Creationism v. Stupidity

Take the argument here.

There is no argument, they are one in the same. Now let's have a discussion about Evolution versus fairy tales

Okay, tell me your favorite fairy tale and I'll tell you mine.

Your thread title is bad and you should feel bad >:(

Seriously, are you the one that claimed they could prove that there are fossils of species in transition?

I'd like to see them.

I already posted that link in the same thread you posted this link in. Go back and look it up

Your link is fail.

You can't post Wikipedia as an impartial source, it's peer edited and the three links it provides as sources are.. one from a Usenet group... one from a website with the purpose of disproving creationism (instead of looking at the facts and making logical assumptions) ... and one from a "paleontology" website which gives this image (http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/140Sarcopterygii/Images/Overview3.gif) as an example of evolutionary transition.

Please, don't copypasta some bullshit.. explain to me how these 'fossils' prove that they are transitional species.

(crickets chirping in background)
...the truth is that both Creationists/Intelligent Design adocates and Evolutionists have the same evidence (i.e. fossils, bones, observeable science) but as a result of their own worldviews they come to different conclusions.

It's like if you see something in the sky that you can't explain you might say, "Hm... that's weird, wonder what that was." While another person might say, "OMG! It's a UFO...."

The differin worldviews changed the perception of the facts.

Alright, you saw the Wikipedia article, right? Now, think about this for JUST one second.

How can you actually find further information on that? Look at the sources AND look up the fossil sets to find more information on each one. Can you do that?

You can't ignore the one trying to disprove creationism because they have an agenda. It's a logical fallacy to ignore someone/thing because of an agenda, you have to disprove what they say regardless of why they say it. It doesn't matter if it's impartial or not, you have to counter what they said regardless.

Here's an example: A big tobacco company releases a study saying that 0% of smokers develop cancer because of their product. I can't dismiss it just because they have an agenda, I have to debunk their claims by showing the errors in their study, showing studies that counter that, and so on.

That makes sense, doesn't it?

As for them disproving creationism, that's because they've already looked at the facts and claims on both sides and have made up their mind

Each of these fossils shows slight changes from one species to the other. Each is found in a different strata of Earth or can be dated radioactively. They show that each one existed in a different time and we can see the slight changes from one to another follow a logical progression.

Study the structure and time period they came from. It's that simple.

(crickets chirping in background)
...the truth is that both Creationists/Intelligent Design adocates and Evolutionists have the same evidence (i.e. fossils, bones, observeable science) but as a result of their own worldviews they come to different conclusions.

It's like if you see something in the sky that you can't explain you might say, "Hm... that's weird, wonder what that was." While another person might say, "OMG! It's a UFO...."

The differin worldviews changed the perception of the facts.

Incorrect. The creationists ignore the fossil evidence (transitional fossils for example). They ignore the biochemical evidence (exactly the same proteins (among other things) are shared between us and primates but no other animals). And I've never heard of a creationist claiming that they have observable science.

Where'd you hear that, I'd like to look it up.

Your analogy is also bad. I can ask what something is and the other guy can say it's a UFO, he's making a bunch of assumptions while I'm not. I'm just using the information at hand. He's adding information that's not there, ignoring information, etc

I left 'em speechless.

Are you talking about me? I've left several responses

slow response time I guess... I hit refresh and didn't see any responses.

>Each of these fossils shows slight changes from one species to the other. Each is found in a different strata of Earth or can be dated radioactively. They show that each one existed in a different time and we can see the slight changes from one to another follow a logical progression.

Yeah, but scientists have reclassified types of animals into different species so I don't see why I have to disprove their assumption. Shouldn't they have to prove it?

Taking 5 different types of horses and calling them transitional species doesn't make sense, nor does taking 5 primate skulls and calling them transitional species.

Alright, I have better things to do than try to convince a deluded internetter that they're wrong.

Cya.