tmoerman · January 3, 2016 04:29
diff --git a/Answer to Creationist b/Answer to Creationist
 My news aggregation service kept pushing this article in my face.
 I decided to make a contribution.

 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #8
 TIKTAALIK
 Flat headed animal, 375 million years old, transitional form between primitive fish and amphibians
 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI#t=2604
 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

 ARCHAEOPTERYX
 Early bird that is transitional between feathered dinosaurs and birds
 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI#t=2734
 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

 #6 
 What exactly do you mean by partially developed organ? This reminds me of Michael Behe's theory of 
 irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Totally disproven as an argument against evolution.
 - http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

 --quote:
 "If we are able to search and find an example of a machine with fewer protein parts, contained within 
 the flagellum, that serves a purpose distinct from motility, the claim of irreducible complexity is 
 refuted. As we have also seen, the flagellum does indeed contain such a machine, a protein-secreting 
 apparatus that carries out an important function even in species that lack the flagellum altogether. 
 A scientific idea rises or falls on the weight of the evidence, and the evidence in the case of the 
 bacterial flagellum is abundantly clear."

 #9 Figure of speech taken out of context. Hell would proverbially freeze over before Richard Dawkins 
 admits anything like that. 

 #10 
 DNA SEQUENCING chromosome fusion as evidence for evolution from primates to humans
 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

 #13 what is your point here? Darwin saw the mechanism through which evolution takes place. 
 It's called natural selection and we see it all over the planet:
 - http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/
 - cuckoo's vs other bird species http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0311_030312_cuckoo_2.html
 - garden snakes vs newts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zsWdW7eJ1M

 #14 Right, see reply to #18
 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

 #15 Some notes on symbiosis of organelles to stir your thoughts
 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory

 #16 Indeed one of the great questions science is working on. This is work in progress. It's the 
 whole point of science, figuring things out by observation, experiment, peer reviews. A whole lot 
 more exciting than just cowardly giving up and claiming it's the work of a deity, you lazy bones. 
 Here's a theory:
 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

 #17 So what? Science thought it was extinct, it turns out it isn't. Black swans turn out to exist. 
 This is merely an illustration of a fundamental quality of science: everything is questionable. 
 Everything should be questioned. That's how science makes progress. 

 #18 Another non-argument. Some species turn out to be succesful and survive. By the way, you are 
 contradicting yourself in this statement. Here's how: 
 - in #14 you say: 
 "This is clear evidence that the “millions of years” theory is simply a bunch of nonsense"
 - in #18 you say:
 "According to evolutionists, the Ancient Greenling Damselfly last showed up in the fossil record 
 about 300 million years ago. But it still exists today. So why hasn’t it evolved at all over the 
 time frame?"

 Why are you using the fact you refuted 4 paragraphs ago to make a new point? Inconsistent is the new black?

 #19 Non argument. Complexity doesn't prove a creator.

 #20 Non argument. Science is hard. That's why it's sexy. 

 #21 Whatever. Good examples are available, see first paragraph.

 #22 Please clarify, doesn't make sense to me.

 #23 We happen to live in a universe where life is possible. This is a chance event. 

 #24 Non argument. 
 Earth is a harsh place and was probably not designed for long term conservation of animal remains.

 #25 We are genetically about 4% different from chimpanzees. 
 Can we agree a 96% similarity is VERY SIMILAR indeed?

 #27 Fossil layers are not tidy because our beloved mother earth is not a static place. Tectonics, 
 earthquakes, volcanoes, continental drift, erosion, floods, glaciers. Earths surface gets stretched 
 and folded and battered by tremendous forces. Just go out and take a hike in any mountain range, 
 see for yourself. That's the reason why it's a very difficult job to come by intact fossils.

 #28 Please explain why this is ridiculous, it makes perfect sense to me.

 #29 
 - http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5107/20131127/iron-preserves-ancient-dinosaur-soft-tissue-fossils.htm

 #34 "there is little doubt that we do know enough to develop a plausible and scientifically valid 
 scenario for how it might have evolved. And that scenario makes specific predictions that can be 
 tested and verified against the evidence."
 - http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

 #35 The irreducible complexity theory holds no ground.

 #36 Sophistic reasoning: I fit in my coat, my coat fits in my backback, therefore I fit in my backpack. Yup.

 #37 the planet wants to kill us, in case you hadn't noticed. Do you realise 99% of all species that 
 have ever lived on earth are extinct?
 - http://www.maniacworld.com/universe-wants-to-kill-us.html

 #40 Non argument. 
 You cannot make the analogy with an iPhone or a 747 because these objects do not reproduce.

 #41 #42 Again you are merely commenting on science making progress. Not on any invalidity of the 
 scientific process. Science expects that theories are put to the test without mercy. Science does 
 not make any claims by authority, no dogmas. We can either strengthen confidence in a particular 
 theory by testing its predictions to new observations or discoveries. When a theory doesn't withstand 
 tests, it gets thrown out of the window as if it were yesterday's newspaper.

 #43 #44 Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution
 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution

 -- 

 I hope you enjoyed this modest rebuttal.

 I'd like to conclude with a quote by professor Lawrence Krauss:

 "The universe is what it is whether you like it or not"
 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs

 Think of it as coming of age. It's never too late.

 Have a nice day!

 T
	My news aggregation service kept pushing this article in my face.
	I decided to make a contribution.

	#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #8
	TIKTAALIK
	Flat headed animal, 375 million years old, transitional form between primitive fish and amphibians
	- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI#t=2604
	- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

	ARCHAEOPTERYX
	Early bird that is transitional between feathered dinosaurs and birds
	- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI#t=2734
	- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
	- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

	#6
	What exactly do you mean by partially developed organ? This reminds me of Michael Behe's theory of
	irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Totally disproven as an argument against evolution.
	- http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

	--quote:
	"If we are able to search and find an example of a machine with fewer protein parts, contained within
	the flagellum, that serves a purpose distinct from motility, the claim of irreducible complexity is
	refuted. As we have also seen, the flagellum does indeed contain such a machine, a protein-secreting
	apparatus that carries out an important function even in species that lack the flagellum altogether.
	A scientific idea rises or falls on the weight of the evidence, and the evidence in the case of the
	bacterial flagellum is abundantly clear."

	#9 Figure of speech taken out of context. Hell would proverbially freeze over before Richard Dawkins
	admits anything like that.

	#10
	DNA SEQUENCING chromosome fusion as evidence for evolution from primates to humans
	- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

	#13 what is your point here? Darwin saw the mechanism through which evolution takes place.
	It's called natural selection and we see it all over the planet:
	- http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/
	- cuckoo's vs other bird species http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0311_030312_cuckoo_2.html
	- garden snakes vs newts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zsWdW7eJ1M

	#14 Right, see reply to #18
	- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

	#15 Some notes on symbiosis of organelles to stir your thoughts
	- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory

	#16 Indeed one of the great questions science is working on. This is work in progress. It's the
	whole point of science, figuring things out by observation, experiment, peer reviews. A whole lot
	more exciting than just cowardly giving up and claiming it's the work of a deity, you lazy bones.
	Here's a theory:
	- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

	#17 So what? Science thought it was extinct, it turns out it isn't. Black swans turn out to exist.
	This is merely an illustration of a fundamental quality of science: everything is questionable.
	Everything should be questioned. That's how science makes progress.

	#18 Another non-argument. Some species turn out to be succesful and survive. By the way, you are
	contradicting yourself in this statement. Here's how:
	- in #14 you say:
	"This is clear evidence that the “millions of years” theory is simply a bunch of nonsense"
	- in #18 you say:
	"According to evolutionists, the Ancient Greenling Damselfly last showed up in the fossil record
	about 300 million years ago. But it still exists today. So why hasn’t it evolved at all over the
	time frame?"

	Why are you using the fact you refuted 4 paragraphs ago to make a new point? Inconsistent is the new black?

	#19 Non argument. Complexity doesn't prove a creator.

	#20 Non argument. Science is hard. That's why it's sexy.

	#21 Whatever. Good examples are available, see first paragraph.

	#22 Please clarify, doesn't make sense to me.

	#23 We happen to live in a universe where life is possible. This is a chance event.

	#24 Non argument.
	Earth is a harsh place and was probably not designed for long term conservation of animal remains.

	#25 We are genetically about 4% different from chimpanzees.
	Can we agree a 96% similarity is VERY SIMILAR indeed?

	#27 Fossil layers are not tidy because our beloved mother earth is not a static place. Tectonics,
	earthquakes, volcanoes, continental drift, erosion, floods, glaciers. Earths surface gets stretched
	and folded and battered by tremendous forces. Just go out and take a hike in any mountain range,
	see for yourself. That's the reason why it's a very difficult job to come by intact fossils.

	#28 Please explain why this is ridiculous, it makes perfect sense to me.

	#29
	- http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5107/20131127/iron-preserves-ancient-dinosaur-soft-tissue-fossils.htm

	#34 "there is little doubt that we do know enough to develop a plausible and scientifically valid
	scenario for how it might have evolved. And that scenario makes specific predictions that can be
	tested and verified against the evidence."
	- http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

	#35 The irreducible complexity theory holds no ground.

	#36 Sophistic reasoning: I fit in my coat, my coat fits in my backback, therefore I fit in my backpack. Yup.

	#37 the planet wants to kill us, in case you hadn't noticed. Do you realise 99% of all species that
	have ever lived on earth are extinct?
	- http://www.maniacworld.com/universe-wants-to-kill-us.html

	#40 Non argument.
	You cannot make the analogy with an iPhone or a 747 because these objects do not reproduce.

	#41 #42 Again you are merely commenting on science making progress. Not on any invalidity of the
	scientific process. Science expects that theories are put to the test without mercy. Science does
	not make any claims by authority, no dogmas. We can either strengthen confidence in a particular
	theory by testing its predictions to new observations or discoveries. When a theory doesn't withstand
	tests, it gets thrown out of the window as if it were yesterday's newspaper.

	#43 #44 Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution
	- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution

	--

	I hope you enjoyed this modest rebuttal.

	I'd like to conclude with a quote by professor Lawrence Krauss:

	"The universe is what it is whether you like it or not"
	- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs

	Think of it as coming of age. It's never too late.

	Have a nice day!

	T