The arguement that recently convinced me of god's existence

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Don't use "uncaused" as a synonym for "random."


[/ QUOTE ]

I won't if you won't.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Correct, but "Darwinism" isn't a theory about how fossils are formed, so it makes no predictions about how many fossils we'll find under what conditions.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can just say humans existed with dinosaurs but I can't predict how many fossils you will find confirming that.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

"To use an analogy, scientific disputes about exact relationships between hominids might be compared to disputes over how wolves, dogs, coyotes, dingos, hyenas and foxes are related. On that scale, creationists would still be trying to work out how to tell cats and dogs apart."


[/ QUOTE ]

No, we would continue to claim that cats don't come from dogs. And we can tell the difference between a monkey and a man.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Correct, but "Darwinism" isn't a theory about how fossils are formed, so it makes no predictions about how many fossils we'll find under what conditions.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can just say humans existed with dinosaurs but I can't predict how many fossils you will find confirming that.

[/ QUOTE ]

(humans didn't exist with dinosaurs)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Prominent hominid fossils. The fossil evidence is decidedly non-thin.


[/ QUOTE ]

From the site:

<font color="green">
That is a misleading image, as there are now thousands of hominid fossils.They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth.
</font>

Gimme a break. Please.

I'm going to take these one at a time.

Number one.

<font color="green">
TM 266-01-060-1, "Toumai", Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Discovered by Ahounta Djimdoumalbaye in 2001 in Chad, in the southern Sahara desert. Estimated age is between 6 and 7 million years. This is a mostly complete cranium with a small brain (between 320 and 380 cc). (Brunet et al. 2002, Wood 2002) It has many primitive apelike features, such as the small brainsize, along with others, such as the brow ridges and small canine teeth, which are characteristic of later hominids.
</font>

From another site:

<font color="green">
It's likely that this is a human ancestor. If you ask whether it's absolutely certain that this is a human ancestor my answer would have to be no we are not [sure]," said Bernard Wood of George Washington University
</font>

From Nature magazine:

<font color="green">
Sahelanthropus tchadensis is an enigmatic new Miocene species, whose characteristics are a mix of those of apes and h o m o erectus and which has been proclaimed by Brunet et al. to be the earliest hominid. However, we believe that features of the dentition, face and cranial base that are said to define unique links between this Toumaï specimen and the hominid clade are either not diagnostic or are consequences of biomechanical adaptations. To represent a valid clade, hominids must share unique defining features, and Sahelanthropus does not appear to have been an obligate biped.

We believe that Sahelanthropus was an ape living in an environment that was later inhabited by australopithecines and, like them, it adapted with a powerful masticatory complex. A penecontemporary primate with a perfect and well-developed postcranial adaptation to obligate bipedalism is more likely to have been an early hominid.
</font>

From Talkorigins, definitely not a creationist sympathizer:

<font color="green">
Brunet et al. consider Toumai to be a hominid, that is, on our side of the chimp-human split and therefore more closely related to us than to chimps. This is not at all certain. Some scientists think it probable; others have suggested that it may come from before the point at which hominids separated from chimps, while Brigitte Senut (one of the discoverers of Orrorin tugenensis, "Millennium Man") has suggested that it may be an early GORILLA .
</font> my emphasis

Ok, that's one miss. I'll do the next one tomorrow.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We've found thousands of them, and ID is still there

For any observation that we make, the IDist will just say, "Yeah, the Designer designed it that way." There's no possible obvservation that would be inconsistent with that state ment. Which is why ID is unfalsifiable.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are thousands of gaps in the fossil record, and evolution is still there.

For any observation that we make the evolutionist will say that chance or aliens caused it, or fossils are rare. There's no possible observation that would be inconsistent with that statement. Which is one of the reasons evolution is unfalsifiable.

[/ QUOTE ]


Aliens? Really?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Aliens? Really?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, really. What I call HAT (Hopeful Alien Theory). First (perhaps) proposed by Crick. Popularized by 2001 A Space Odessey. Seriously proposed by serious scientists. Can you spell meteorite?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Aliens? Really?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, really. What I call HAT (Hopeful Alien Theory). First (perhaps) proposed by Crick. Popularized by 2001 A Space Odessey. Seriously proposed by serious scientists. Can you spell meteorite?

[/ QUOTE ]

*blink*

I don't have much to go on here, but I think the vast majority of evolution-supporting biologists don't incorporate HAT into evolution.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't have much to go on here, but I think the vast majority of evolution-supporting biologists don't incorporate HAT into evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't claim they do. I claim they will if necessary which is one reason why evolution is unfalsifiable. Another is punctuated equilibrium, or hopeful monster theory. Already in use to explain the lack of Darwinian gradualism.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Aliens? Really?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, really. What I call HAT (Hopeful Alien Theory). First (perhaps) proposed by Crick. Popularized by 2001 A Space Odessey. Seriously proposed by serious scientists. Can you spell meteorite?

[/ QUOTE ]

Does your definition of a "serious scientist" begin and end with their ability to make your points? I could certainly grab Pat Robertson's quotes and generalize them to all religion but that wouldn't be correct would it?

P.S. Alos, you can't count anything Crick did after the double helix Nobel as reasonable examples of scientific thought.