A formal statement of Intelligent Deisgn

You keep proving my point. You have no right to accuse @stephen_33 of refusing to acknowledge evidence in front of him, when you refuse to acknowledge evidence in front of you. And please don't give me that crap about "oh, it's just a disagreement over what the facts say." No, it's either a fact that fossils with a combination of fish and tetrapod traits have been discovered or it's not a fact. And you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that yes, that is a fact, because you can't allow yourself to accept anything that might give the slightest bit of support for evolution, because you have already decided a priori that evolution is wrong.

You refuse to acknowledge that there is one, single solitary scrap of evidence for evolution and common ancestry. Evolution predicts that if tetrapods evolved from fish that we should find fossil intermediates with a combination of fish and tetrapod traits, and guess what? It is a FACT that such fossils have been discovered.

*Even if you still reject evolution, an intellectually honest person would at least be fair minded enough to acknowledge that "Yes, fossils with a combination of fish and tetrapod traits have been discovered. This is evidence in support of the evolution. I still don't believe it's sufficient evidence to prove evolution, but I acknowledge that this evidence supports the theory of evolution and fits with what evolutionary theory predicts."

That would be a fair minded intellectually honest statement. Now you can say that you still don't think that evidence is sufficient to prove evolution and common ancestry. And that's OK. You can say it's *not enough* evidence to prove evolution and common ancestry, but to insist that absolutely no evidence of any kind exists at all is intellectually dishonest (OR, you dont understand the meaning of the word *evidence*). And if that offends you, I'm sorry.

*But you can easily prove me wrong, and prove that you're intellectually honest and fair minded by saying, "I acknowledge that there is evidence in support of evolution. I don't believe this evidence is enough to prove evolution, but it would be a lie to say that there is absolutely no evidence (i.e., support) at all. So yes, there is evidence (i.e., support) for evolution. I just don't think it's enough evidence (i.e., support) to prove evolution."

I am sick and tired of your condescension and insults, if I get intellectually honest and fair-minded when we disagree I'm intellectually dishonest and unfair. I think I will just bow out, it is clear you have no intention of listening to another point of view, you only want confirmation of your own.

Still can't do it, huh? Won't acknowledge. Won't even deny it. Will just keep avoiding and tip toeing around the question and pretending you're being personally attacked to try to detract from the true issue. This is not about our feelings (you called me arrogant; you said I'm biased; you accused Stephen of ignoring what's right in front of him, and of being a sheeple and accused him of "cult thinking" is that not an insult? But I'm not complaining about it. Instead I'm asking you to answer a direct question with a direct answer and you won't do it so I'm done asking). This is not about our personal feelings. It's about fact and falsehood. And you refuse to acknowledge basic facts like the fact that fossils with a combination of fish and tetrapod traits have been discovered. If you don't want to acknowledge it, that's fine. That's your choice. But then you can't get upset at @stephen_33 for what you perceive as his failure to acknowledge undeniable facts. That is literally my only point.

You're confusing confirmation of tbwp's point of view with confirmation of accepted, demonstrable fact!

He's only asking you to acknowledge what is known to an extremely high degree of confidence.

And I've experienced far more condescension from you than from him!

An extreme degree of confidence is still a degree of certainty, not absolute proof. Different perspectives see things differently but in this case, I'm dishonest and need to be educated. Small wonder you guys feel so stinking sure of yourselves when those that don't see things the way you do are all stupid and deceitful.

For the record, there's no such thing as "absolute proof".

I've heard professional scientists stress this in interviews. It's only possible to ascertain things to a certain level of confidence. That isn't a failure of the process, it's an admission that absolute certainty can never be achieved.

All the pieces have to fit, if you ignore the pieces that don't fit your belief system or if you give credit to things that are not facts but opinions, it doesn't matter how sure you are.

But you've repeatedly refused to acknowledge that (for example) transitional forms exist and we can be extremely confident they do because they've been found.

That isn't an issue of challenging the facts, it's more a case of denying that tigers have stripes.

If you go back a few pages you will see that you are the one who started making things personal. You've now called me arrogant and accused me of being biased and accused me and @stephen_33 of being unquestioning 'sheeople' who don't think for ourselves but just blindly accept what 'anointed' scientists say. A few pages back you accused Stephen of "cult thinking," and of refusing to acknowledge facts that were right in front of him.

So you don't want to be insulted, but it's okay for you to insult others?

So you want us to provide absolute proof, but it's okay if you don't provide absolute proof?

So you want Stephen to answer questions about abiogenesis, but don't want to have to answer questions yourself? (A simple yes or no question that I've asked about half a dozen times now and you still won't give a direct yes or no answer: Have fossils with a combination of fish and tetrapod traits been discovered: YES OR NO?)

Can't we just discuss and not make things so personal?

I think Stephen makes a valid point. This is more a case of denying tigers have stripes. Tigers either have stripes or they don't. Past life with a combination of fish and tetrapod traits either existed or it didn't. So which is it? Have fossils with a combination of fish and tetrapod traits been discovered: YES OR NO?

(*And please don't go off again saying, "that doesn't prove they're related and that doesn't prove evolution," because I'm not even asking whether it proves evolution). All I'm asking right now is whether such a thing exists. Have fossils with a combination of fish and tetrapod traits been found? YES OR NO?

What question have I not answered, my answers I don't even think you read, as it took you years to figure out evolution isn't an issue for me as the mechanisms that drive it are, the processes! I'll let you just stick to your, your right, I'm dishonest and need education and you can pat yourself on the back you sure showed me.

"What question have I not answered?"

Are you flipping kidding me??? (And you say I don't read what you write???)

HAVE FOSSILS WITH A COMBINATION OF FISH AND TETRAPOD TRAITS BEEN DISCOVERED: YES OR NO??? (*And don't go off again about how that doesn't prove evolution or that they're related, because I'm NOT asking you if it proves evolution. I'm just asking you if such a thing has been discovered!)

*Are you seriously incapable of answering with a direct one word response of either YES or NO?

I've asked you the same question about a dozen times. Three times in the prior post, and you ask "What question have I not answered?" And you accuse me of not reading your posts? You know, I don't even care what your answer is anymore. You're too much work.

Yes, and so what!? AGAIN I'll repeat we have all kinds of life forms that look like and share traits, that does not mean one came from another.

You are exhausting and prove time and time again that you're the one who doesn't read people's comments. You write "AGAIN I'll repeat we have all kinds of life forms that look like and share traits, that does not mean one came from another" WHEN I TOLD YOU THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ASKING! I EVEN PUT IT IN HUGE FONT FOR YOU!

Exhausting. It took you pages and pages to finally give a direct answer ("Yes") to the question. And you still had to throw in your irrelevant comments that have nothing to do with the question.

But thank you for FINALLY acknowledging the truth that "YES" transitional fossils with intermediate traits have been discovered (*and these aren't the only ones that have been discovered)

I call that a major achievement!

🥂 🎈

Don't twist what I said into a lie, they can be called that, but it doesn't mean they are.

No one is twisting anything into a lie. It is literally intermediate between fish and tetrapods.

Listen, if the issue is you don't think it's sufficient evidence to prove evolution, then that's fine. But a person can't really say there is no evidence (support) at all, because that's an objectively false statement. Is that the problem? You think I'm claiming this fossil find proves evolution? Rest assured, I am not claiming that.

It sounds like you are confusing evidence (support) with conclusive, sufficient evidence (proof).

True. And just as there is evidence that supports the theory of evolution, there is evidence that doesn't fit and that has shown the original theory of evolution (Darwinism) to be wrong in a number of its important predictions.

But if we're going to be fair, then it must be acknowledged that there are pieces of the puzzle that don't fit your belief system too.

Even if evolution and old ages are wrong, the fossil record still doesn't show that all life was created at the same time. If evolution is wrong, and creation is right, then instead of a single creation, there were multiple independent creations. A series of separate creation events with God creating different types of life at different times (over thousands of years, if you want to assume a young earth). God created life and then let most of it go extinct. Then God created again, and then let it go extinct. Then God created again, and then let it go extinct. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

If evolution is wrong, then multiple creation events with intervening extinctions is the only theory of creation supported by the fossil record.

PLEASE stop telling me what my thoughts are on topics when you do not know, even here you are doing it. I told you evolution isn't my issue, it is the mechanisms of mind and mindlessness getting credit for life. Your declaring what is "literally" true, is nothing more than an opinion you are proclaiming as true, you don't know, you just believe.