macroevolution and intermediate links

[Texan Christian]

So, according to macroevolution, which I have done much study on (I made a 10 minute platform speech against it a year ago), there should be intermediate links between fossils of animals believed to be connected. The problem with this theory, is that there are few if any (I'd argue there are none, the commonly used "Lucy" actually has evidence that it is simply the skeleton of an ape which would be able to more easily sit upright, all the other bones besides the hip are the same as a normal ape. (if you wish bring up any "intermediate links" you know about)) intermediate links, when, there should be plenty. There should, in fact, be more intermediate links than the fossils of animals living today (or extinct).
I believe some macroevolutionists, seeing the faults in this, believe that animals evolved through many series of "good mutations" which actually benefitted the animal, but there have never been observed a "positive" mutation, and by that theory as well, there should be many positive mutations which happen. If I got anything a little confused or appear to have forgotten something let me know

Good day and God bless y'all

[For_The_Kingdom]

That's up to you whether you want to discuss or not. You want to taking about disingenuity, look no further than your failure to acknowledge the difference between what you said and what the Berkely article says.

There is no difference. I stated over and over again that evolution teaches that reptiles evolved into birds. You basically said thats not what evolution says.

I posted an exact quote from Berkely which stated that reptiles evolved into birds. So if there is a difference, tell me what the difference is.

I am not going to waste my time responding to your nonsense until you can tell me how what I said is different than what Berkely said.

You were wrong. Plain and simple.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 59 by For_The_Kingdom]

It is often said, and widely postulated to be true, that everything has a beginning. In fact this is entirely ERRONEOUS.

More like "everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause"

Hi, FTK,

Hope you don't mind that I call you that..

I think when we say "Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause" is the Kalam Cosmological Argument or the KCA that William Lane Craig makes so famous.

I have to wonder.. what DOESN'T "begin to exist" , other than the god of the argument? It seems that when WLC introduces the word "begins" into his first premise, that he is begging the question that only his god doesn't BEGIN to exist but that everything else does.

Why should anyone just assume that this god doesn't "begin" to exist? We are trying to prove that a god DOES exist, with any characteristics of any kind, INCLUDING the characteristic of never beginning. We need to be proved that a god exists, but we DON'T need to be proved that this god doesn't begin to exist like everything else?

I think that Craig needs to prove TWO things now, instead of just one. Instead of just proving that his GOD exists, he ALSO has to now prove that his god NEVER BEGAN TO EXIST.

Craig has made his already onerous burden TWICE as difficult.

What are your thoughts?

[Bust Nak]

I stated over and over again that evolution teaches that reptiles evolved into birds.

Aye, that you did, but the problem is that you also stated over and over again that evolution says ONE reptile evolved into ONE bird. Indeed, the first time you used the plural form was after H.sapiens sent you the link to Berkeley. Guess what? Evolution does not say a reptile evolved into a bird. So I ask again, why is it so hard to get it 100% right 100% of the time?

That you cannot acknowledge the obvious difference between singular and plural, suggests to me that you can't get it 100% right 100% of the time because you have actual misconceptions on what evolution teaches. Someone who understands why singular vs plural is a big deal would simply say "meh, it's a typo, you know I meant birds" and make sure to not make the same mistake afterwards.

I posted an exact quote from Berkely which stated that reptiles evolved into birds. So if there is a difference, tell me what the difference is.

I told you very explicitly already, the difference is between singular and plural. I even used large sized fonts and bold to highlight exactly what the difference is. You couldn't have missed it, you even questioned me if an archaeopteryx is an individual or not. Yet you still can't acknowledge there is a difference, so don't talk to me about disingenuity.

I am not going to waste my time responding to your nonsense until you can tell me how what I said is different than what Berkely said.

For the record, I told you what the difference is at these instances:

Post#33 "Individual organism does not evolve, populations evolve. A reptile doesn't evolve ever, a species of reptiles evolve."

Post#44 "an individual vs a population."

Post#53 ""A reptile evolved into a bird" is more than just the singular form of "reptiles evolved into birds," ... it's as important as the difference between Gods and God... An individual, such as one reptile, does not evolve."

Post#58 The very post you have just responded to, the meat of which you so conveniently ignored: "Maybe you are not aware how significant the difference between singular "a reptile evolving into a bird" and plural "dinosaurs evolving into birds" is, but the least you could to is acknowledge they are different... Multiple dinosaurs evolved into multiple birds, does not imply multiple instances of a single dinosaur evolving into a single bird."

You cannot say I wasn't being explicit on exactly where and how you were wrong.

You were wrong. Plain and simple.

Looks like I have actual proof on my side. So who is being disingenuous now? *Flex muscle*

[For_The_Kingdom]

I stated over and over again that evolution teaches that reptiles evolved into birds.

Aye, that you did, but the problem is that you also stated over and over again that evolution says ONE reptile evolved into ONE bird. Indeed, the first time you used the plural form was after H.sapiens sent you the link to Berkeley. Guess what? Evolution does not say a reptile evolved into a bird. So I ask again, why is it so hard to get it 100% right 100% of the time?

That you cannot acknowledge the obvious difference between singular and plural, suggests to me that you can't get it 100% right 100% of the time because you have actual misconceptions on what evolution teaches. Someone who understands why singular vs plural is a big deal would simply say "meh, it's a typo, you know I meant birds" and make sure to not make the same mistake afterwards.

I posted an exact quote from Berkely which stated that reptiles evolved into birds. So if there is a difference, tell me what the difference is.

I told you very explicitly already, the difference is between singular and plural. I even used large sized fonts and bold to highlight exactly what the difference is. You couldn't have missed it, you even questioned me if an archaeopteryx is an individual or not. Yet you still can't acknowledge there is a difference, so don't talk to me about disingenuity.

I am not going to waste my time responding to your nonsense until you can tell me how what I said is different than what Berkely said.

For the record, I told you what the difference is at these instances:

Post#33 "Individual organism does not evolve, populations evolve. A reptile doesn't evolve ever, a species of reptiles evolve."

Post#44 "an individual vs a population."

Post#53 ""A reptile evolved into a bird" is more than just the singular form of "reptiles evolved into birds," ... it's as important as the difference between Gods and God... An individual, such as one reptile, does not evolve."

Post#58 The very post you have just responded to, the meat of which you so conveniently ignored: "Maybe you are not aware how significant the difference between singular "a reptile evolving into a bird" and plural "dinosaurs evolving into birds" is, but the least you could to is acknowledge they are different... Multiple dinosaurs evolved into multiple birds, does not imply multiple instances of a single dinosaur evolving into a single bird."

You cannot say I wasn't being explicit on exactly where and how you were wrong.

You were wrong. Plain and simple.

Looks like I have actual proof on my side. So who is being disingenuous now? *Flex muscle*

You can make the plural/singular distinction all you want. I am saying it didn't happen at ALL. Got that?

[Bust Nak]

You can make the plural/singular distinction all you want. I am saying it didn't happen at ALL. Got that?

Loud and clear. However, this still doesn't change the fact that you were wrong when you said evolution taught a reptile evolved into a bird. You were wrong. Plain and simple. Whether evolution of birds actually happened or not is irrelevant as to whether Berkeley corroborate with what you said or not.

Like I said earlier, I wasn't trying to convince you that evolution happened, but rather, I was arguing that evolutionists are justified for saying "see? You don't even know what evolution is" and "that's not what evolution says."

Could you at least admit the plural/singular distinction so we can move on to why this distinction is important? Are you ready to admit what you said on multiple occasions, is different to what the Berkeley article stated? Or was that post all the acknowledgment I could expect?

If you can't admit making mistakes, then you don't get to call people out for disingenuity. Got that?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Loud and clear. However, this still doesn't change the fact that you were wrong when you said evolution taught a reptile evolved into a bird. You were wrong. Plain and simple. Whether evolution of birds actually happened or not is irrelevant as to whether Berkeley corroborate with what you said or not.

Like I said earlier, I wasn't trying to convince you that evolution happened, but rather, I was arguing that evolutionists are justified for saying "see? You don't even know what evolution is" and "that's not what evolution says."

Could you at least admit the plural/singular distinction so we can move on to why this distinction is important? Are you ready to admit what you said on multiple occasions, is different to what the Berkeley article stated? Or was that post all the acknowledgment I could expect?

If you can't admit making mistakes, then you don't get to call people out for disingenuity. Got that?

Ok, how about this; I will make it easier for you..

"The discovery that birds evolved from small carnivorous dinsaurs of the Late Jurassic was made possible by recently discovered fossils from China, South America, etc."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_06


Now, as I bypass your bio-spewage of what you claim evolution means, I will thereby ASSUME that the above quote from the Berkeley article is an accurate depiction of what evoluton means. Right?

So, I am taking that article, and I am readin it, and I am DISAGREEING with it. I don't believe it. Berkeley is wrong. So if you think that my assessment of what the TOE teaches is wrong...fine...since I was "wrong", I read the RIGHT depiction of what evoluton (reptile-bird) means. Got that?

So, I read the RIGHT definition of evoluton, and guess what, I STILL disagree with it. See? I disagreed with the wrong definition (mines), and I disagreed with the right definition (Berkeley).

So all of these irrelevant distinctions that you are making is meaningless. Macroevolution did not occur at all. A reptile didn't evolve into a bird. Not only that, but REPTILES didn't evolve into birds....and evolution did not happen suddenly, or gradually. It didn't happen at all. So the distinction between suddenly/ gradually is just as irrelevant as reptile/reptiles.

Evolution is a con. A scam. It did not occur. Naturalists only use it because they need to explain the diversity in living organisms, so since God doesn't exist (on their view), evolution is the only game in town.

It must occur, right?

Ok, now, I am taking Berkeley's accurate depiction of evolution (reptiles-birds), and I am DISAGREEING WITH IT. Berkeley is wrong. It didn't happen.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Hi, FTK,

Hope you don't mind that I call you that..

Knock yourself out, chief.

I think when we say "Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause" is the Kalam Cosmological Argument or the KCA that William Lane Craig makes so famous.

That is a correct statement.

I have to wonder.. what DOESN'T "begin to exist" , other than the god of the argument? It seems that when WLC introduces the word "begins" into his first premise, that he is begging the question that only his god doesn't BEGIN to exist but that everything else does.

He doesn't beg the question, because in the same argument he gives reasons why a first cause is necessary and why it is necessary that the first cause has certain attributes...attributes that God has always been said to possess.

So it isn't begging the question if he explains WHY this is the case.

Why should anyone just assume that this god doesn't "begin" to exist?

Because of the soundness and validity of the arguments against infinite regression.

We are trying to prove that a god DOES exist, with any characteristics of any kind, INCLUDING the characteristic of never beginning. We need to be proved that a god exists, but we DON'T need to be proved that this god doesn't begin to exist like everything else?

There are only two options. Either the past is infinite, or the past is finite. We have reasons to believe that the past is finite, therefore, a timeless cause is necessary.

Now, the only thing the naturalist can do in this case is attempt to refute the evidence that we present for a finite past, and I don't think no one can do so. If you can, have at it.

I think that Craig needs to prove TWO things now, instead of just one. Instead of just proving that his GOD exists, he ALSO has to now prove that his god NEVER BEGAN TO EXIST.

Craig has made his already onerous burden TWICE as difficult.

What are your thoughts?

Well, he does both. Just check out any of his debates. He makes the same argument over and over again, and in his debates, he is normally the first presenter...and he almost ALWAYS uses the Kalam Cosmological Argument as the first argument for God's existence.

It is all in the argument, my friend.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

Yes it is all in the argument and the problem for Craig (and you as a Craig sycophant) is that Craig is lazy and having hit on a "winning" debate technique some decades ago he has failed to update his knowledge base and thus is left spewing antique beliefs. He might just as well be arguing for limiting the periodic chart to Earth, Air, Fire, and Water.

1) The second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument states, “the universe began to exist�

2) Craig defines “universe� as “the whole of material reality.�

3) This definition is important to the Kalam argument because it serves as a linchpin for Craig to argue that the universe must be caused by something which is “uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial.� In other words, if the universe isn’t the whole of material reality, then it’s possible that some other part of material reality caused it.

4) physicist Brian Greenebook in his book, The Hidden Reality (Pg. 4) writes: There was once a time when ‘universe’ meant ‘all there is.’ Everything. The whole shebang. The notion of more than one universe, more than one everything, would seemingly be a contradiction in terms. Yet a range of theoretical developments has gradually qualified the interpretation of ‘universe.’ The word’s meaning now depends on context. Sometimes ‘universe’ still connotes absolutely everything. Sometimes it refers only to those parts of everything that someone such as you or I could, in principle, have access to. Sometimes it’s applied to separate realms, ones that are partly or fully, temporarily or permanently, inaccessible to us; in this sense, the word relegates our universe to membership in a large, perhaps infinitely large, collection.

5) Physicist Lawrence Krauss in his book, A Universe from Nothing (Pg.125-126), in much the same vein wrote: Talking about many different universes can sound like an oxymoron. After all, traditionally the notion of universe has become synonymous with ‘everything that exists.’ More recently, however, universe has come to have a simpler, arguably more sensible meaning. It is now traditional to think of ‘our’ universe as comprising simply the totality of all that we can now see and all that we could ever see.

6) Craig, cites the work of physicist Alexander Vilenkin to buttress his claim that “the whole of material reality� began to exist. The following question was emailed to Dr. Vilenkin: Could you briefly define your use of the term “universe,� as you use it in the context of your work on the beginning of the universe? I’m just curious to know whether you use the term in the traditional sense, “all of physical reality,� or if you use it in the more modern sense of “those parts of ‘everything’ that we could, in principle, have access to.�

7) Dr. Vilenkin responded: It is certainly more than what we can have access to. Regions beyond our cosmic horizon are included. But if there are other universes whose space and time are completely disconnected from ours, those are not included. So, by “universe� I mean the entire connected spacetime region.

8) Were Craig to update his argument with a modern definition of the word “universe� such as that used by Krauss, or Greenebook, or today's opinion of Craig's quoted authority Vilenkin ... then (1) and (2) are falsified and (3) comes unhitched and Craig is left there without a prayer (as it were).

Yes it is all in the argument, and that is where Craig fails with a mightly faceplant.

(thanks to wordpress.com)

[Bust Nak]

Ok, how about this; I will make it easier for you..

"The discovery that birds evolved from small carnivorous dinsaurs of the Late Jurassic was made possible by recently discovered fossils from China, South America, etc."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_06

Now, as I bypass your bio-spewage of what you claim evolution means, I will thereby ASSUME that the above quote from the Berkeley article is an accurate depiction of what evoluton means. Right?

So, I am taking that article, and I am readin it, and I am DISAGREEING with it. I don't believe it. Berkeley is wrong. So if you think that my assessment of what the TOE teaches is wrong...fine...since I was "wrong", I read the RIGHT depiction of what evoluton (reptile-bird) means. Got that?

That changes nothing, you thought evolution says one reptile evolved into one bird, and stated so on multiple occasions. You were wrong and closest you came to admitting your mistake was a "you can make the plural/singular distinction all you want." Well, there is a distinction, one that highlights creationist regularity gets evolution wrong, and therefore we are justified in calling you out for not understanding evolution.

So, I read the RIGHT definition of evoluton, and guess what, I STILL disagree with it. See? I disagreed with the wrong definition (mines), and I disagreed with the right definition (Berkeley).

Well, I am glad you have now read the right definition of evolution, so how about admitting you had it wrong to begin with?

So all of these irrelevant distinctions that you are making is meaningless. Macroevolution did not occur at all. A reptile didn't evolve into a bird. Not only that, but REPTILES didn't evolve into birds....and evolution did not happen suddenly, or gradually. It didn't happen at all. So the distinction between suddenly/ gradually is just as irrelevant as reptile/reptiles.

If it is as irrelevant as you say, why are you finding it so difficult to admit you were wrong?

Evolution is a con. A scam. It did not occur. Naturalists only use it because they need to explain the diversity in living organisms, so since God doesn't exist (on their view), evolution is the only game in town.

It must occur, right?

Ok, now, I am taking Berkeley's accurate depiction of evolution (reptiles-birds), and I am DISAGREEING WITH IT. Berkeley is wrong. It didn't happen.

Like I said, I wasn't trying to convince you of evolution here, that's a separate discussion. I was defending the claim that evolutionist are justified in calling you out for not understanding evolution. So stop trying to steer the conversation away from your mistake. Especially after you had the nerve to say I wasn't being genuine. So how about showing a bit of genuineness?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Ok, how about this; I will make it easier for you..

"The discovery that birds evolved from small carnivorous dinsaurs of the Late Jurassic was made possible by recently discovered fossils from China, South America, etc."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_06

Now, as I bypass your bio-spewage of what you claim evolution means, I will thereby ASSUME that the above quote from the Berkeley article is an accurate depiction of what evoluton means. Right?

So, I am taking that article, and I am readin it, and I am DISAGREEING with it. I don't believe it. Berkeley is wrong. So if you think that my assessment of what the TOE teaches is wrong...fine...since I was "wrong", I read the RIGHT depiction of what evoluton (reptile-bird) means. Got that?

That changes nothing, you thought evolution says one reptile evolved into one bird, and stated so on multiple occasions. You were wrong and closest you came to admitting your mistake was a "you can make the plural/singular distinction all you want." Well, there is a distinction, one that highlights creationist regularity gets evolution wrong, and therefore we are justified in calling you out for not understanding evolution.

So, I read the RIGHT definition of evoluton, and guess what, I STILL disagree with it. See? I disagreed with the wrong definition (mines), and I disagreed with the right definition (Berkeley).

Well, I am glad you have now read the right definition of evolution, so how about admitting you had it wrong to begin with?

So all of these irrelevant distinctions that you are making is meaningless. Macroevolution did not occur at all. A reptile didn't evolve into a bird. Not only that, but REPTILES didn't evolve into birds....and evolution did not happen suddenly, or gradually. It didn't happen at all. So the distinction between suddenly/ gradually is just as irrelevant as reptile/reptiles.

If it is as irrelevant as you say, why are you finding it so difficult to admit you were wrong?

Evolution is a con. A scam. It did not occur. Naturalists only use it because they need to explain the diversity in living organisms, so since God doesn't exist (on their view), evolution is the only game in town.

It must occur, right?

Ok, now, I am taking Berkeley's accurate depiction of evolution (reptiles-birds), and I am DISAGREEING WITH IT. Berkeley is wrong. It didn't happen.

Like I said, I wasn't trying to convince you of evolution here, that's a separate discussion. I was defending the claim that evolutionist are justified in calling you out for not understanding evolution. So stop trying to steer the conversation away from your mistake. Especially after you had the nerve to say I wasn't being genuine. So how about showing a bit of genuineness?

I reject the idea that a reptile evolved into a bird (as I said in post # 27). I also reject the idea that reptiles evolved into birds (as I said in post #30). You can continue to split hairs all you like..I will leave that up to you.