Storyteller wrote:Audie wrote:Storyteller wrote:The way I see it. We all have the same evidence. We just believe it supports different things.
I'm not sure ToE is used as proof of atheism either.
"Proof of atheism" is just nonsense. It literally has no meaning.
Evolution has nothing to do with the existence / nonexistence of any god.
Trying to use a theory to prove anyghing is nuts, if anyone even tries to.
Oh...and we all, in principle, have
access to the same info.
It is far from true to say that any honest creationist has much knowledge
of science. Possible access, and actual comprehension, knowledge are not the same,
at all.
Otherwise, toss a medical book to the janitor, have him do brain surgery.
Any takers?
So are you saying that if someone is a creationist they have little, or no understanding of science?
And Audie, can you explain, or provide me with an example of, a transitional fossil? Please?
No, and I have expressed myself clearly on this.
Here again, in different words. There is no known data that indicates that either ToE or "deep time", both rejected by yec as unbiblical, are false.
None.
The arguments used to try to disprove those are, without exception simply false. As in strawman, misrepresentation, fraud or damn lie. Abundant examples of each are to be found.
Intellectual honesty, which is the topic (not theft, etc) is simply incompatible with yec or gap belief.
A rather famous yec is a Dr K Wise, a paleontologist who is quoted saying that even if all the evidence in the universe turns against yec, he will still be a yec as that is wht the bible seems to indicate.
That is the refined essence of intellectual dishonesty.
An informed person knows there is no disproof of ToE. Few creationists have more than just a very limited idea of evolution, and that generally so distorted and lied about by professional creationists as to be essentially unrecognizable.
I wouldnt say that the average creationist is intellectually dishonest, tho I would say they are quite negligent in a matter that is of some importance to the whole of their strange belief structure.
Those who are well educated in science and yet "bitterly cling" in Obama's phrase, to yec are intellectually dishonest, at best.
I've a feeling you have some expectation of a transitional animal that is not in line with what I would understand it to be but there is this..
A creature with with teeth and feathers? Somewhere between "reptile" and "bird"? A creature with three toes, between a five toed and a one toed animal?
What something suggests to one is far from what it suggests to another, often enough.
Lets consider flowers. The petals are as you no doubt know, modified leaves.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... m_RTBG.jpg
Here is a peace lily, so called. Notice that the "flower" consists of one leaf, that is no different from other leaves other than a bit of curve, and no chlorophyll. Later, it will turn green and be like the other leaves.
Something like that is intermediate between a plant with no flowers, and one with very elabourate ones.
I dont mean roses evolved from peace lily, or that anything did or necessarily will. But if one came back in a million years, and found that they have now four distinct petals, that wilt after blooming, more like a "flower" as we usually think of them? Would that single petal flower seem to you a transitional form from no flowers to a proper flower?
Why might such a change have taken place?
Keeping it simple since you asked for one example-
a three toed horse. Intermediate between ancestors with 5 and modern horses, with 1 toe.