bippy123 wrote:
Neo-x The problem I have with macroevolution is that pro-darwinian scientists are trying to pass it off as if its pure scientific fact, and the evidence is the exact opposite, and we have very few if any transitional fossils. What we see instead are leaps in information that are the exact opposite to what darwin himself predicted. Yet they keep trying to call it a fact. Its like trying to fit a square peg into a circle. It just doesnt Jive.
Bippy:
The only reason creationists have bothered to attack only one position in science (evolution) is because it deals with the history of the universe and the life it contains. But exactly the same system of observation, logic, inference, and experimental generation of knowledge that leads us to evolution leads us to the engineering of aircraft, computers, medicines, and every single one of the other science-based foundations of our civilization. Creationists such as Ken Ham are desperate to uphold their interpretation of the Bible and thus is forced to produce any evidence, no matter how utterly insensible, for their view that evolution is not a viable mechanism. Their silly arguments about "kinds" and such is baseless. It stems from a basic misunderstanding of Scripture. There is no Biblical "barrier" to evolution, nor is there some kind of genetic "barrier" to evolution either. Many creationists can only rely on faulty data and (dare I say it?) manipulation of popular misconceptions on what evolution theory says.
The accusation that there are very few transitional fossils also comes from the mouths of absurd creationists like Hovind. I understand I'm being a bit sharp, talking about my christian brothers in such a way, but their lies have thrown out so much misunderstanding and confusion that it's difficult not to be reproachful.
The only way such creationists can insist there are no transitional fossils is to not understand what a transitional fossil is. When people such as this demand evidence for transitional fossils, I first ask them what would, in their eyes, qualify as a transitional fossil, just to see if they can accurately depict what one would be like. They're usually not used to this kind of argument, and after a seemingly endless back-and-forth argument about whether or not they should answer, in the end they might equate a transitional form to a half-formed organism; something like a crocoduck. When I correct them by saying a transitional form is not a half-formed organism (all organisms are fully-formed) but a representation of a branching development of life-forms diversifying into multiple groups, they might not carry out the argument, or change the subject. The reason for this is that they very well know there are fully-formed transitional fossils all over the world. They have been found in almost every continent.
Something that most certainly doesn't Jive is creation "scientists'" attempts at explaining the natural world. It's a world that's fractured, unconnected, and utterly insensible. The fact that you believe huge leaps are being made that disprove Darwin's theory only shows how strong the Creationist movement has on Christians. The picture they frequently try to paint is that of the "Galileo Gambit", where they are the curageous marauders fighting up against evil mainstream science that are frequently gathering new information that utterly conquers evolution. It's downright silly! And it's a lie!
Scientists aren't "trying" to do anything. The fact of evolution has already been settled, and the only reason people contend with such Creationists (no offense) is because they hope they will turn the terribly anti-science tide away from the silly endeavors of disproving evolution, which is as silly as attempting to disprove Gravity, or Music.
Now I hope I didn't sound too bitter, but that's how I see it. And I hope I didn't sound too arrogant or rude, because I wasn't making any attempt to do so. I was merely trying to show how utterly absurd creationism can get.
.
