This guy is a 'traditionalist' and he is a wanker...

[Cargést]

I admit abiogenesis remains hazy and will remain that way until we synthesize life in a lab environment, which might never happen.  However, you're venturing into the realm of opinion with your claim that evolution itself isn't well supported by the facts. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accept the evolutionary hypothesis as the best explanation we currently have regarding how speciation occurs. That's not to say evolutionary theory is flawless -- it isn't. But the kinks will be hammered out in time.

The majority of music critics in the West believe that Lady Gaga ought be an object of praise.  I don't agree with them - based on the same evidence (her music), I conclude that she's crap.  It's all well and good to point out that your theory perfectly accomodates the "evidence" we currently have (though evolutionary theory is such that absolutely any fossil record would "support" it [i.e. the theory can be fitted to any selection of evidence]).

Did you read that critique I linked in one of my posts?  I'm not sure if it's in there, but somewhere I read a creationist response to the notion of abiogenesis, which they called out as being statistically unlikely given its own premises and the theory of evolution as a whole.  If life appeared from non-life over a long period of favourable conditions in a perfectly apt environment, it need not have been this kind of life.  Furthermore, there need not necessarily have been only one kind of life - indeed, abiogenesis, as it is now, would suggest that multiple lifeforms would arise out of those conditions, leading to multiple evolutionary paths.  This is not the case - all organisms are similar to each other in their fundamental structure, being constructed from variations of a standard cell.  That there is only a single source of life better supports creationism than evolutionary theory, until evolutionary theory is fitted to the fact of the singular branch of life on this planet!

I think you're cherry picking your sources and thus getting a warped perspective on the matter. I challenge you to find an irreligious scientist who supports creationism. Most of this "creation science" is obviously biased by the beliefs of its purveyors and arises not from the selfless pursuit of Truth, but from ego driven desire for self-validation.

You won't have an irreligious scientist who supports creationism because creationism posits the existence of God.  It's difficult to posit God when you don't believe in Him!

Surely evolutionists are guilty of exactly the same - the theory was generated on shaky ground, but was accepted as semi-plausible in the face of the waning popularity of Christian myth as a source of explanation of the world.  Now, it's become dogma.  It is impossible to question the validity of evolutionary theory without subtly questioning the validity of one of the prime tenets of "scientism", as it's called - that things progress continually from disorder to perfection (never mind how drastically this departs from thermodynamics and entropy).  That any challenge to the theoy is met with severe aggression should stand as testament to its makeshift foundations - it is precarious, and it is known to be such, and yet we still want to stick with it.

On a related note, I'm calling bullshit on your idea of 'limited variance'. No where have you supported these claims with evidence, and when Bill gave you proof of speciation you simply tweaked your definition. Also, you claim that reaching the extremes of variance causes disease and weakening, which is nowhere to be found in Ensatina eschscholtzii.

I've provided a link which has, towards its end, details of the only experiments which have gone into "macro-evolution", which have all failed, though evolutionists claim cases of infertility born of over-specialisation as being cases of "new species" arising, even though these things are clearly still e. coli/fruit flies, regardless of their reproductive ability (which is known to be ruined by over-specialisation, anyway).  I honestly didn't think it'd be necessary to provide any further sources, because it's such a widely known fact.  That people here don't know it simply proves the common assertion that the users of this board are, in some ways at least, ignorant of the wider world. 

Here's Google on the matter.  You can make your own judgment from these kinds of searches, as I do.  Currently, research seems to be supporting "my idea", also supported by thousands of years of human experience of breeding/selection of lesser species (and humans!).

In my ability to quickly revise my theory so as to fit incoming information, I am doing exactly what evolutionists do - fitting theory to facts.  I understand that a theory ought have some kind of predictive power, if it is to be accepted as a scientific theory, and yet both creationism and evolutionism focus on things which cannot be predicted (namely, historical events).  Evolutionism at least predicts that macro-evolution might be observable at some point down the line, but, so far, there are no cases of it, and a great deal of data to suggest that it would largely be impossible, given the limitations of genetic variance within any one species.

Like I said earlier, I think you're cherry picking. Here's a challenge: take a biology class next semester. Grill the shit out of your professor. Ask him/her for reading material on evolution. Or maybe try this: pretend you believe in evolution and you're trying to prove a creationist wrong. Do some research from the opposite perspective to test your own beliefs.

I did pretend that I believed in evolution, and I was trying to prove creationists wrong.  I read evolutionist arguments, which first seemed plausible, and then creationist arguments and evolutionist responses.  The creationist arguments generally showed that what was claimed as "evidence" for evolution was not only not "evidence" for evolution, but it could easily be interpreted as "evidence" for creationism - ultimately, evolutionary theory is as supported and as explanatory as creationism, if not less so, as I mentioned about.  The responses to those arguments were inadequate in missing the point that it was the nature of this "evidence" which was being questioned (it was a shock to find no adequate response to this criticism).

I have also attempted to allow others to provide what they believe to be sufficient evidence in support of macro-evolution, and I am currently dissapointed in the lack of actual evidence, though the theory can be fitted to the fossil record and current biology/genetics etc.  As things stand, it's not a particular concern of mine, whether evolution or creation are more accurate assumptions as to how life arose/became varied.  Life arose; it became varied; we will never be able to prove a mechanism.

As it is, I have a friend who is a biologist, who might know some evolutionary biologists - I'll ask him if he can collect anyone with a thorough idea of the ground upon which the theory stands, since for now all I've been offered has been bupkiss.

Have you experienced the Forms? How do you know they're real and not just an abstraction for understanding reality? I'm not arguing for or against the existence of Forms, I merely want to know more about them. I was under the impression that the World of Forms is inaccessible to experience; we only know of the forms through our observation of patterns.

You know what constitutes a chair, right?  You can walk into a room full of chairs and tea mugs and pick out the chairs from the tea mugs?  The ability to do this shows that you understand the fundamental difference between the two kinds, and the similarity between the objects within each kind.  This displays knowledge of Forms, though we might describe it in any number of ways - the Theory of Forms is a single, metaphorical account of a real phenomenon, namely our ability to develop an understanding of the groupings of objects in the physical world around us, i.e. "what and in what way are things similar/dissimilar to each other", leading to "what are the necessary characteristics for each kind of item" - these are not worded questions we ask ourselves, but descriptions of an internal process which occurs as we intuitively recognise universal patterns.

We know the Forms to be real independently of their instances because the Form can exist without any one of its instances.  Before there was a chair, "chairness" had to have existed - how else could a chair have come into being in this universe?  Of course, the physicalist response is to beg the question and reduce everything to brain states etc. (which is an assertion only falsifiable by direct experience, which physicalists necessarily close themselves off to, given their personal devotion to their assumption).

Evolution fits the idea to the facts, Creationism fits the facts to the idea -- that's what I meant by 'accommodating'.

Unfortunately, this is not so.  If one is guilty of either, then both are.  I have to say, fitting the idea to the facts is hardly an example of a "good theory"; it simply yields a temporarily convincing storyline to explain what is known for the moment, containing within itself the possibility of being amended (even totally reversed?) should newly emerging facts require.  As I have said above, a good scientific theory has predictive power; while the origin of species is something we might predict, the theory which predicts such and such a mechanism can only be shown to be true once observation of such a mechanism at work has occurred.

The emerging fossil record forces evolutionary theory to be altered far more frequently than it has required creationism to be altered (which is never).  The solidity of the creationist stance is its strength, not a weakness - the facts, as they are uncovered, easily fit with the theory, until you assume evolution as the source of speciation.  As aberrant as it might sound, evolutionary theory is no more supported by the "facts" you refer to than creationism - it is much more a fitting of theory to fact than it is a conclusion of theory from fact.

Then point me towards the truth. How does one identify a Form? If we can't identify a Form, then how do we know they exist?

We internalise the Forms through experiencing numerous instances of them.  As we come to understand what it is for a chair to be a chair - what constitutes "chairness" - we come closer into contact with the Form of the Chair, until we understand it so perfectly that we might always be sure of what is a chair and what is not.

I am apologetic to the idea that the mind may be immaterial; I just fail to see how it precludes the idea of evolution.

Well, for one, if mentality is immaterial, then it lacks the spatiotemporal properties of space - being undistinguished and timeless, it must have existed before and must exist after matter, which is created and destroyed in its turn.  All this would suggest is that consciousness is not an emergent property of matter, but a fundament upon which the physical rests (as in Tradition).

By this logic, then why not say the form of Reptile existed before its physical manifestation evolved from Amphibians?

Yes, I'm still not quite comfortable with the idea of throwing evolution totally out because it might go against notions of Archetypes - it seems reasonable to me that Archetypes might allow "evolution" from a primordial lifeform into its more complex arrangements in larger organisms, effortlessly filling the gaps in nature that are generated in Creation.  However, apparently it's not acceptable, so I'm going to test the idea until it either seems unfalsifiable from what Tradition contains, or until it is falsified.

Evolution could well be the physical mechanism by which variation between species occurs.  This is just as likely as "God did it", and presents a prettier picture, ultimately (makes the physical universe seem much better constructed, being thus more self-constrained).  I'd be impressed with the Creator that could set the universe up so perfectly that Its creations would manifest themselves entirely naturally/naturalistically.

If they exist outside space and time, then how do they influence the physical world? (Apologies if you've already went over this with Bill)

Where is the physical world, but within that which is outside itself?  Is a house not affected by the storm around it?  Is a body not affected by exterior factors?  The metaphysic (including Forms) acts as a "support" for the existence of physicality.  It is what holds the experiential universe together.

Are the teachings of Siddhartha canon in Traditionalism? How do you reconcile an impermanent and ever-changing universe with something supposedly constant like a Form?

Yes, Buddhism is a great tradition.  Buddha speaks of the physical universe when he talks of anicca - it is physicality ("relativity") which is constant change, while Buddhism speaks of an unchanging void/stillness/emptiness/potential which must exist, underlaying all things, in order for there to be this change in the first place.  While nothing like "Forms" are posited, as far as I've studied, the metaphysical realm is accepted as being "real" while the physical is "illusory", as in Hinduism.

Better yet, start a new thread about Forms so others can chime in. Or PM me if you prefer. Doesn't matter to me.

I might well do this at some point in the future.  Cheers for the suggestion ; )

Kinda sounds like a cop out

Not at all - anyone who says that their words can be taken at face value is a liar.  We instantly interpret words, and our interpretation of those words might differ from that of the speaker.  As such, words are imperfect vehicles for the communication of truth.  I'd sooner sit with you in silence for half an hour than have a debate about any one thing - it is likely, depending on who you are, that we would learn much more from that silence than from any speech.

Personally, I live a simple life and do not let such matters trouble me. However, I will say this this: If thoughts about the nature and origin of Life and the Cosmos had not given man many a sleepless night, then we wouldn't have half as much knowledge as we do today.

Again, this I will firmly accept.  Still, Man must know his limitations - we are not all seers, capable of looking back through time in order to pick truth out of an assortment of theories.

Would you not say, given the impermanence attested to by Buddha, that origin is constant?  That this universe is eternally arising, has never arisen, and will never have arisen, in that it is always a new state which is coming into being as an old is ceasing?  As such, the origin of Man - indeed, of anything - must be found now, not in the past.  Metaphysics would teach us that eternal origin, just as readily as science would teach us our bodies' earthly/temporal origin, if it had the tools with which to discover such a thing.

[Tralfamadorian]

The majority of music critics in the West believe that Lady Gaga ought be an object of praise.  I don't agree with them - based on the same evidence (her music), I conclude that she's crap.

I knew I should have qualified that statement about the majority of scientists. Your comparison to Lady Gaga is inapt, and here's why: Scientists have attained higher education and exclusively occupy the right half of the bell curve. On the other hand, popular music critics are probably dead center in the bell curve.The consensus of one thousand average people is worthless (just look at the way the Western world is run), but could you say the same thing about the consensus of one thousand 115+ IQers? Surely the latter would warrant some consideration.

Even if we give popular music critics the benefit of the doubt and say they're above average intelligence, the comparison still falls apart. The fact of the matter is, popular music critiques are payed to to praise what's popular, not form their own opinions. And what's popular is dependent on the lowest common denominator tastes of the general public. Scientists, however, are a more principled bunch. Yes, there are those scientists who parrot popular opinion to get grant money or are just outright stupid. But in general, they do what they do because they are interested in discerning the nature of Reality, not in creating the next flavor-of-the-week.

If life appeared from non-life over a long period of favourable conditions in a perfectly apt environment, it need not have been this kind of life. 

What is that supposed to mean? That life would have been fundamentally different? It very well could have, but obviously natural selection weeded out all other "kinds of life". Or maybe there are other kinds of life -- what the fuck are viruses, anyway?

Furthermore, there need not necessarily have been only one kind of life - indeed, abiogenesis, as it is now, would suggest that multiple lifeforms would arise out of those conditions, leading to multiple evolutionary paths.  This is not the case - all organisms are similar to each other in their fundamental structure, being constructed from variations of a standard cell.  That there is only a single source of life better supports creationism than evolutionary theory, until evolutionary theory is fitted to the fact of the singular branch of life on this planet!

Perhaps a specific strain of microbe was spawned out of the primordial soup that had a genetic predisposition towards mutation, thus enabling it to evolve, survive, and eventually flourish into the diversity of living things we have today; while this strain's ancestrally disparate peers, who lacked this predisposition towards mutation, died off when the environment changed. Or perhaps it is as Francis Crick speculates: life originated somewhere other than earth and came here on an asteroid. But this is just me spitballing.

Common descent is widely supported by genetic, biochemical, and geographic evidence. You may want to look into something called endogenous retroviral insertions, whereby a retrovirus inserts its genome into the host's genome. which is then passed on in the progeny of the host (a gross oversimplification of the process). How do you explain finding this same retroviral DNA sequence across differentiated species, like chimps and humans?



Oh yeah, and I read the rebuttal to ERV insertions in that link you posted:

Again, it is an unprovable theological assertion that God would not place the same nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species.  He may have a purpose for doing so that is beyond our present understanding.  The objection that placing nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species would make God guilty of deception is ill founded.  God cannot be charged fairly with deception when we choose to draw conclusions from data that contradict what he has revealed in Scripture (see Gibson’s comments in the discussion of Prediction 19).

Once again, the creationists are ignoring Occam's Razor in favor of convoluted "God works in mysterious ways" arguments. 

That any challenge to the theoy is met with severe aggression should stand as testament to its makeshift foundations - it is precarious, and it is known to be such, and yet we still want to stick with it.

Perhaps that severe aggression comes from the frustration endemic to arguing with someone who closes his or her self off to reason. Not saying you're guilty of such a thing, but it's not uncommon in the creationist camp. Relevant.

I've provided a link which has, towards its end, details of the only experiments which have gone into "macro-evolution", which have all failed, though evolutionists claim cases of infertility born of over-specialisation as being cases of "new species" arising, even though these things are clearly still e. coli/fruit flies, regardless of their reproductive ability (which is known to be ruined by over-specialisation, anyway).  I honestly didn't think it'd be necessary to provide any further sources, because it's such a widely known fact.  That people here don't know it simply proves the common assertion that the users of this board are, in some ways at least, ignorant of the wider world.

Yes, I'm working through Ashby Camp's critique. These experiments are hardly the nails in evolution's coffin  that you made them out to be.

For one, the methodology of the fruit fly experiment is suspect. They blasted those damn flies with radiation! Common sense tells me that mutations resulting from x-rays will not be of the same nature as natural mutations. Google seems to confirm this: some nucleotides are more vulnerable to ultraviolet radiation than others. Thus, we can safely conclude that this experiment proves very little--it was probably done out of sheer curiosity without any expectation of great discovery. No wonder those flies were deformed and infertile -- they went through the fruit fly equivalent of Chernobyl!

And as for the e. coli (I assume you are referring to this experiment), OF COURSE you're not going to see e. coli evolve into something completely different. Macroevolution, by its very definition, occurs across geologic time scales, while this experiment has only been going on for twenty years! Furthermore, even the e. coli strain that evolved to metabolize citric acid seems to be healthy and in no way reaching a limit of variation.

given the limitations of genetic variance within any one species.

OK, you're going to have to find some new evidence for this claim, 'cause it seems pretty bunk.

The responses to those arguments were inadequate in missing the point that it was the nature of this "evidence" which was being questioned (it was a shock to find no adequate response to this criticism).

Could you elaborate on this? I assume you're saying that it is the logic behind evolution, not the science, that is flawed. As a retort, I offer some creationist logic:

A creationist would also expect many biochemical similarities in all living organisms.  We all drink the same water, breathe the same air, and eat the same food.  Supposing, on the other hand, God had made plants with a certain type of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc.; then made animals with a different type of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc.; and, finally, made man with a third type of amino acids, sugars, etc.  What could we eat?  We couldn’t eat plants; we couldn’t eat animals; all we could eat would be each other!  Obviously, that wouldn’t work.  All the key molecules in plants, animals, and man had to be the same.  The metabolism of plants, animals, and man, based on the same biochemical principles, had to be similar, and therefore key metabolic pathways would employ similar macromolecules, modified to fit the particular internal environment of the organism or cell in which it must function.  (Gish, 277.)

The anthropocentrism is killing me. "God created plants and animals for us to use!~" is the thought virus that is currently driving us to destroy our planet.


I will respond to the philosophical side of your post later.

[Cargést]

I knew I should have qualified that statement about the majority of scientists. Your comparison to Lady Gaga is inapt, and here's why: Scientists have attained higher education and exclusively occupy the right half of the bell curve. On the other hand, popular music critics are probably dead center in the bell curve.The consensus of one thousand average people is worthless (just look at the way the Western world is run), but could you say the same thing about the consensus of one thousand 115+ IQers? Surely the latter would warrant some consideration.

The consensus of the entirety of the world's geniuses counts for nothing if they are not privy to all of the information.  The true belief of one below average man is worth more if that belief is founded upon a comprehension of Truth as a whole, rather than upon a collection of facts which may cease to be.

Even if we give popular music critics the benefit of the doubt and say they're above average intelligence, the comparison still falls apart. The fact of the matter is, popular music critiques are payed to to praise what's popular, not form their own opinions. And what's popular is dependent on the lowest common denominator tastes of the general public. Scientists, however, are a more principled bunch. Yes, there are those scientists who parrot popular opinion to get grant money or are just outright stupid. But in general, they do what they do because they are interested in discerning the nature of Reality, not in creating the next flavor-of-the-week.

And yet an initial assumption is made which severely limits the range of that reality, to the extent where human progress in areas beyond that limit has halted in the West (except where synthesis of Eastern and Western mysticism has occurred).

What is that supposed to mean? That life would have been fundamentally different? It very well could have, but obviously natural selection weeded out all other "kinds of life". Or maybe there are other kinds of life -- what the fuck are viruses, anyway?

It means that we would very likely have multiple different "kinds" of life, instead of the singular one we have now.  As far as evolutionary theory goes (especially as regards origins of life), it is statistically unlikely for us to have the situation we have now (one singular basis of life).

What competition?  Different forms of life would need and provide different sets of resources - a carbon-based plant will not feed a silicon-based hufflewump.  Perhaps living space might become an issue, but even then, we'd expect fossils of other distinct kinds of life, not simply masses of recombinations of variations of the carbon-based cell.

Viruses are "our life"; this is how they are able to interact with us.  The basis of their existence is the same as that of ours.

Perhaps a specific strain of microbe was spawned out of the primordial soup that had a genetic predisposition towards mutation, thus enabling it to evolve, survive, and eventually flourish into the diversity of living things we have today; while this strain's ancestrally disparate peers, who lacked this predisposition towards mutation, died off when the environment changed. Or perhaps it is as Francis Crick speculates: life originated somewhere other than earth and came here on an asteroid. But this is just me spitballing.

Surely you see that we've entered the realms of speculation, here.  While it is statistically likely, given evolutionary theory, for multiple kinds of life to evolve contemporaneously in apt conditions, it is impossible to know how these different forms might be.  What is lacking, from the evolutionist perspective, is a rigidity of their account which can explain the existence of a sole form of life on this planet; evolutionary theory is so simple/"one size fits all" that practically any degree of complexity of life could be heralded as "evidence" of the mechanism.

Common descent is widely supported by genetic, biochemical, and geographic evidence. You may want to look into something called endogenous retroviral insertions, whereby a retrovirus inserts its genome into the host's genome. which is then passed on in the progeny of the host (a gross oversimplification of the process). How do you explain finding this same retroviral DNA sequence across differentiated species, like chimps and humans?

I don't; this isn't my battle ; ) Creationists, however, make as much sense as evolutionists do: God did it.  That retroviral DNA, like all DNA, results in us being the way we are; why should it not also be apparent in creatures which are very similar to us, or even those who are distant?  The architect might wish to use the same building materials for radically different constructions.  That medieval Japanese and English houses were both made of wood does not mean that they have even remotely similar origins.

Once again, the creationists are ignoring Occam's Razor in favor of convoluted "God works in mysterious ways" arguments.

I've shown that the postulation of God satisfies Occam's Razor as well as the postulation of an "evolutionary mechanism"; one entity is suggested in each case.  Furthermore, I have stated repeatedly that, ultimately, the postulation of God as an entity becomes the postulation of a sole entity (whereas physicalism must posit an entity every time an instance is encountered).

Perhaps that severe aggression comes from the frustration endemic to arguing with someone who closes his or her self off to reason. Not saying you're guilty of such a thing, but it's not uncommon in the creationist camp. Relevant.

I'm aware of the idiocy of the majority of creationists - those creationists with any idea of biology are the first to lament their incapable brethren.  Surely the majority of evolutionists are as misinformed and dogmatic in their reinforcement of ideology?

Yes, I'm working through Ashby Camp's critique. These experiments are hardly the nails in evolution's coffin  that you made them out to be.

For one, the methodology of the fruit fly experiment is suspect. They blasted those damn flies with radiation! Common sense tells me that mutations resulting from x-rays will not be of the same nature as natural mutations. Google seems to confirm this: some nucleotides are more vulnerable to ultraviolet radiation than others. Thus, we can safely conclude that this experiment proves very little--it was probably done out of sheer curiosity without any expectation of great discovery. No wonder those flies were deformed and infertile -- they went through the fruit fly equivalent of Chernobyl!

And as for the e. coli (I assume you are referring to this experiment), OF COURSE you're not going to see e. coli evolve into something completely different. Macroevolution, by its very definition, occurs across geologic time scales, while this experiment has only been going on for twenty years! Furthermore, even the e. coli strain that evolved to metabolize citric acid seems to be healthy and in no way reaching a limit of variation.

The point of the radiation was to speed up the evolutionary process by introducing a greater variety of mutation in any one generation.  Fruit flies and e. coli were selected because of their already great generative speed.

We seem to have two camps in evolutionary theory: those who believe that "macro-evolution" happens gradually, as supported by the idea that micro-evolution can account for speciation (look into animal breeding for more examples of the limitations of genetic variance), and those who believe that it happens suddenly, as "supported" by the fossil record, in which entire genera of animals appear fully formed, with perhaps a ten to thirty thousand year gap between themselves and any proposed "ancestors".  Clearly, these two camps are at odds with each other.  I'm still waiting for solid evidence that evolution has occurred from one species to another.

By the way: vast swathes of the area around Chernobyl - yes, many which were blasted with radiation - are now paradises for local wildlife, having been deserted by fearful humans.  Generations of animals exhibit no ill effects from inhabiting an iradiated zone.

OK, you're going to have to find some new evidence for this claim, 'cause it seems pretty bunk.

Just talk to animal and plant breeders around the world.  It's a terribly well known fact, and I'm disturbed that there isn't much in the way of scientific literature on a phenomenon that is so widely understood.  I can find a few things here and there by searching google for "breeding limitations", "limitations of genetic variance", etc.

Could you elaborate on this? I assume you're saying that it is the logic behind evolution, not the science, that is flawed. As a retort, I offer some creationist logic:

...

The anthropocentrism is killing me. "God created plants and animals for us to use!~" is the thought virus that is currently driving us to destroy our planet.

It's not anthropocentrism in the slightest; it's talking about the unity of Life, and attributing that to a single Creator.  I can't see him making any point about whether or not we're supposed to make use of the resources around us, simply that, if multiple different forms of life existed, which made use of different/different quantities/qualities of prime resources (proteins, elements, etc.), any species of our particular kind of life could conceivably have difficulties in extracting nutrition from those other lifeforms.  Just as one can't read ancient Greek text as modern Yiddish, it is possible that the constituents of different forms of life would not translate to each other well.

Evolutionary theory has nothing within it to discount the idea that other forms of life might have arisen, fundamentally different to our own.  On its own, evolutionary theory does not predict that life will be singular, as it is; creationism does.  Surely this points out the illogicity of the arguments coming from the evolutionary camp, when they try to claim that fitting their theory to the facts of the world is "proof" of their theory, even when that theory might easily have fitted any number of other scenarios!

Thanks for the invigorating discussion : )

[Tralfamadorian]

The consensus of the entirety of the world's geniuses counts for nothing if they are not privy to all of the information.  The true belief of one below average man is worth more if that belief is founded upon a comprehension of Truth as a whole, rather than upon a collection of facts which may cease to be.

Sure. One could have an IQ of 200 and still know nothing about life. But we're not talking about spiritual knowledge here. We're talking about science, and science is science.  If the axiom "God is the Creator and Overseer of the Universe and all in his creation is based upon His Forms" was stipulated into the canon of science, science would cease to be science, and become something more like a religion. Science requires empirical evidence and most sane believers in God agree that belief in Him is a personal matter, a matter of faith -- not something that can be proven by a formula or experiment. Introducing God into science is like introducing a pan-flute into death metal: they don't mix, nor should they. Besides, Belief/Unbelief in God has absolutely no bearing on whether one's ideas about the world are correct or not. Throwing scientific consensus out the window because they don't subscribe to your religion is absurd.


Science is profoundly useful to us insofar as it improves our quality of life and deepens our understanding of our place in the Universe. When nu-atheists like Dawkins hijack science and try to answer spiritual/philosophical questions --such as our purpose for being here--with it, is when science oversteps its boundaries.

And yet an initial assumption is made which severely limits the range of that reality, to the extent where human progress in areas beyond that limit has halted in the West (except where synthesis of Eastern and Western mysticism has occurred).

I like the Catholic Church's approach: keep science and spirituality separate. Maybe in 1,000 years we can synthesize the two, but for now they each serve a distinct purpose: one informs us of the material world and one informs us of the inner, metaphysical world. I realize that the two worlds are one and the same, but at this point in time, we must keep them separate for pragmatism's sake.

It means that we would very likely have multiple different "kinds" of life, instead of the singular one we have now.  As far as evolutionary theory goes (especially as regards origins of life), it is statistically unlikely for us to have the situation we have now (one singular basis of life).

What competition?  Different forms of life would need and provide different sets of resources - a carbon-based plant will not feed a silicon-based hufflewump.  Perhaps living space might become an issue, but even then, we'd expect fossils of other distinct kinds of life, not simply masses of recombinations of variations of the carbon-based cell.

Viruses are "our life"; this is how they are able to interact with us.  The basis of their existence is the same as that of ours.

Sorry, but I just can't seriously entertain this idea. Carbon is most assuredly the only basis for life there is. I'm not sure what 'statistics' are informing you that life could be silicon based, but basic chemistry seems to suggest that the thought is bunk. Few compounds can bond with silicon, certainly not enough to provide for the myriad of chemical reactions necessary to sustain life.

Surely you see that we've entered the realms of speculation, here.  While it is statistically likely, given evolutionary theory, for multiple kinds of life to evolve contemporaneously in apt conditions, it is impossible to know how these different forms might be.  What is lacking, from the evolutionist perspective, is a rigidity of their account which can explain the existence of a sole form of life on this planet; evolutionary theory is so simple/"one size fits all" that practically any degree of complexity of life could be heralded as "evidence" of the mechanism.

It seems very simple to me: Carbon, from an atomic perspective, is the only suitable element for sustaining life, in that it is extremely versatile and builds a suitably large vocabulary of molecules. There are no other "types of life" because it is physically impossible to construct a living organism out of Silicon, or any other element besides carbon.

Here's a choice selection from a DLA blog troll that effectively illustrates the absurdity of your claim.

A liberal muslim homosexual ACLU lawyer professor and abortion doctor was teaching a class on Karl Marx, known atheist.

Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Marx and accept that he was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, even greater than Jesus Christ!”

At this moment, a brave, patriotic, pro-life NavySEAL champion who had served 1500 tours of duty and understood the necessity of war and fully supported all military decision made by the United States stood up and held up a rock.

”How old is this rock, pinhead?”

The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied “4.6 billion years, you stupid Christian”

”Wrong. It’s been 5,000 years since God created it. If it was 4.6 billion years old and evolution, as you say, is real… then it should be an animal now”

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of Origin of the Species. He stormed out of the room crying those liberal crocodile tears. The same tears liberals cry for the “poor” (who today live in such luxury that most own refrigerators) when they jealously try to claw justly earned wealth from the deserving job creators. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, DeShawn Washington, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a sophist liberal professor. He wished so much that he had a gun to shoot himself from embarrassment, but he himself had petitioned against them!

The students applauded and all registered Republican that day and accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. An eagle named “Small Government” flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. The pledge of allegiance was read several times, and God himself showed up and enacted a flat tax rate across the country.

The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of the gay plague AIDS and was tossed into the lake of fire for all eternity.

Semper Fi

I don't; this isn't my battle ; ) Creationists, however, make as much sense as evolutionists do: God did it.  That retroviral DNA, like all DNA, results in us being the way we are; why should it not also be apparent in creatures which are very similar to us, or even those who are distant?  The architect might wish to use the same building materials for radically different constructions.  That medieval Japanese and English houses were both made of wood does not mean that they have even remotely similar origins.

"sequence of retroviral DNA" isn't really analagous to "building material". It'd be more like finding the exact same blueprint for the exact same house in both medieval Japan and England.

I've shown that the postulation of God satisfies Occam's Razor as well as the postulation of an "evolutionary mechanism"; one entity is suggested in each case.  Furthermore, I have stated repeatedly that, ultimately, the postulation of God as an entity becomes the postulation of a sole entity (whereas physicalism must posit an entity every time an instance is encountered).

You're conflating philosophical materialism and evolution. While the former implies the latter, the latter does not necessarily imply the former.

I'm aware of the idiocy of the majority of creationists - those creationists with any idea of biology are the first to lament their incapable brethren.  Surely the majority of evolutionists are as misinformed and dogmatic in their reinforcement of ideology?

But of course. The 90–9–1 principle applies here: 90% have no clue and are probably using creationism/evolution to prop up their ego, 9% have a degree of knowledge on the subject, and 1% actually make contributions to their respective field.

We seem to have two camps in evolutionary theory: those who believe that "macro-evolution" happens gradually, as supported by the idea that micro-evolution can account for speciation (look into animal breeding for more examples of the limitations of genetic variance), and those who believe that it happens suddenly, as "supported" by the fossil record, in which entire genera of animals appear fully formed, with perhaps a ten to thirty thousand year gap between themselves and any proposed "ancestors".  Clearly, these two camps are at odds with each other.  I'm still waiting for solid evidence that evolution has occurred from one species to another.

There is much we don't know about evolution, but I'll still take it over the 'POOF hypothesis' any day of the week.

By the way: vast swathes of the area around Chernobyl - yes, many which were blasted with radiation - are now paradises for local wildlife, having been deserted by fearful humans.  Generations of animals exhibit no ill effects from inhabiting an iradiated zone.

Because the radiation levels have gone down significantly. Had the radiation's intensity remained as it was when the reactor melted down, it is doubtful the area would be a wildlife paradise.

Just talk to animal and plant breeders around the world.  It's a terribly well known fact, and I'm disturbed that there isn't much in the way of scientific literature on a phenomenon that is so widely understood.

Are you sure you're not confusing limited variance with the maladaptions that result from a small gene pool?

It's not anthropocentrism in the slightest; it's talking about the unity of Life, and attributing that to a single Creator.

Yes, my mistake. I made a hasty generalization. 

Evolutionary theory has nothing within it to discount the idea that other forms of life might have arisen, fundamentally different to our own.  On its own, evolutionary theory does not predict that life will be singular, as it is; creationism does.  Surely this points out the illogicity of the arguments coming from the evolutionary camp, when they try to claim that fitting their theory to the facts of the world is "proof" of their theory, even when that theory might easily have fitted any number of other scenarios!

Fundamentally different lifeforms have not and will never exist. Here's NASA on the matter. If this is one of the pillars of creationism then I can see why it isn't taken seriously.


By the way,do you make of the Catholic Church's acceptance of evolution, Cargest? Surely they are, at least to a degree, still purveyors of Tradition. Cardinal John Henry Newman once wrote “the theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill.”  Indeed, is God such a fuckup that he had to divinely intervene to implement his plan for creation? Evolution is far more eloquent and more befitting of God.

Apologies for the terseness of my responses.

[indjaseemun]

Bill Hopkins, the difference between you and cargést are simply concepts, in my opinion. You both believe the same thing. I'm sure Cargest believes in evolution. Just cargest has the ability to aprehend stuff beyond physical reality, and you do not acknowledge that this is even possible.

It's like, if you were both characters in a pc game, you would both be masters at the game, all its rules and terrains, but cargest would be like "Check it out, yo, this world is like made by codes and shit, and there are other games too, they share the same code-source, there are even different codes. Perhaps there's stuff beyond even the world of games." And bill hopkins is like "Well maybe there is, but you are making metaphysical assumptions on those questions, and there is no proof."

Bad example? Really, i'm just trying to clear my view. Because when the fascination with the supernatural goes away, I can see atheists, spiritual people, whatever, they both believe in the same stuff. The atheist knows a lot of stuff the traditionalist knows, but the traditionalist explores more this metaphysical area. It does not mean the atheist is not participating in the metaphysical: If it's real, then he must participate in it. He just does not consciously acknowledges it. I speak by experience and observation.

Sometimes an atheist can have better notion and application for metaphysical principles, without even knowing it is so, than a book-fanatical traditionalist. Of course, it must be this way: Before a theory was made for it, people still participated and were aware of gravity, and all other phenomena.

If all the scientists bill hopkins believes in started agreeing that the supernatural is real and exposed views agreeing with Cargést, in the mind of bill hopkins, cargest would automatically go from being a charlatan to being right. How strange is that?

Again, I hope I am not repeating myself too much bill hopkins, I am not trying to convert anyone, I'm not religious. I don't want anyone to accept any spiritual paradigm. I don't want anyone to believe in fairy tales or that there are not fucked up stuff in the world.

I suggest you take a look at the book My Big TOE on google books.

[BillHopkins]

Bill Hopkins, the difference between you and cargést are simply concepts, in my opinion. You both believe the same thing. I'm sure Cargest believes in evolution. Just cargest has the ability to aprehend stuff beyond physical reality, and you do not acknowledge that this is even possible.

It's like, if you were both characters in a pc game, you would both be masters at the game, all its rules and terrains, but cargest would be like "Check it out, yo, this world is like made by codes and shit, and there are other games too, they share the same code-source, there are even different codes. Perhaps there's stuff beyond even the world of games." And bill hopkins is like "Well maybe there is, but you are making metaphysical assumptions on those questions, and there is no proof."

Bad example? Really, i'm just trying to clear my view. Because when the fascination with the supernatural goes away, I can see atheists, spiritual people, whatever, they both believe in the same stuff. The atheist knows a lot of stuff the traditionalist knows, but the traditionalist explores more this metaphysical area. It does not mean the atheist is not participating in the metaphysical: If it's real, then he must participate in it. He just does not consciously acknowledges it. I speak by experience and observation.

Sometimes an atheist can have better notion and application for metaphysical principles, without even knowing it is so, than a book-fanatical traditionalist. Of course, it must be this way: Before a theory was made for it, people still participated and were aware of gravity, and all other phenomena.

If all the scientists bill hopkins believes in started agreeing that the supernatural is real and exposed views agreeing with Cargést, in the mind of bill hopkins, cargest would automatically go from being a charlatan to being right. How strange is that?

Again, I hope I am not repeating myself too much bill hopkins, I am not trying to convert anyone, I'm not religious. I don't want anyone to accept any spiritual paradigm. I don't want anyone to believe in fairy tales or that there are not fucked up stuff in the world.

I suggest you take a look at the book My Big TOE on google books.

The difference is that the physicalist paradigm has the a priori possibility of being supporting by some kind of inter-subjective justificatory basis, while the traditionalist position is 'beyond' evidence. It doesn't rule out the traditionalist's view, a priori, but it's damn convenient that a view by it's very nature cannot be grounded by either 'evidence' or arguments. Being told I'm wrong because i'm not 'looking at things in the right way' or haven't 'gone through the necessary experiences' is downright rude. There could be no difference between this and a psychotic person experiencing delusions telling me i am not experiencing reality properly. See?

And you, sir, are just like the rest. A whole lot of writing and pouting but Zero REASONS why someone who doesn't already accept your view should do so.

If all the scientists bill hopkins believes in started agreeing that the supernatural is real and exposed views agreeing with Cargést, in the mind of bill hopkins, cargest would automatically go from being a charlatan to being right. How strange is that?

If there is some good REASON to posit the 'supernatural' as part of reality, then it no longer is supernatural, and would have to be included in anyone's ontology. I'm not against this, despite your polemic remarks. You just need objective or inter-subjective REASONS god damn it. The fact that you may have written a book about it, or that Guenon did, or Evola, is not a good reason unless these authors presented logically sound arguments, or provided empirical evidence that enjoys a high probability of being true. In the words of Brett Stevens:

There were those who favored the old way, which was based on the idea of a pervasive order of nature external to the human individual. And then there was the new group, who favored only the desires, feelings and judgments of human individuals

The guy in the video is a wanker because he was spouting giant remarks left right and centre, with absolutely no attempt at justifying any of them independently of their 'cherished' or 'essential' place in his overall world view. Cargest epitomised the 'eyes wide shut view' in 6 pages of debate in another thread by never giving me an independent reason to accept traditional metaphysics beside god of the gaps arguments. I was eventually told there are no objective arguments and that objective logic is INFERIOR to 'revelation', basically. I was told i am not 'seeing things the write way'. Elieson made some attempt at objective debate but we stopped. Cargest's arguments against naturalist evolutionary views came straight from the creationist book of objections, which doesn't necessarily rule them out but casts them in a certain light. Anyway, when he was given the required evidence that he asked for he would keep fobbing it off. It's a miserable state of affairs, gentlemen, and i would again make an appeal to intellectual hygene in the hope of future clarity! This used to be a nihilist forum where people could dicuss a 'spiritual' view of a godless universe and make beauty from muck, so to speak. Now you have to almost be a church going creationist to have a conversation about ontology.

[BillHopkins]

Science is profoundly useful to us insofar as it improves our quality of life and deepens our understanding of our place in the Universe. When nu-atheists like Dawkins hijack science and try to answer spiritual/philosophical questions --such as our purpose for being here--with it, is when science oversteps its boundaries.

I know what you mean here, but i don't entirely agree. If metaphysicians are justified in moving from is to ought, then why are not the best scientists? I take much fuel for my 'existential' questions from scientific ontology.

[indjaseemun]

Well Bill, I already said I'm not really trying to give reasons for anyone to believe anything. If anything, stay with your paradigm, is what I've said.

But life is like this: Sometimes there is no evidence. You could explain the beauty of a rose in a rainy wet day to a clinically depressed person, the person would only see annoying moisture and stupid pieces of petals forming a trivial shape. Both would be right. Why do we keep talking about subjective experience? Well, for one thing, because it is real too. And just as there is a "law" that makes you fall when you jump and makes you hurt when you get punched, the "laws" that make colors, taste, and feeling are no less real. In fact, to believe so would be un-scientific. There is no diminishing the subjective in favor of the external/objective: Both are real and sensed.

As for science, I've done nothing but agree with you on its value. But, there are also its flaws, example, for a long time, even after a lot of meteor showers, most scientists did not believe this phenomena was possible.

Every person that is involved in the occult or metaphysics that I've had the pleasure to ask about has confirmed the validity of paranormal phenomena. We can start with some reasonable assumptions about this: Either every person that gets involved in metaphysics becomes a liar or crazy, or some of them must be telling the truth.

The us government spent 20 years researching remote viewing. Do you think it takes more than 10 years of tests to determine if the stuff works or not?

 I want Science too. But I came back to science with a new experience and a new view, a view that if I denied, I would be un-scientific.

I promised some stuff, articles, and quotes: I have given some, but not enough. I will refrain from further comments and start posting more articles for you, and I will send those quote I talked about in the PM. You can get a lot of out of the articles even from a psychological view. As I said, it is better if you stay with your views. With my previous post I was expressing this: Just as there are people who are born with the gift of music and others of construction, some are born inclined to cargest's views and others to yours. It would be unnatural trying to make you embrace his views.

There is some interesting information about Tibet and reality, about tantric inversion. Those guys did a lot of mysticism and magic, but they were also in tune with reality, you can see by their practices. To show they are not pussies and to show the unity and purity of all, they commited disgusting acts, like eating the rest of meat stuck in a woman's teeth, all with some crazy concepts behind it backing all those acts up.

"The Candamaharosana Tantra lists with relish the particular substances which are offered to the adept by his wisdom consort during the sexual magic rituals and which he must swallow: excrement, urine, saliva, leftovers from between her teeth, lipstick, dish-water, vomit, the wash water which remains after her anus has been cleaned (George, 1974, pp. 73, 78, 79) Those who “make the excrement and urine their food, will be truly happy”, promises the Guhyasamaja Tantra (quoted by Gäng, 1988, p. 134). In the Hevajra Tantra the adept must drink the menstrual blood of his mudra out of  a skull bowl (Farrow and Menon, 1992, p. 98). But rotten fish, sewer water, canine feces, corpse fat, the excrement of the dead, sanitary napkins as well as all conceivable “intoxicating drinks” are also consumed (Walker, 1982, pp. 80–84).

"

http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Part-1-04.htm

[Cargést]

A general response and clarification of the fruits of these discussions:

I have no position on evolution, and it should be nothing more than an embarassment for Bill that his arguments for evolution were countered by creationist responses (it certainly shocked me, since I thought he was studying it); any "evidence" that Bill provided for evolution was shown, categorically, not to be "evidence" of the sort that is required to prove a theoretical (and theoretically ongoing) process.  That Bill cannot understand this objection to the "evidence" he has provided shows either a limited capability of understanding, or, more likely, a sheer refusal to capitulate in the face of an overwhelming counterargument (i.e feigning ignorance for the sake of appearing unfased).

As for metaphysics, none of Bill's physicalist arguments was left uncountered, though Bill obviously refused to accept the legitimacy of the claims against his position (as would anyone with a vested interest in that position); the sole method of understanding metaphysics, as has always been said (and long been written), is to live within the hidden world.  Bill's response: "it's hidden; I can't be fucked to find it; it doesn't exist".

This is a Nihilism/Metal forum.  There is not a person here who is not going or has not gone through the process of Nihilism; those who have come out the other side seem to have centred themselves upon Tradition, in one form or another.  Curious, this, as it mirrors my experiences outside of this forum; the majority of my friends who have journeyed with me through this process have come to the same conclusions as I, and a number on this forum.  Or, perhaps, it is not so curious: if Nihilism is the process which strips preconceptions away from the individual, what is left is the World, and the World is encapsulated in Tradition.

I find it amusing that the most vocal "Nihilist" amongst all of us seems also the most vehement in the defense of the beliefs he claims to be dismantling.

Hopefully, a number of people have read the discussions beween Bill, myself, and others, and have noted whatever holes there might be in the positions held by either party.  Hopefully, these people will begin to explore the ideas on their own, and will come to appropriate conclusions.

[BillHopkins]

#msg79352 date=1353079471]

I have no position on evolution, and it should be nothing more than an embarassment for Bill that his arguments for evolution were countered by creationist responses (it certainly shocked me, since I thought he was studying it); any "evidence" that Bill provided for evolution was shown, categorically, not to be "evidence" of the sort that is required to prove a theoretical (and theoretically ongoing) process.  That Bill cannot understand this objection to the "evidence" he has provided shows either a limited capability of understanding, or, more likely, a sheer refusal to capitulate in the face of an overwhelming counterargument (i.e feigning ignorance for the sake of appearing unfased).

Woa whoa slow down. I do not have a problem with differing viewpoints but now you are grandstanding and misrepresenting our discussion. You raised an objection to macro evolution. You wanted to see evidence of macro evolution... I.e. genetic variation leading to new species. There are numerous cases of fossils of intermediate forms. I presented these to you. What is the problem here, that warrants you claiming achievements of "overwhelming counterargument" and insulting claims of limited capabilities of understanding on my part etc?

I have no fucking idea of what is going on with you. You also claimed as a blanket rule that genetic variation cannot lead to new species because too much specialisation leads to pathology or something similar. I demanded evidence for this claim and you fobbed me off. You told me i have hands and a brain to go find this evidence myself, if they had not become vestigal. you come across like a vicious juvenile. I only bother to waste my time here out of sheer curiosity, as I'm well past expecting a level playing field of debate, or some mildly consistent or fixed basis on which to pin your claims down with. You demand evidence, then shift the debate quickly if its presented. You present absolute claims without backing them up and you write snide little remarks when pressed and pinned down. This is not very enjoyable.

I am socked and amazed that you are parading this thread around as a victory against the evolutionary sciences, considering the actual facts of our discussion which appear to me as outlined in my first paragraph in this post. So, What exactly is wrong with fossil evidence I presented to you as providing evidence for the naturalistic origin of species or macro evolution?

[Tralfamadorian]

I'm with Bill here, Cargest. Your last post seemed like a sly attempt to say that "I won" without accounting for the many loose ends on your side of the argument.

The evidence Bill provided was strong, but it seems nothing short of witnessing a species evolve into another in the flesh will convince you otherwise. Well, consider this:

We haven't witnessed the continents move thousands of miles, but we have observed them moving in inches every year. From this we can either extrapolate that the continents have moved thousands of miles over millions of years from their original formation as Pangea to their current positions, OR we can say that God magically placed the continents where they are and only allows them to move a few inches or so back and forth. Which makes more sense?

In addition, I'm interested in hearing your response to the following queries:

• • Why is the absence of fundamentally different life evidence against evolution when carbon is the only viable basis for life?
• • Why do science and spirituality need to be integrated?
• • Why does evolution imply physicalism for you? What do you make of the Catholic Church's wholehearted acceptance of evolution?

[BillHopkins]

I'm glad some outside observers like yourself are involved here, Tralfamadorina. Normally debates about ideas have a moderator, some point of reference so that the parties don't endlessly dance around each other.

We haven't witnessed the continents move thousands of miles, but we have observed them moving in inches every year. From this we can either extrapolate that the continents have moved thousands of miles over millions of years from their original formation as Pangea to their current positions, OR we can say that God magically placed the continents where they are and only allows them to move a few inches or so back and forth. Which makes more sense?

The latter, IF you have some 'general principle' of plate tectonics that states that when the continents move too far, they suddenly inplode in on themselves. Cargest claimed such a principle in biology. I want evidence for this: as it is a damn huge claim, and one that, without justificaiton, begs the entire question against evolution!

One line of thought in philosophy of science would say that in reference to the possible angle that naturalistic evidence for some phenomena doesn't 'disprove' that God is behind the naturalistic 'cause' itself, positing God as the first cause adds nothing to the explanation. I.e. after the facts have been explained by the naturalistic cause, there is nothing left to explain. God is superflous.

But I personally would like Cargest to address the clear and present evidence of intermediate fossils for the occurance of 'macroevolution' and also give some account of his sweeping maxim that genetic variation can't go so far as to create novel species without causing genetic problems.

[scourge]

Equality always fails us like equilibrium results in failure of any closed system composed of mass and energy interactions. The contention seems to be that we are mass, energy and something else. To me that something else is nothing more than mass and energy as well, namely genes and the resulting neurology and biochemistry with their outermost layered expression called mind.

Jung described for us a otherworldly seeming collective unconscious. But even collective unconscious results from proximate recombinations (same or nearby villages for centuries, millenia causing similar folk) of those genes that result in our common neurological and biochemical expression; the substrate of the effect called mind.

People may point to mythology saying dragons and vampires have been common supernatural concepts all over the world and that perhaps the supernatural is therefore real. But I would point again to a much earlier era of recombinations during the time of belief in animism, nature spirits and tribal wandering.

We could trace our own evolutionary tree with its genetic continuity before prior speciation events when we were smaller, furred and leathery winged or fanged things would swoop down to feast on our hapless selves. There were, from our perspectives, monsters long before, but through natural selection humans are now the only remaining horrors, yet via residual genetic-ancestral memories we carry, i.e. revelations, we still remember the old ones.

[Cargést]

Woa whoa slow down. I do not have a problem with differing viewpoints but now you are grandstanding and misrepresenting our discussion. You raised an objection to macro evolution. You wanted to see evidence of macro evolution... I.e. genetic variation leading to new species. There are numerous cases of fossils of intermediate forms. I presented these to you. What is the problem here, that warrants you claiming achievements of "overwhelming counterargument" and insulting claims of limited capabilities of understanding on my part etc?

Evidence of a thing is matter which directly implies that thing.  Fossils directly imply dead animals.  Evolution directly implies evolution.  Do you still not understand my point about your lack of evidence?  One must accept evolutionary theory before it makes sense that these examples of "transitional fossils" are nothing more than once living species of animal (which happen to have similarities with animals we know now).

I have no fucking idea of what is going on with you. You also claimed as a blanket rule that genetic variation cannot lead to new species because too much specialisation leads to pathology or something similar. I demanded evidence for this claim and you fobbed me off.

Fruit flies.  E. coli.  At least one other piece of research on the limitations of variance.  Here's something obvious.  Evidence was supplied to you, whether you observed it or not.

Edit: it's fallacious to say that I claimed that as a "blanket rule"; I can't claim lack of proof as disproof, and if it is proved that a species can vary beyond its limitations (thus becoming a new species), then, evidently, we will have the exception to that rule.

You told me i have hands and a brain to go find this evidence myself, if they had not become vestigal. you come across like a vicious juvenile.

If you want to take it that way.  I was intending on being playful, not offensive.  There's no animosity in this debate for me; perhaps you should stop reading my part as though there is.

I am socked and amazed that you are parading this thread around as a victory against the evolutionary sciences, considering the actual facts of our discussion which appear to me as outlined in my first paragraph in this post. So, What exactly is wrong with fossil evidence I presented to you as providing evidence for the naturalistic origin of species or macro evolution?

How on earth am I "parading this thread around as a victory against the evolutionary sciences"?  I have made no mention of this thread anywhere other than in this thread.  For one, how can that be parading?  Secondly, my post was a clarification of what I had observed in this thread, given that you seemed to present something rather similar a few posts back (claiming, I might add, that you had provided adequate "evidence" for evolutionary theory, which is not the case).

If you want to know what's wrong with the fossil evidence, read what I said in response.  That you still don't get it suggests to me that you never bothered to understand my point.