Originally posted by howardgee in the "Tolerance" thread:
Prejudice = "an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge."
Atheists are not prejudiced against the religious.
Our derision of religious beliefs is well considered and justified by evidence (fossils, etc) and lack of evidence (God, Devil, Heaven, Souls, etc).
Theists are inevitably prejudiced, because most of their opinions are formed from an uncritical acceptance of a book of baloney.
The belief that homosexuality is intrinsically wrong because the bible says God said it is, is one example of such prejudice.
While I'd admit the absence of empirical proof for God, here we have Howardgee claiming evidence for the absence of God from fossils (etc).
C'mon Howard, no fossil of God = no God? Or did I get something wrong here? What did you mean? You didn't mean TOE did you? Or will the rest of your "proof" materialise from the vague "etc" you cited?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by RatXI think it might help if you date the fossils.
I just found a fossil of frogstomp's meds in my back yard. David C's were five layers below it. Don't know if this helps...[/b]
Be warned: You might get a reading that is anywhere between 50,000 to 25 billion years.
Originally posted by dj2becker[WORD TOO LONG]
I think it might help if you date the fossils.
Be warned: You might get a reading that is anywhere between 50,000 to 25 billion years.
IDer: You've got no evidence for evolution
Scientist: We've got loads. Look I'll show it to you
IDer: That can't be true on the grounds that I just don't want to believe it.
Scientist: Lets try a meaningful discussion I'll explain it to you
IDer: You're Satans tool. OI'm never going to listen. The bible os true and thayts all there is too it
Everyone else: FFS
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeLets have a meaningful discussion on this...
IDer: You've got no evidence for evolution
Scientist: We've got loads. Look I'll show it to you
IDer: That can't be true on the grounds that I just don't want to believe it.
Scientist: Lets try a meaningful discussion I'll explain it to you
IDer: You're Satans tool. OI'm never going to listen. The bible os true and thayts all there is too it
Everyone else: FFS
Bring on the proof.
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeScientist: We've got loads. Look I'll show it to you
IDer: You've got no evidence for evolution
Scientist: We've got loads. Look I'll show it to you
IDer: That can't be true on the grounds that I just don't want to believe it.
Scientist: Lets try a meaningful discussion I'll explain it to you
IDer: You're Satans tool. OI'm never going to listen. The bible os true and thayts all there is too it
Everyone else: FFS
Please do. Don't let your joke be your excuse for not...
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by RatXIgnoramus. The greatest proof for the TOE is found in the fossil of the Nebraskan man...
[b]Scientist: We've got loads. Look I'll show it to you
Please do. Don't let your joke be your excuse for not...[/b]
It proves that man evovled from the tooth of an extinct pig! 😀😀😀
Originally posted by howardgee
Our derision of religious beliefs is well considered and justified by evidence (fossils, etc) and lack of evidence (God, Devil, Heaven, Souls, etc).
Bring on the evidence and if you can't, conjure some up before the derision comes back to you... Quote some phd, or call up David C for a distraction until you can.
Should I help you out? Charlie, (who I suspect really figured out TOE to excuse his good looks) wrote in Origin of Species "... natural selection can only act on the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being..."
He goes on to ask, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine graduations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of all species as we see them, well defined? But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"
These questions have not been answered, despite having unearthed millions of beautifully preserved fossils. Some postulate "punctuated equilibrium", but that would still require at least a couple transitionary creatures. So far, PE is still just a postulation.
If you're more enlightened, please share your wisdom...
Originally posted by RatXIf you are interested in transitional fossils, here is a good link:
Originally posted by howardgee
[b]Our derision of religious beliefs is well considered and justified by evidence (fossils, etc) and lack of evidence (God, Devil, Heaven, Souls, etc).
Bring on the evidence and if you can't, conjure some up before the derision comes back to you... Quote some phd, or call up David C for a distraction until you can. ...[text shortened]... ar, PE is still just a postulation.
If you're more enlightened, please share your wisdom...[/b]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
If the examples given on this site don't qualify, on your view, as transitional fossils, then perhaps you mean something different by the term "transitional fossil" than TOE crowd does. If so, could you clarify what a fossil would have to be like, on your view, in order to qualify as transitional?
Cheers.
Originally posted by bbarrIt's the little things that count:
If you are interested in transitional fossils, here is a good link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
"Note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth. Also note that molecular data shows that crocodiles are birds' closest living relatives".
I want my chickens to have teeth!
(PS this link has some nice pictures showing transition from eohippus to equus: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html)
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by bbarr“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
If you are interested in transitional fossils, here is a good link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
If the examples given on this site don't qualify, on your view, as transitional fossils, then perhaps you mean something different by the term "transitional fossil" than TOE crowd does. If so, could you clarify what a fossil would have to be like, on your view, in order to qualify as transitional?
Cheers.
“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]
The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp
Originally posted by dj2beckerHow is any of this relevant to my post? Please try to follow the actual discussion.
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and U ...[text shortened]... n," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp