The Anti-Evolutionists Are Crippled By Questions That Undermine Their Entire Case

Piltdown- The more important lesson remains totally lost on Pro, and that is that scientists were in such a rush to find supporting evidence for evolution that they didn't bother verifying that the skull was authentic, and that is unacceptable, regardless of whether it was discovered by other scientists decades later. Radiocarbon dating was not what revealed the hoax. It was flourine testing that revealed that the skull and jaw were of different ages. [19][20] It was announced as a hoax in 1953, but the c14 dating didn't happen until 1959, according to the sources. Pro claims that early humans provide evidence for CD, but how do humans being human show that those humans evolved from a microbe? ? That finding does not support UCD. Pro makes the claim that some creationist claims are hoaxes, and posts Mark Isaaks article that agrees with him. But there is no actual evidence presented by either of them that any of those claims are false. Just saying its a hoax because it was found by creationists isn't a valid argument, thus Pro fails here. If you are going to claim that your hypothesis is supported by science, then you need to actually have something that is scientifically valid behind it. If your hypothesis passes through each part of the process because of assumptions, and even your evidence is based on that same assumption, then your conclusion is nothing but an assumption, supported by assumptions. Confirmation bias runs rampant in CD, and that is not science! !! Pro claims that CD has been subjected to years of rigorous double-blind, placebo controlled testing, but again this is just an unsupported claim since he has provided no examples of any of those kinds of experiments that actually supports CD. Bottom line is that Pro hasn't refuted the fact that, similarity equals ancestral relatedness, is nothing more than an assumption and he has provided no evidence that doesn't make that assumption. Yet that assumption is not supported by anything factual, like comparative analysis on organisms that are known to be unrelated. Scientists are working blind when they run any test, without having actual comparisons to show what the findings would be in unrelated organisms. They may very well be looking at refuting evidence, and comparing unrelated organisms, yet they would not know it because of the assumptions made going into that testing. His link to Theobald's work refutes Pro's earlier point that all organisms that have dna are related, Theobald himself says that simply having dna does not prove kinship. Look at another admission made within Pro's own source. .. "The common assumption that all life on Earth emerged from a single common ancestor has been a difficult hypothesis to prove. " (emphasis mine)[21]I applaud both Theobald, and the author of the article Katherine Harmon, for their honesty, and I think most honest scientists will also make the same admissions. That is that UCD is an assumption, and is not a proven fact but simply a hypothesis. Pro's own source proves what I've been saying all along, and refutes his assertion that CD is a fact. Gills- Pro asks, ""Why should human embryos have tails and build their faces from the same embryonic foundation that fish use to build gills? " Look at this picture [22]. The embryo at this point is about 6 weeks old, and only about 1/4 of an inch long[23]. Where else within that 1/4 of an inch, does Pro expect to find pre-cursors to developing structures of the the head? ? Those pouches grow into different structures, so it is not surprising to find them in separate pouches (thus explaining the slits), nor is it surprising to find similar structures in embryos from many other organisms of that size. To perpetrate the myth that those are gill slits, and say that since it has an end to its body means it has a tail, is deplorable. Once again Pro is resorting to an assumption that anything showing similarity, means CD, but once again his claim is unsupported. "Bacteria remaining bacteria" is absurd? ?. .. Why is it absurd? ? Am I suppose to look at a bacteria and imagine it to be a baseball player instead? ? That's what is absurd, looking at something and not seeing what it actually is, and pretending that its proof of something its not. Genesis- Pro concedes on all but the light source. God said "Let there be light" and there was light, on the first day yet He didn't create the sun, moon, or stars until the fourth day[24]. That's all the proof I need. I've already answered his question, it was a temporary light source. Pro says that the light on day one is contradicted by scientific evidence, yet he fails to provide any contradictory "scientific evidence", thus his claim is obviously bogus. He points to his skeptic site as his only evidence for scientific contradictions and that site is not an unbiased source for scientific information, thus again he fails to support his case. Pro resorts to arguing an infinite regress in trying to disprove a designer, but an infinite regress is a logical absurdity[25], thus there must be an uncaused cause. God is eternal and uncaused, and is indeed alive thus Pro's argument fails. Life only comes from life. My definition of kind is not vague. Pro's not liking it is irrelevant, and his not liking it doesn't harm my case in the least. Baraminology is based on Biblical classifications, and to point out that it differs from his preferred method is irrelevant since we obviously have different criteria for each classification, conflict is not surprising, but he has not shown that baraminology is inferior in it's use. Again, no harm done to my case just because Pro doesn't like it, or agree with it. Bias Science doesn't know where the center of the universe is and that is not what Galileo disproved. His assertion that Newton somehow disproved that God is responsible for natural events is equally unsupported, and even laughable.1. This isn't a GoG argument. It is a critical part of the claim that all organisms descended from an original life form. If you can neither identify nor account for the existence of that original life, then your entire hypothesis hangs in the balance, incomplete and unsupported. Too many people give evolutionists a free pass on that point just because they claim that it isn't important. That's an absurd claim.2. Not that he has proved it, but even if mutations CAN do something, it doesn't mean that they actually DID do something. 3. Again, all Pro's evidence depends on assumption of similarity meaning kinship, with nothing factual to support that assumption.4. Being the subject of a peer reviewed paper does not provide any conclusive proof for the origination of sexual reproduction. All it shows is that the reviewers agree that it may be the best current understanding. That certainly does not suffice as evidence of what actually happened. That is an appeal to authority, and there is no true authority on what actually happened.5. Say what? ?6. Again Pro links to an obviously biased, unreliable source for actual scientific support, and again I suppose he wants me to take on that entire site instead of making particular arguments within this debate. Q3 and Q4- Pro continues to say that these questions are unanswered, but I have addressed them as well as I possibly can. Both questions require me to speculate on other people's rationale for their beliefs, or why they don't accept evidence. Again, I can only speculate on those matters, and have done so. Pro doesn't like my answers, but again his disbelief or dislike of my answer is irrelevant to the resolution being argued. Pro's resolution states that his questions will cripple my case. Whether the reader agrees with my arguments is irrelevant to that resolution. The question is whether he crippled my case. The clear answer is NO, he didn't even land a solid blow, in fact it is his case that is on the defensive, and his sources are for the most part unreliable.