I’m going to try answering in a slightly different way this time, because you appear to find my usual pattern of quoting a specific line and then answering it too confusing. It would seem to me to be more clear, but to each his own.
That being out of the way, I don’t say you refuse to debate because you don’t answer “all” of my questions, I say you refuse to debate for two reasons. The first is that your answers to questions asked are few and far between, and what answers you do provide are nothing more than denial of the facts. This is in no sense “debate.”
Case in point: I’ve posted several links, sometimes quoting a paragraph or two, demonstrating how many transitional fossils we’ve found. In response, you simply deny that transitional fossils exist. You haven’t addressed the evidence, you haven’t provided another explanation, you’ve merely said it isn’t there – rather like the Democrats in Congress who wouldn’t look at a roomful of evidence against Bill Clinton.
By the way, my previous links to sites with information about transitional fossils was just the tip of the ice berg. Here are a few more:
Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record. Here’s a paragraph from the conclusion:
From this brief survey of fossil vertebrates, it is clear that transitional forms between higher taxa are common features of the fossil record. The morphology of species within a higher taxonomic group becomes less divergent toward the point of origin of that group. Morphological diversity and disparity increase with time. In addition, transitional species possess mixtures of morphologic characters from different higher taxa often to the extent that their taxonomic assignment is uncertain. This pattern is obscured by taxonomy which gives a false impression of discontinuity.
No transitional fossils? Here's a challenge... It’s an amusing recounting of the responses of people who’ve claimed “there are no transitionals” when presented with transitionals.
Phylum Level Evolution examines claims by Duane Gish, Phillip Johnson, and Stephen Robinson and shows them to be without merit.
I know you won’t ask the question, What Is A Transitional Fossil? because you don’t believe there are any. But in case you wanted to find out a little about something you have no knowledge of, try clicking on this link. Here’s a quick definition from the site:
A transitional fossil is any fossil which gives us information about a transition from one species to another. (Or, about a transition from one group of species to another group of species.) A transition simply means that, down through time, there was some sort of change. The change must be big enough so that each non-transitional fossil can be easily be sorted into either a "before the transition" pile, or a "after the transition" pile. A transitional fossil is one that falls between the two piles.
More Evidence for Transitional Fossils provides, um. more evidence for transitional fossils. It helpfully links you to Palaeos, which has a mind-boggling amount of information.
Am I making my point here? I’m providing references and data. You counter with “Nah!” That’s why I say you’re not interested in debate.
You, sir/madam, are the one playing “mind games with words.”
I checked out your “good article which references thousands of” scientists who deny evolution. There was no list at the site. It did, however, have a link to a list ... with exactly ninety-four names. Not ninety-four thousand, ninety-four.
But I kept reading, because I’m interested in learning things. The site claims “There is so little scientific evidence that supports evolution.” This is laughably wrong. (Click on the links in this post. When you’re done with those, I have dozens more). The site also asserts, “What little evidence they have is highly questionable.” Unfortunately, it asks no pertinent questions, so we’ll never know why the evidence is “highly questionable.” I suspect it’s because someone’s religion doesn’t like it.
The site also seems to think the second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. It’s a ridiculous argument, based on the idea that the earth is a closed system, with no outside source of energy. Maybe it is for the people at “Science Against Evolution,” but most people I know consider the sun a source of energy.
Here’s another interesting quote from the site you seem to like:
What has religion got to do with science? We don’t even ask our members what their religious beliefs are, let alone snoop into the religious beliefs of scientists we only know by reputation. However, we are quite confident that Harun Yahya isn’t a “Bible Literalist.” The last two chapters of his excellent 20-chapter book, Evolution Deceit, urge the reader to accept the Islamic faith. Therefore, he can’t be a Bible Literalist, but that is beside the point.
True, he can’t be a Bible Literalist ... he is a Radical Islamist! His work is Islamist propaganda, every word of it! Don’t take my word for it, though, read with Yahya writes about himself. The following quotes are from Yahya’s website, the one “Science Against Evolution” so proudly linked to (albeit a different page):
The common point in all the writer's works is that all the topics covered by his works are in full agreement with the Qur'an, and strongly affirmed by Qur'anic understanding. Even the topics addressed by science and mostly considered complicated and confusing are narrated very lucidly and explicitly in the books of Harun Yahya. Each of the author's books on science-related topics stresses the might, sublimity, and majesty of God in minute detail based on well-structured research and evidence, along with extensive contemplation. These books display, for non-Muslims, the signs of the existence of God, and the excellence of His creation in a very explicit and precise way. On the other hand, they add to the faith and submission of believers, and can serve as perfect materials for communicating Islam to other people (where religion is not practiced in its full sense). A sub-group within this series are the "Books Demolishing the Lie of Evolution". The main purpose of these books is to demolish the materialistic and atheistic philosophy which has been put forward as an alternative and rival to religion and has been imposed on the whole world since the 19th century. The great impact the books make on readers signifies that this purpose is fulfilled to a great extent. These books, just as it is stated in the Qur'an in the words "We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain" (Surat al-Anbiya, 18), demolish the brain, i.e., the thought system and ideology of the faithless system; and help complete (the revelation of) God's light (Surat as-Saff, 8). For these reasons, these books play a significant role in the intellectual war against non-belief.
The symbolic meaning of the seal of the Prophet Muhammed (May God bless him and grant him peace) on the covers of all of the books by the writer is related to the content of the books. This seal is an indication that the Qur'an is the last book and the last word of God, and our Prophet Muhammad (May God bless him and grant him peace) is the last of His messengers. By taking this attribute of the Qur'an and the Prophet, the writer seeks, in all of his works, to refute all the basic claims of the systems of disbelief and utter the "last word" which will put a definite end to the assertions of infidelity. The stamp of the Prophet Muhammed (May God bless him and grant him peace) who has the greatest honour and wisdom, is used as a prayer for the intention of saying this last word.
In all the books by the author, faith-related issues are explained in the light of the Qur'anic verses and the Hadith and people are invited to learn God's words and to live by them.
Just in case you wanted to know with whom you’re in bed.
I am not in bed with radical Islam...your method of debating is really low. Because that author has it correct about the falseness of toe does not in any way validate what is wrong with his religion. Most religious people in America who are involved in the creation-evolution debate are decent christians and you are aware of that I am sure. You gave me a link. I followed the link and explored the site – you know, exactly what you don’t do. The site you posted approvingly linked to another site avowedly pushing radical Islamist propaganda. And you tell me my method of debating is “really low.” I’m not the one linking to sites that approvingly quote radical Islamist propaganda.
By the way, have you learned the difference between 94 and “thousands” yet?
I, too, am frustrated. It’s interesting that I keep posting facts. Your response is invariably, “No they’re not.” That’s not argument; it’s contradiction! I appear to be an unwitting participant in a Monty Python skit.
You brought up “decent” Christians. Does your definition of “decent” Christians include people who willfully lie? I ask the question because I followed your good ol’ Answers in Genesis link. More about this later.
Of course I am not going to go fossil by fossil of your proposed transitionals because they are all clearly pure speculation.
They are most certainly not speculation. They all exist. We have enough fossils covering enough time to show a clear progression to modern day animals. Of course you don’t want to go “fossil by fossil,” because if you did, you’d be forced to admit your position is untenable.
But this time you supplied an Answers in Genesis link.
But since you would like some scientific facts that back up my points...http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter3.asp
The evidence is on my side. Your evidence is very weak but you are too lost in your thoughts to see that. I hope you will wake up at some point. Your false knowledge is never going to bring you peace of mind...just a fat head.
Sorry. You don’t have evidence, and you’re citing people who think science should be like stamp collecting. Here a fact, there a fact, with no theory, no line of thought, no insight, no nothing to connect the facts. That’s not how science works.
But since you brought up AIG, I checked this page. And what did I find? Why, it’s our old friend, Dr. Colin Patterson!! Here’s what your “evidence” and (presumably) “true” knowledge gives us:
Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book’s contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows: ‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader? ’I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.
‘So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job …’
The quotation above is a deliberate distortion of Patterson’s words. How do I know this? Because it was refuted in a web page that was last updated in 1997! TEN YEARS LATER, AIG is still telling you a lie. Perhaps it’s a Good Christian lie, born of “true” knowledge, but a lie none-the-less. How do we know it’s a lie? Dr. Colin Patterson, himself, told us!
It may be a little hard to read, so here’s what it says:
Dear Mr Theunissen, Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.
That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.
I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.
Yours Sincerely,
[signed] Colin Patterson
It’s part of a very interesting article shredding any credibility that AIG’s interpretation might have. Remember, the article has been on the web since 1997.
Here’s another quote from the article, explaining how Patterson’s words were distorted:
Patterson goes on to acknowledge that there are gaps in the fossil record, but points out that this is possibly due to the limitations of what fossils can tell us. He finishes the paragraph with: ". . .Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else."
It is actually this statement which is the key to interpreting the Sunderland quote correctly; it is not possible to say for certain whether a fossil is in the direct ancestral line of a species group. Archaeopteryx, for example, is not necessarily directly ancestral to birds. It may have been a species on a side-branch. However, that in no way disqualifies it as a transitional form, or as evidence for evolution. Evolution predicts that such fossils will exist, and if there was no link between reptiles and birds then Archaeopteryx would not exist, whether it is directly ancestral or not. What Patterson was saying to Sunderland was that, of the transitional forms that are known, he could not make a watertight argument for any being directly ancestral to living species groups.
Thus far in our exchange, you’ve accused me of being a “low” debater, “bitter towards religion,” “playing mind games with words but [I] don’t even know [I am] doing it,” having “a prejudice …which taints all of [my] ‘knowledge,’” being “dishonest” by denying the “fact” that “creationism is a viable theory,” being dishonest in debate, trying to stifle debate “by denying true theories,” being “full of myself,” albeit “sadly,” being “too wrapped up in [my] head knowledge,” you wished I would “wake up a bit and stop being so narrow minded,” and cautioned me, “Your false knowledge is never going to bring you peace of mind...just a fat head.”
Quite a list. I must be a truly awful, horrible person. I agree with none of it, of course, but because I fear I might be tainting you with my words, I now withdraw from this exercise.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter3.asp An article concerning the author of that chapter, Dr Jonathan Sarfati.
I did a quick check of the article and found extensive quotemining. An example. Sarfati writes:
Is it any different today? The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote:
I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
An article
here shows that this quote was taken out of context.
From the article:
I think that this whole saga demonstrates just how deceitful creationists can be. Whether they are willingly deceitful or just don't know any better, I don't know. But deceitful they are. ... It seems that no matter how thoroughly one destroys a creationist argument, you can be sure that they'll find some twisted way to justify using the same argument tomorrow. It is frustrating to have to repeat the same explanations over and over, but you really do need the patience of a saint to argue with a creationist. I guess the price of truth is eternal patience. Anyway, if there are still creationists who think the quotes of Patterson are valid, I'd like to know what part of the following sentence you don't understand:
"I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false..."
To the lurkers: please check out the cited articles and see for yourselves the level of "scholarship" we often see from creationists.