay nay them too. It wouldn't matter if they were thrust into a time machine and watched evolution pl ...[text shortened]... of DNA or even microscopes so there is no credibility in the assinine statements of your bible.

They proved the transitional fossils were made up by man, no God needed for that. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
They proved the transitional fossils were made up by man, no God needed for that. 😏

Sure, it was all done in Hollywood by Stanley Kubrick. Just like the moon landing, we all know THAT was fake too.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am sure the purpose was to shorten his video. I believe you can find the full video of that debate if you wish to look.

Well, I found it in eight clips, but you're not gonna like it. I have never before seen such
embarrassing display of willfull ignorance.

Creationist: Show me the transitional fossils
Evolutionist: Here are the transitional fossils
Creationist: I'm not impressed, show me more transitional fossils
Evolutionist: Here are examples of documented evolutionary changes leading to new species
Creationist: I'm not impressed, show me some other example that impresses me

And so on, and so forth. No wonder the replies were cut out.

Intelligent Design/Evolution Debate (1 of 8): YouTube

Originally posted by C Hess
Well, I found it in eight clips, but you're not gonna like it. I have never before seen such
embarrassing display of willfull ignorance.

Creationist: Show me the transitional fossils
Evolutionist: Here are the transitional fossils
Creationist: I'm not impressed, show me more transitional fossils
Evolutionist: Here are examples of documented evolutiona ...[text shortened]... plies were cut out.

Intelligent Design/Evolution Debate (1 of 8): http://youtu.be/k7gZhksK9Sw

I finally had the time to watch the whole series of 8 videos on this debate. It was interesting to me to note that the two final speakers for each side acknowledge that the Creator God was responsible for getting the biological process started. One side leaned more toward the intelligent design aspect and the other a theistic evolution aspect by which God made the variety of living creatures by just getting the process started. The moderator's final comment implied that he believed it was going to be millions or billions of years before the world would find out who is right.

I thought it was a shame that there was not more time given to those that really had a disagreement to develop their arguments more, so enough information could be given so everyone could have a better understanding as to why each had such opposite opinions about the same information.

As you pointed out the evidence for transistional fossils, especially those given for extinct dog-like creature to the whale, was not convincing. My previous video completely eliminated the very few supposed transitions as just artistic imaginations. But that one evolutionist with his posters seemed so dogmatic and arrogant that he had the evidence, which were really only artistic drawings. But unfortunately for the audience there were no one there with the visual evidence like I presented to refute him.

Like that guy with the posters, I understand the importance of visual aids, because I was an instructor that gave job training at the Army Signal School. That is why I try to find some form of visual aid from Youtube, if possible, to help get my point across. Of course, it is difficult to find the perfect video, so sometimes I have to present videos that also have other information that I might not entirely agree with.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I finally had the time to watch the whole series of 8 videos on this debate. It was interesting to me to note that the two final speakers for each side acknowledge that the Creator God was responsible for getting the biological process started.

I, personally, have no problem with a religious person believing his/her particular god
starting, and even guiding the evolutionary process. As long as the religious beliefs line-up
with physical reality (this reality being that evolution is an on-going, natural, observable
process) I have no problem with religion.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The moderator's final comment implied that he believed it was going to be millions or billions of years before the world would find out who is right.

Honestly, if someone hears about that specific species of butterfly on the hawaiian islands,
sees how well all the transitional fossils match the evolutionary tree when put in
chronological order, and still thinks we need to observe nature for millions of years before
we can finally decide the issue, I don't think that person has paid much attention really.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I thought it was a shame that there was not more time given to those that really had a disagreement to develop their arguments more, so enough information could be given so everyone could have a better understanding as to why each had such opposite opinions about the same information.

They have different "opinions" for obvious reasons. As a creationist believing in a literal
biblical genesis narrative, any evidence to the contrary must be ignored at all cost, whereas
a serious scientist will adapt his/her religious beliefs to match the evidence of our physical
reality. What I can't understand is why creationists are so adamant about a view that
doesn't match physical reality, and why you think it would matter if they had more time to
repeat their positions.

Originally posted by RJHinds
As you pointed out the evidence for transistional fossils, especially those given for extinct dog-like creature to the whale, was not convincing. My previous video completely eliminated the very few supposed transitions as just artistic imaginations

I did no such thing, and the fact of the matter is that you can visit any natural museum
today and see the fossils directly. They're not just artistic drawings, but a plain story told
by the fossil record itself. But you know that by now.

Originally posted by C Hess
I did no such thing, and the fact of the matter is that you can visit any natural museum
today and see the fossils directly. They're not just artistic drawings, but a plain story told
by the fossil record itself. But you know that by now.

I'm sorry your fossils actually talk and tell stories, or did someone just
apply a story to them?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm sorry your fossils actually talk and tell stories, or did someone just
apply a story to them?
Kelly

I'm sure you've seen your fair share of picture books in your days. It's sortof like that.

Originally posted by C Hess
I'm sure you've seen your fair share of picture books in your days. It's sortof like that.

🙂 so someone writes a story about a picture and you think that is proof
that what everyone says about that picture is true?
Kelly

Originally posted by C Hess
Honestly, if someone hears about that specific species of butterfly on the hawaiian islands,
sees how well all the transitional fossils match the evolutionary tree when put in
chronological order, and still thinks we need to observe nature for millions of years before
we can finally decide the issue, I don't think that person has paid much attention really.

The problem I see with evolution is that although butterflies change just as humans do, butterflies always change into butterflies and humans always change into humans. That is what you and many others call evolution, however, others. like me, see that as variation of the same kind and not evolution at all.

Originally posted by KellyJay
🙂 so someone writes a story about a picture and you think that is proof
that what everyone says about that picture is true?
Kelly

When the pictures (in this case the fossil record) matches the story (evolutionary theory) I
tend to hold that story plausible. When the same pictures (fossil record) doesn't match the
story (intelligent design) unless you include untestable premises (non-consistent natural
laws and instant creation), I find that story implausible. I don't know, it's just how my brain
operates.