 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
bart007
Little Goldfish
Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 50
Location: Rockland NY
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:18 pm Post subject: Science Knows Nothing About Evolution! |
 |
|
Here is the definition of materialsm from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
1 a: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.
One of those materialistic processes that they exclusively teach is MATERIALISTIC EVOLUTION. This is nothing new, they taught it when I was a science major in the 1970's. Surely you're not claiming they teach theistic evolution in schools. Certainly the atheistic powers that control our public education institutions are not allowing Intelligent Design to be taught.
They teach Darwinism and Darwin flatly excluded and rejected Christianity. It was the chief principle that his theory on origins exclude God. It is why he took so long to publish it. For Darwin, God had to have no roll in the explanation of how 'beings' came into existence just as Darwin's mentor, Charles Lyell, insisted that God must have no roll in his Geological Theory that was specifically designed to undermine Noachic geology and leave God out of the picture.
At bare minimum, 93% of scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences are materialists. 73% are declared atheists. That is, they believe physical matter is the only ultimate reality. They suppose that everything in the cosmos, including life, can be explained in terms of interacting matter. Materialists do not accept the existence of spiritual or supernatural forces.
I recently read a Dinesh D'Souza's article entitled the "Atheist Indoctrination Project" in which very influencial educators in the field of science are publically professing that they want to expand the role of education to go beyond merely teaching materialistic science, but to actively oppose and undermine religious superstitions including Christianity.
Here is a short quote from that article:
If religion is so bad, what should be done about it? It should be eradicated. According to Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, belief in Christianity is like belief in slavery. “I would be the first to admit that the prospects for eradicating religion in our time do not seem good. Still the same could have been said about efforts to abolish slavery at the end of the eighteenth century.”
But how should religion be eliminated? Our atheist educators have a short answer: through the power of science. “I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I’m all for that,” says physicist Steven Weinberg. If scientists can destroy the influence of religion on young people, “then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make.”
One way in which science can undermine the plausibility of religion, according to biologist E.O. Wilson, is by showing that the mind itself is the product of evolution and that free moral choice is an illusion. “If religion…can be systematically analyzed and explained as a product of the brain’s evolution, its power as an external source of morality will be gone forever.”
These three are very influential scientists and esteemed in Academia.
73% of American adults who did not attend college believe literally the creation biblical creation account in Genesis. Only 38% of College graduates literally believe the creation account in Genesis. As a science major who loves science, it is not that science supports the materialistic Darwinian evolutionary theory of common ancestry, it is indoctrination of teaching evolution as a fact from a a purely materialists worldview.
The great strides that we have made in science since Isaac Newton has been in operational science. Operational science is based on observation and repetition, conjecture and falsification. Like how the blood system works, how antibodies are made in light of a new type bacterial infection, optics, forces of nature, etc.
The Evolution theory of Common Ancestry is not an operational science. As with all origin theories (i.e. Biogeny, Cosmogeny) they fall in the category of historical search. It is not repeatably observable, it consist of what science calls singularities of which no one has ever observed their occurrence. It's origin is in the past and no one has observed it. Furthermore, as I have posted in many threads, there is no hard science that supports Common Ancestry, but there is hard science that presents serious obstacles to the belief that Common Ancestry of the Species could ever had occurred.
I believe God when He states that He made all animals and plants each according to their kind, according to their seed. And Mendellian Genetics fits perfectly with this view. The fossil record supports it. Genetics supports this view too.
Last edited by bart007 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:01 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bart007
Little Goldfish
Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 50
Location: Rockland NY
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do believe in scientific evolution. We creationists call it adaptation, even before Darwin. Sometimes it is called micro-evolution, and occurs basically within the bounds of Mendellian Genetics. An exception is bacteria, which are necessary for life on earth and depend on mutations to stay viable. Bacteria are known to mutate solely around a mean with no net evolution. The 4 oldest known bacteria are dated 3.6 Billion years ago, and these 4 are are alive and well today, unchanged.
The General Theory of Evolution: Common descent: That all organisms on Earth are related to each other, and descended from a single spontaneously-formed protocell.
This Theory preceded Darwin (by Thousand's of years) though I know many lay people who believe in evolution do associate it with Darwin. In fact, it is what most people think of when they hear the term "Darwins' Theory of Evolution".
Darwin's Theory of Evolution: Darwin's sole alleged contribution to evolution theory was a non-theistic mechanism by which common ancestry, descent with modification, occurs, which is namely his use of natural selection (very small beneficial changes (physical mutations) in a species, + struggle for survival in which natural selection selects the fitter species and eliminates the weaker species, + lots of time = Darwinian Evolution. Sometimes called macro-evolution).
Hard Science has eliminated The General Theory of Evolution (e.g. common ancestry) as being a viable theory. Only the materialistic views of many scientists and liberals keep it afloat. This Evolution is taught to unsuspecting students at all levels as scientific fact. Some become teachers and teach it to their students the way it is taught to them, not realizing that its' basis is ideology, not science.
There are so many testimonies to this by real scientists and including many honest evolutionary scientists. A very small sample:
"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities. ... Many scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." Science Digest: `Educators against Darwin', winter, 1979.
In a Newsweek article, 1985, "The great body of work by Charles Darwin is under increasing attack and not only by Creationists, but by all sorts of other scientists." In this same article, one evolutionist stated that "things have gotten so bad in the field of Evolution that I am thinking of moving into a field with more intellectual honesty, like being a used car salesman."
"Today, a hundred and twenty years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. There was a time. not too long ago when it seemed to the world at large that it triumphed once and for all, and that the issue was henceforth closed. And yet, within the last two or three decades the debate about evolution has not only revived but is showing signs of heating up. Indeed, the question whether claims are justified is currently being discussed and argued, not just in fundamentalist circles, but also on occasion in research institutes. and in the prestigious halls of academe. The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing descent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that most of these `experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but strictly on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully, as one could say."
J. Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D. Mathematics, MS Physics, 'Telhardism and the New Religion" 1988, Tan Books and Publishers Inc..
"The fact that a theory [Evolution] so vague, so insufficiently verifiable,and so far from the criteria of HARD science has become dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds." Biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, as quoted by Huston Smith, 'The Post Modern Mind' (New York, Crossroads, 1982) p. 173
"Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of it's ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwins theory. I do not think they do. ...To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
(Physics Bulletin, "A Physicist Looks at evolution," H.L. Lipson, 1980, Vol. 31,p. 138.) Lipson is an agnostic.
At one Christian college, the three theologians were proponents of the General Theory of Evolution while the three scientists opposed The General Theory of Evolution on scientific grounds, two of whom were former evolutionists. I use to be one too. We become evolutionists because we are spoon fed it as science by our teachers and by our liberal media; We become former evolutionists when we actually understand the science.
The more biology and geology that is uncovered, the more untenable the General Theory of Evolution becomes. Sooner or later a generation of scientists will come and put an end this nonsense.
Muggeridge, Malcolm, The End of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 59
"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."
As a former evolutionists, and one who loves real science, my fight is against science fiction masquerading as science, and in this case it is: The General Theory of Evolution that is taught in schools and makes the claim that all organisms on Earth are related to each other, and descended from a single spontaneously-formed protocell: And Darwin's theory concerning the claim of providing the mechanism by which the General Theory of Evolution does occur.
A second problem I have with evolution is that it does undermines Christianity and supports the atheistic worldview by its very insistence that all science must be conducted and taught via a materialistic approach. The only reason why evolutionary proponents claim it is a fact is because they were indoctrinated into believing it as fact, or because they are atheists, and since God does not exists, therefore Evolution must be a fact.
I challenge anyone to provide whatever the evidence may be that makes evolution a fact.
Professor J. Wolfgang Smith wrote:
"The salient fact is this: If by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall) then it can be said with utmost vigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there is not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macro evolutionary transformations have ever occurred. ...
"We are told dogmatically that evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consist."
Professor J. Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D Mathematics, MS Physics, 'Teilhardism and the New Religion', 1988, Tan Books and Publishers. pp. 2,5,6.
" I probably will be chastised by them [his more cynical evolutionists colleagues] for writing this preface, as if in doing so I give aid and comfort to an enemy of true science. ... I do so because the book has virtue as criticism of evolutionary theory. It has virtue even though its criticism is loaded like the proverbial pair of dice. ... He [creationist W. R. Bird] rolls the dice with style. He rolls them over and over again with the same result. I may be too optimistic to expect my colleagues learn much if anything from Mr. Bird's effort. But there is something in his book for all of them...
"Mr. Bird is concerned with origins and the evidence relevant thereto. He is basically correct that the evidence, or proof, of origins- of the Universe, of life, of all major groups of life, of all the minor groups of life, indeed of all of the species- is weak or nonexistent when measured on an absolute scale, as it always was and will always be. He is correct also that what evidence there is, is sometimes, even often, exaggerated by evolutionists. Yes, they load their own dice, for they too, are human. They, too, play to the gallery, to the jury, to the judges. Were they entirely wise rather than adversarial, they would never have claimed to do the impossible: to have proved the correctness of their views by offering evidence of the origin of things. One might just as well attempt to prove stability by offering as evidence a pyramid balanced on its apex."
Evolutionist, Gareth J. Nelson, Chairman and Curator, Department of Herpetology and Ichthyology, The American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, 10024. Preface to W.R. Bird's book, 'The Origin of Species Revisited'. 1993
"The speculations of 'The Origin of Species' turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley ... still in the tournament with a chance to be the ultimate winner." (Evolution From Space,1982, P. 96).
Famed scientists, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramashinge.
"The result we believe must be striven for can therefore only be the following: Biology will receive no advantage from following the teachings of Lamarck, Darwin, and the modern hyper-Darwinists; Indeed, it must as quickly as possible leave the narrow straits and blind alleys of the evolutionistic myths and resume its certain journey along the open and illuminated paths of tradition."
Dr. Guiseppe Sermonti, Professor of Genetics at the University of Peruvia, former director of the Genetics Institute of the University of Palermo, Senior Editor of the Biology Forum, and co-author and paleontologist Dr. R. Fondi (Dopo Darwin, 1980) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8322
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:37 am Post subject: Re: Science Knows Nothing About Evolution! |
|
|
| bart007 wrote: |
I believe God when He states that He made all animals and plants each according to their kind, according to their seed. And Mendellian Genetics fits perfectly with this view. The fossil record supports it. Genetics supports this view too. [/color][/b] |
You're totally wrong. Neither the fossil record NOR genetics support your view. In fact, they suggest the exact opposite, namely that all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor.
And furthermore, the evidence is SO powerful and scientifically convincing, that *real* scientists stopped thinking about the theory of evolution as a hypothesis long, long ago. The vast majority of relevant scientists view evolution as a well-established fact.
If the Biblical creation myth is correct, then how do you explain that never once has a human (or any other large mammal) fossil been found anywhere near the same strata which contains dinosaur fossils?
The quotations you provide above are worth nothing. The majority of them are made by people speaking outside their area of expertise. It is EXTREMELY difficult to find scientists with Ph.D.s in biology and related fields who deny evolution. The VAST majority of qualified, expert scientists with Ph.D.s wholeheartedly believe in evolution.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bart007
Little Goldfish
Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 50
Location: Rockland NY
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:12 am Post subject: Re: Science Knows Nothing About Evolution! |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | bart007 wrote: |
I believe God when He states that He made all animals and plants each according to their kind, according to their seed. And Mendellian Genetics fits perfectly with this view. The fossil record supports it. Genetics supports this view too. [/color][/b] |
You're totally wrong. Neither the fossil record NOR genetics support your view. In fact, they suggest the exact opposite, namely that all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor.
And furthermore, the evidence is SO powerful and scientifically convincing, that *real* scientists stopped thinking about the theory of evolution as a hypothesis long, long ago. The vast majority of relevant scientists view evolution as a well-established fact.
If the Biblical creation myth is correct, then how do you explain that never once has a human (or any other large mammal) fossil been found anywhere near the same strata which contains dinosaur fossils?
The quotations you provide above are worth nothing. The majority of them are made by people speaking outside their area of expertise. It is EXTREMELY difficult to find scientists with Ph.D.s in biology and related fields who deny evolution. The VAST majority of qualified, expert scientists with Ph.D.s wholeheartedly believe in evolution. |
Your protestations will do you no good, P12. They carry no weight, nor do any of your appeals to authority. All you are telling me is that you were taught evolution as a fact in school, and you believed what your teachers taught yiu, and what the materialistic dogmatic evolutionary salesman insist is true. You clearly have not studied the subllect from an objective view or you would know the science as well as the history behind the science.
The myth is that Charles Lyell and Charles darwin let the evidence speak for itself. Nothing could be further from the truth. They were both anti-Christian and both plotted to overthrow the Christian worldview of Intelligent Design by a Creator God and Noachic Deluge. Lyell was wrong, the fossil record is not gradual, but the result of severe, sudden catastrophic events.
Yes, I am ‘giving’ you the basic facts of paleontology. In fact, the 'Basic facts of Paleontology' actually say NO to the General Theory of Evolution (i.e. Common Ancestry), as well as to The Special Theory of Evolution (i.e. Darwin's mechanism of how evolution is suppose to occur).
According to the theory of evolution, every species has emerged from a predecessor. One species that existed previously turned into something else over time, and all species have come into being in this way.
According to the Darwins theory on how evolution occurs, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years. Very long lineages of descent with very gradual modification, producing innumerable generations of intermediate species, each diverting lineage undergoing the transformations of accumulating new organs and body plans that ancestors did not have, but very gradually over long periods of time.
If this were true, there had to be billions of such creatures that made up these evolutionary trends. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record, documenting the millions of the predicted gradual trends of morphological evolutionary transformations, also known as ‘phylogenies’. This is the one solid real science prediction of evolution, that we would be able to see it in the fossil record if such broad-scale evolution is true.
The fossil record embarrassed Charles Darwin. It was suppose to provide and establish these innumerable phylogenies, but few could be found in his day, and these few were questionable. A contemporary of Darwin, a paleontologist, questioned Darwin’s Theory by pointing that if Darwin’s Theory be true, why do each successive layer of fossil beds merely have the same unchanged fossils of each type of animal or plant that are found at the different layers.
Darwin was well aware of this, and in his book, Charles Darwin attempts to explain this ‘unpleasant’ fact away by appealing to the imperfection of the fossil record in his day. Darwin gambled the validity of his theory on his prediction that future generations of paleontologists will discover the phylogenies. For the next 100 and so years after Darwin, Paleontologists (and others) traveled the world hoping to make a name for themselves by finding these phylogenies that Darwin’s Theory predicts, must exist.
They were never found in the geological record. They do not exist. Not even one.
Testimonies to this fact include:
Botanist and evolutionist Dr. Heribert Nilsson (From a 1953 Science Journal, as quoted in Arthur C Constance book: `The Earth Before Man', part 2, Doorway Publications, Ontario Canada, 1984):
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived anti-Evolutionary standpoint. ... It may be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make even a caricature of an Evolution out of paleo-biological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they never will be filled."
Confirming this view in 1960, Evolutionary paleontologist Neville George stated:
"There is no reason to apologize any longer for the poverty of the Fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich."
Evolutionary paleontologist David Kitts, Ph.D. Zoology, Head Curator of the Department of Geology of the Stoval Museum, `Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory', Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974, p 467. Writes: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides as a means of `seeing' Evolution, It has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of `gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."
Evolutionists Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology at the University of London, writes:
"At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological record that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth."
Right after the pounding of Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution presented by mathematicians at the 1966 Wistar Symposium that was held in Philadelphia and was titled, 'Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution'. A young Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge published:
"Under the influence of phyletic gradualism, the rarity of transitional series remains our persistent bugbear. ... it has stood as the bulwark of anti-evolutionist arguments: "For evolution to be true, there had to be thousands, millions of transitional forms making an unbroken chain." (Anon., 1967- from a Jehovah's Witnesses pamphlet).
Thus, not only in Darwin’s day, but throughout the Twentieth century the creationists were rightly rejecting Darwin's theory on this basis, as Gould and Eldredge pointed out.
By the 1970’s there came a big rumble against the two Darwinian Theories of evolution emanating from the Field of Paleontology, led by the Evolutionary Paleontologists: Stephen Gould, Niles Eldredge, Steven Stanley, and Colin Patterson. Gould and Eldredge believed they were saving The General Theory of Evolution, by casting out Darwin Theory, and the Neo-Darwinian Theory called ‘The Modern Synthesis’. Gould and Eldredge believed that their new theory for the mechanism of evolution (Punctuated Equilibrium) would replace the false Darwinian Paradigm and thereby preserve the Academic credibility of the General Theory of Evolution (i.e. Common Ancestry). P.E. basically states that evolution occurs in small populations and in too short a time period, and therefore is not recorded in the fossil record. This did not at all sit well with the evolutionary biologists (e.g. Dobzhansky, Mayr, Maynard Smith, Dawkins etc.)
Perhaps unwittingly, in one of his earlier books, Ernst Mayr laid the groundwork for G&E's Theory of Punctuated Equilibria. Mayr went against the Modern Synthesis in proposing that rapid speciation occurred in geographical isolated areas and that this may account for the abrupt appearance of species and the lack of evidence of transition found in the fossil record. However, according to Paleontologist Steven Stanley: "little attention was paid to the punctuational elements of his work until the 1970's. This paradox was partly the result of the diffuse, but ever present, counter pressure supplied by the field of genetics, in which Mayr was not a specialist. This gradualistic march of the geneticist had gathered too much momentum to be diverted by peripheral activities."
(Steven Stanley, "The New Evolutionary Timetable", 1981, p.78).
Now, back to Darwin’s prediction:
Gould (Natural History, May 1977) writes of Darwin's gradualism:
"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches: the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record: "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geologic records, will rightly reject my whole theory."
"We have all heard the traditional response so often that it has become imprinted as a catechism that brooks no analysis: the fossil record is extremely imperfect. ... This traditional approach to morphological breaks merely underscores what Feyerabend meant ... in comparing theories to party lines, for it renders the picture of phyletic gradualism virtually unfalsifiable." (G&E, 1972).
Gould & Eldredge, explaining PE's departure from the Modern Synthesis:
"To Darwin... speciation entailed the same expectation as phyletic evolution: a long and insensibly graded chain of intermediate forms. Our present texts have not abandoned this view, although modern biology has." (G&E, 1972).
By 1981 The Biologists and powers that be in Academia were very upset with the ‘Punctuationists’ and forced them to tone down their theory, particularly because it is a theory not based on observing evolution in action, but rather, it was based on the inability to see evolution in action in the geological fossil record. They were forced to say their theory of PE was complementary to the Modern Synthesis (even though at one point Gould and Eldredge already called the Modern Synthesis ‘dead’). They were also coerced into putting out attacks on creationary scientists, who used the punctuationists admissions as confirmation of what they had been saying all along.
Return of: THE MYTH OF THE INCOMPLETE FOSSIL RECORD! 1991.
At Mount Saint Helens, after the eruption, a new Lake was formed covered with a log mat. Some of the logs became waterlogged, and settled on the lake floor, roots first, and in most cases, with much of their root system missing. As time passed, more and more trees were replanted roots down on the lake bed, but because sediment kept settling, the later trees wwould settle at different heights. Had this not been observed to occur in such a short geologic time, geologists under the old school of thought would have said that these are mutliple forests that developed over over thousands of years, a new forest supplanting an old dying forest. BTW, did you know that the tree rings of the so-called multiple forest at Yellowstong actually match-up, and much of their root systems are missing to. Thus they are one forest that got destroyed in a much bigger flood than the one at Mt St Helens.
When the Lake gave way, it dug out a mini-grand canyon 1/40th scale of the Grand Canyon, with forty thousand layers of sediment formed within an hour. Had this not been observed, evolutionists standard claim that each of these layers took one year to form and that this canyon was formed over a forty thousand year period by the little river that is still flowing through it.
As to the failure of the Fossil record supporting Craetion Theory offering zero evidence for The General theory of Evolution (i.e. all species extant and extinct share a common ancestry) read all of the following:
One evolutionist that recently argued forcibly for the incompleteness of the fossil record is geologist Tjeered H. van Andel (Nature, 294; 1991,397-398; Consider the Incompleteness of the Fossil Record). Van Andel points out that rates at which sediment is deposited in the Gulf of Mexico is well known. He applies this rate to the Wyoming marine strata that was once submerged under water similar to the Gulf of Mexico. He concludes that the Wyoming strata could have been deposited in 100,000 years using uniformitarian assumptions and the known rate of deposition from the Gulf of Mexico. He then points out that paleontologists have that strata pegged at occurring over 6 million years. Tjeered H. van Andel, like the good evolutionists he is, ignores the possibility that the strata in question most likely had been deposited over a period that could not more than 100,000 years. Instead, he keeps the evolutionary timetable of the paleontologists and concludes that 5.9 million years of deposition is missing from the geological record and that "key elements of the evolutionary record may be forever out of reach."
Next, Van Andel tackles the question: Shouldn't the lack or erosion forces present on land continental land masses be absent at the sea bottom result in a more complete record at the sea bottom sediments? Using the same logic as above, he points to the South Atlantic and concludes that of the 125 million years of sediment deposition, half of it is missing.
Mr. Van Andel, is it not possible, even most probable, that the missing sediments are missing because the evolutionary assumptions of some evolutionary biologists and geologists are wrong and that the alleged missing sediments and the associated presumed evolutionary time never existed in the first place. Of course evolutionists cannot accept this possibility, they know evolution is a fact and, therefore the sacred evolutionary timetable must be upheld and the sediments must have existed but are now missing.
This was similar to Paleontologist J. Wyatt Durham ("The Incompleteness of our Knowledge of the Fossil Record"; Journal of Paleontology, 41: 599-565, 1967) Wherein he points out that according to evolutionary theory, 4.1 million fossilizable marine species have existed since the Cambrian and only 93,000 have been discovered. Like Van Andel, Durham argument for the incompleteness relies solely on the assumption that evolution is a fact and this many are needed to fill the evolutionary gaps. His evolutionist assumptions led him to conclude that only one out of every 100 fossil species of Cambrian invertebrates with hard parts are being found. The situation has worsened since he wrote this, fossils of every Phylum are found within a 10 million year span of the Cambrian.
Problems With The Evolutionary Time Table:
Getting back to the Wyoming Strata. Kvale, Mickelson et. al. have discovered mega track dinosaur sites (Palois, 16:233-254, 2001). Previously, Dinosaur tracks were rare in Wyoming and it was considered to be mostly marine prior to this find. In fact, the tracks were found in Carbonate units that were believed to be totally marine. This caused the evolutionists to conveniently 'reinterpret' the paleoenvironment of the sedimentary rock deposits. Evolutionists now see "... previously unrecognized intertidal to supratidal carbonate units once thought to be totally marine in origin." Also, since Van Andel 1987 paper, a shoreline was invented to account for the presence of dinosaurs. [This find of buried land Dinosaurs in what scientists previously observed to be marine deposits may well be a strong evidence for Noah’s flood, but evolutionists, the media, and academia will never let that fly.]
Now it gets much worse for the evolutionists, the Dinosaur tracks appear in different strata, using the established paleontologists time scale, the lower strata tracks and the upper level tracks are separated by over 3 million years. Furthermore the tracks are all similar (tridactyl, small to medium size of bipedal dinosaurs), no other tracks of other types of dinosaurs were found. All the upper layer tracks are headed in a southerly direction and fossilized egg sites and baby dinos have been found just to the north. Absent in the mega tracks are any juvenile or baby forms of tracks. The tracks are made in flood sediments. As a whole, the 3 million years for these sediment layers on the paleontological chart seems to have been laid in days by bipedal, tridactyl dinosaurs fleeing a catastrophic flood. The lower strata tracks laid at the beginning of a great flood that quickly left many strata of sediments, followed by the water receding and the adult dinosaurs fleeing south abandoning their young and eggs as the next wave of flooding rapidly covered and preserved the second set of tracks at the allegedly presumed 3 million year younger higher strata. This scenario if further evidenced by a wet substrate, swim tracks in the lower strata, and ripple marks formed at the same time as the tracks. These events had to occur rapidly in order to cover up and preserve the large quantities of tracks. These strata may have been formed in a day, or perhaps days, but not the 3 million years the evolutionists assign to it.
This precise scenario repeats itself in finds in Alberta Canada.
The answer to the question, is the fossil record vastly incomplete? : NO!!!
The real problem is that the fossil record does not look at all as Darwin and Neo Darwinists predict it ought to be. It looks like Creation, not Evolution. The old argument by evolutionists for dismissing the fossil evidence against Evolution is the claim; the fossil record is very incomplete. Obviously in saying this, they can see that it does not support their theory and are making an effort to sweep this nasty truth under the rug.
The new argument by evolutionists for dismissing the fossil evidence against evolution is the claim by Gould/Eldredge that Evolution occurs in spurts and happens to occur too rapidly to be preserved by the fossil record (i.e. Punctuated Equilibria. Gould, Eldredge, Stanley, Patterson and many other paleontologists and geologists recognized that the fossil record looks very unlike Evolution and that this is not at all due to a poor incomplete fossil record, that the true fossil record is a tale of the abrupt appearance of the species followed by stasis for their duration in the fossil record. Thus they invented the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria to save Evolution as a materialistic explanation of life on Earh. They were forced to tone down their claim when it became apparent that a lack of evidence is not evidence for a theory. In any case P.E. put the paleontologists and geologists at odds with the biologists who had been suppressing the true fossil record with their claims that the record was very imperfect and incomplete.
The correct observation, derived from an extensive and exhaustive review of the fossil record, is that there are no known transitional series clearly linking any of the natural groups of animals or plants above the species level.
Today leading evolutionary scientists - when taking to each other and, not to the public, note that the gaps in the fossil record are huge, and not a question of filling in a few minor speciation events. Further, the trend has been that the more fossils found, the more fossils species discovered, the clearer the gaps and the inconsistencies become. This is contrary to the prevailing rumor that new fossil finds are closing the gaps in the fossil record. Rather, fossil finds are clarifying the gaps in the fossil record.
For example, with a few fossils, evolutionists were able to fill the gaps with their imagination. Niles Eldredge once wrote of what appeared to be a significant transition in lineage. The fossil record had recorded a certain trilobite species as lasting for millions of years and then becoming extinct, only to be replaced in higher strata by a similar, but significantly different, trilobite species of the same family. Evolution in action? Well not quite. As more fossils were found, these two species turned out to be contemporaries at their point of origin in the geological strata.
Though it is true that rocks containing fossils do erode and some fossils end up in private collections, these are lame excuses for explaining away why the fossil record has not provided any of the millions of transitional series that must have existed if large scale Evolution truly occurred.
The truth of the matter is that the Fossil record is abundantly rich. Over a quarter billion fossils have been catalogued of over 300,000 species. The gaps can no longer be rationalized away with appeals to the imperfection of the fossil record.
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; Transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." Stephen J. Gould, `Return of the Hopeful Monster' Natural History, Vol. 86, 1977, p. 22)
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes on their branches, the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen J. Gould, `Evolutions Erratic Pace' Natural History, 1979.
Paleontologists Steven Stanley (1979) points out:
"In part, the role of paleontology in evolutionary research has been defined narrowly because of a false belief, tracing back to Darwin and his early followers, that the fossil record is woefully incomplete. Actually, the record is of sufficiently high quality to allow us to undertake certain kinds of meaningful analysis at the level of the species."
In the same book ('Macro-evolution: Pattern and Process', p.38), Stanley points out:
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition."
Dr. Steven Stanley repeats this fact in his 1981 book "The New Evolutionary Time Table:
"Since the time of Darwin, paleontologists have found themselves confronted with evidence that conflicts with gradualism, yet the message of the fossil record has been ignored. This strange circumstance constitutes a remarkable chapter in the history of science, and one that gives students of the fossil record cause for concern,."
Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, stated in a lecture at his Museum in 1979:
"Darwin’s' theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that the fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately this is not strictly true. ... The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record, because it didn't look the way he predicted it would, and, as a result, he devoted a long section of the 'Origin of the Species' to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences. ... Darwin's general solution to the incompatibility of fossil evidence and his theory was to say the fossil record was a very incomplete one. ... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter million fossil species, but the situation has not changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky, and, ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse, in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - that what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated. ..."
Dr. Kenneth Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute of Zurich, ('Darwin's Three Mistakes' Geology, Vol. 14 1986) Shows that the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record cannot be blamed on the inadequacy of the Fossil record:
"We know that Lyell and Darwin were wrong on their insistence on the imperfection of the geologic record. ... The Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary falls within magnetostratigraphic Chron C29R, which was less than .5 m.y. in duration (Kent, 1977). The boundary is recorded by precision stratigraphy, which has a resolution power to recognize events in thousands, if not hundreds, of years duration."
"Paleontology is now looking at what it actually finds in the fossil record. Not what it is told by that it supposed to find. As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - The Punctuated equilibrium Pattern of Eldredge and Gould." Tom Kemp, Curator of the University Museum at Oxford University, `A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record', New Scientist, Vol 108, No: 1485, Dec. 5, 1985, p. 66)
And what they were definitely not finding were the evolutionay transistion, the phylogenies predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
As is often the case in evolution theory, hopeful confirmations along new lines of inquiry often end up to be bitter disappointments for the evolutionists. Evolutionist N. Macbeth and E. Saif give yet another example.
" A. The Commitment in Theory: Darwinian theory asserts the physical descent with modification has been universal, which means that every modern species is the latest link in a phylogeny. There must therefore have been hundreds of thousands of phylogenies, and it was Darwin’s' expectation that these would be found. His followers, sharing his expectation, felt a duty to seek and find the phylogenies. ...
B. Another Miserable Failure: The expectations were in vain. In the 125 years since the Origin was published, nothing has been accomplished. No phylogenies have been established and the pursuit of them has fallen into disrepute."
Evolutionists E. Saiff and Norman Macbeth. Evolution, 1985.
I could go on, but I will finish by pointing that the Fossil records fails to support the Theory of Common Ancestry because it is a record abrupt appearance of the species followed stasis (no change) and with all major transformations of Bauplane undocumented.
Yet even more peculiar, the whole fossil record is backwards from what evolution predicts. Your suppose to start with a single species. 1st life, which evolves into two species, which evolves into genus which evolves into a family. And family members spread out and evolve separately into new species, genuses, families - until new orders become distinguished, and the proces continues with many major transistions occurring over very long periods of time, causing all the different Phyla to evolve into existence.
But the fossil record truly starts with the Burgess explosion of life, immedaitely followed the totally unconnected Cambrian Explosion of life, where all Phyla known today are found in a very short geologic span of less than 10 million years. All major body plans appear in a very short geologic time. Impossible for it to have evolved in that time period. The only life onserved before these explosions of life are four bacteria that go back billion years, plus one unrelated type whose name I can't remember at this time, totally different from the bacteria. These 5 are alive and well today, and completely unchanged.
Conclusion, the fossil record does not look at all like Evolution, but it does resemble special creation: i.e. sudden appearance followed by stasis (no change) for its duration in the fossil record.
P12, you should study the science and stop listening to the unsubstantiated propaganda put out by materialistic activists, including that of PBS and other browbeating programs that resort to special plaeding and ignore the large body of scientific findings that disagree with their matrialistic worldview. Then YOU will find the truth, it will be beautiful, and the truth will set you free 
Best Wishes
Bart
Last edited by bart007 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:48 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8322
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:33 am Post subject: Re: Science Knows Nothing About Evolution! |
|
|
| bart007 wrote: |
Your protestations will do you no good, P12. They carry no weight, nor do any of your appeals to authority. All you are telling me is that you were taught evolution as a fact in school, and you believed what your teachers taught yiu, and what the materialistic dogmatic evolutionary salesman insist is true. You clearly have not studied the subllect from an objective view or you would know the science as well as the history behind the science.
|
Actually, I've studied many facets of evolutionary theory at the university level, including a great deal of computational biology at the post-graduate level, so contrary to what you might want to believe, I am very well informed.
As for the rest of your post (and your previous post), please do not cut and paste huge texts from other sources. If you want to have an honest exchange of ideas, then please go ahead. But if you are only interested in cutting and pasting huge pieces of text from other websites, then please provide a link instead.
The fact of the matter is that mainstream science, including every single respectable scientific organization on the planet views evolution as FACT. It is virtually impossible to find professional scientists in the areas of biology who deny the veracity of evolution. This is NOT a fallacious appeal to authority. They are the experts on the matter, and they have published countless papers and pieces of evidence supporting evolution. I am not appealing to them, but rather to their publications.
It sounds to me like you have no respect for science or the scientific process. Your arguments are entirely unscientific, and there is a vast quantity of scientific evidence which contradicts your arguments.
If you truly are here to exchange ideas and not to preach, then let's start with three simple examples:
1. If literal Biblical creation is true, then why haven't any human fossils EVER been found anywhere near the strata which contains dinosaur fossils?
2. If intelligent design is true, then why isn't there even a hint of intelligent design in our DNA? Why does it look EXACTLY like what you'd expect from billions of years of evolution?
3. If intelligent design is true, then why do we see whales with hind legs? You must have a pretty low opinion of God if you think that He would have messed up the 'design' that badly!
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bart007
Little Goldfish
Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 50
Location: Rockland NY
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:00 am Post subject: Re: Science Knows Nothing About Evolution! |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | bart007 wrote: |
Your protestations will do you no good, P12. They carry no weight, nor do any of your appeals to authority. All you are telling me is that you were taught evolution as a fact in school, and you believed what your teachers taught yiu, and what the materialistic dogmatic evolutionary salesman insist is true. You clearly have not studied the subllect from an objective view or you would know the science as well as the history behind the science.
|
Actually, I've studied many facets of evolutionary theory at the university level, including a great deal of computational biology at the post-graduate level, so contrary to what you might want to believe, I am very well informed.
As for the rest of your post (and your previous post), please do not cut and paste huge texts from other sources. If you want to have an honest exchange of ideas, then please go ahead. But if you are only interested in cutting and pasting huge pieces of text from other websites, then please provide a link instead.
The fact of the matter is that mainstream science, including every single respectable scientific organization on the planet views evolution as FACT. It is virtually impossible to find professional scientists in the areas of biology who deny the veracity of evolution. This is NOT a fallacious appeal to authority. They are the experts on the matter, and they have published countless papers and pieces of evidence supporting evolution. I am not appealing to them, but rather to their publications.
It sounds to me like you have no respect for science or the scientific process. Your arguments are entirely unscientific, and there is a vast quantity of scientific evidence which contradicts your arguments.
If you truly are here to exchange ideas and not to preach, then let's start with three simple examples:
1. If literal Biblical creation is true, then why haven't any human fossils EVER been found anywhere near the strata which contains dinosaur fossils?
2. If intelligent design is true, then why isn't there even a hint of intelligent design in our DNA? Why does it look EXACTLY like what you'd expect from billions of years of evolution?
3. If intelligent design is true, then why do we see whales with hind legs? You must have a pretty low opinion of God if you think that He would have messed up the 'design' that badly! |
You are now playing the roll of the Artful Dodger. Which I find all too typical of dogmatic evolutionists when they are confronted with real science.
You stated that the fossil record supports The Theory of Evolution. I have clearly shown it certainly does not. Either you agree that I am right and you are wrong, or support the evidence you learned in college that the fossil record does what you claimed it does.
Your answer came so fast after my post that you could not have had sufficient to ponder and digest what I wrote, or check it out. You just ignored what I wrote in pursuit of your religious belief in materialism to which you are apparently wedded to.
I will not go on to your new meanderings until you address the fossil record as a whole. Pardon the expression, but I am not really into trying to catch greased pigs. I'm not calling you a pig, but the expression fits your attempt at dodging reality by diverting attention away from it. You were wrong, have the goodness and courage to admit it. The Fossil record does not support The General Theory of Evolution, nor Darwin's Special Theory of Evolution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8322
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:07 am Post subject: Re: Science Knows Nothing About Evolution! |
|
|
| bart007 wrote: |
You stated that the fossil record supports The Theory of Evolution. I have clearly shown it certainly does not. Either you agree that I am right and you are wrong, or support the evidence you learned in college that the fossil record does what you claimed it does.
|
I am claiming that the scientific evidence in the fossil record proves that creationism is false. If the Biblical creation myth is true, then you would expect human remains to be found in the same strata as dinosaur remains. However, the scientific fact is that NEVER ONCE has any set of human remains been found anywhere near (and certainly not below) the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary.
Note that this is a scientific argument. If all of the animals were created within a few days of each other, then we would expect large mammals and dinosaurs to be found together, because they lived together. But they are NOT. Therefore the Biblical account has been scientifically refuted.
As for you saying that evolution is not scientific, I'd like to inquire what your credentials are for stating this. Are you a professional research scientist? Do you have a Ph.D. (or any other degree) in the sciences?
The reason I ask is because from what I have read of your posts, I get the strong impression that you firstly don't understand what science is, and secondly that you have no respect for it. I suspect that you are a creationist pretending to be a scientist, and to put forth 'scientific-sounding' arguments in order to ensure that they have more credibility.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bart007
Little Goldfish
Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 50
Location: Rockland NY
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:27 am Post subject: Re: Science Knows Nothing About Evolution! |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | bart007 wrote: |
You stated that the fossil record supports The Theory of Evolution. I have clearly shown it certainly does not. Either you agree that I am right and you are wrong, or support the evidence you learned in college that the fossil record does what you claimed it does.
|
I am claiming that the scientific evidence in the fossil record proves that creationism is false. If the Biblical creation myth is true, then you would expect human remains to be found in the same strata as dinosaur remains. However, the scientific fact is that NEVER ONCE has any set of human remains been found anywhere near (and certainly not below) the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary.
Note that this is a scientific argument. If all of the animals were created within a few days of each other, then we would expect large mammals and dinosaurs to be found together, because they lived together. But they are NOT. Therefore the Biblical account has been scientifically refuted.
As for you saying that evolution is not scientific, I'd like to inquire what your credentials are for stating this. Are you a professional research scientist? Do you have a Ph.D. (or any other degree) in the sciences?
The reason I ask is because from what I have read of your posts, I get the strong impression that you firstly don't understand what science is, and secondly that you have no respect for it. I suspect that you are a creationist pretending to be a scientist, and to put forth 'scientific-sounding' arguments in order to ensure that they have more credibility. |
P12, your post is completely non-responsive to the topic of this thread and to the actual arguments from REAL science that the true nature of the fossil record clearly rejects Darwin's Theory of how evolution can occur, as well the General Theory of Evolution that all life has evolved from some initial self replicating molecules to all knwon forms of life.
Instead, you offer sophistical defenses and refutations.
1. You write "I am claiming that the scientific evidence in the fossil record proves that creationism is false." This Sophistical Defense is known as the Red Herring.
I offered solid science pertaining to the actual nature of the fossil record that confirms that said evidence squarely contradicts Evolutionary Theories.
In your response, you simply ignore my argument against evolution based upon the true nature fossil record. Instead, you have chosen to ignore this science and substituted a similar, but clearly different argument, namely that the fossil record disproves 'creationism'. Your attempting to play me and any readers of this thread - for suckers by deceptively switching from my argument to an argument you think will better suit your efforts to promote your own materialistic worldview agenda. Yours is avoidance behaviour.
2. Then you offer a sophistical refutation known as Argumentum Ad Hominem. You have unjustly attacked me personally. You surmise in your own imagination that I "don't understand what science is,..." and that I "have no respect for it." Your efforts to denigrate who I am is summed up in your statement: "I suspect that you are a creationist pretending to be a scientist, and to put forth 'scientific-sounding' arguments in order to ensure that they have more credibility..." P12, you do me wrong to treat me so discourteously. 
3. P12, In your two responses to my accurate portrayal of the true nature of the fossil record, you have resorted a 2nd Sophistical Refutation known as 'Pooh-Poohing'. To Pooh Pooh an argument is to brush the argument aside with a cavalier attitude that the offered argument is not even worthy of your response. And you certainly have not offered any honest argument to counter the one on the fossil record that I confronted you with.
Instead you simply brushed aside and dodged the argument with the other sophistries noted above. In resorting to the tactic of pooh-poohing to refute my sound Fossil Record Argument, you were attempting to get what most consumers dream about, getting something for nothing.
During the middle ages, some scholars relied upon Aristotle for how many teeth a horse has. This was so because these scholars were so in awe of Aristotle's Authority as someone who knows that it never occurred to them to go out to the barn and count the horses teeth. In school, including college, nearly all students learn most things via the Authority of their books, teachers and professors. What they taught may be valid, but the student really does not know that is the case, they have accepted their Authority on faith and because conformity to their Authority gets students good grades.
It is reasonable to respect the opinion of one who is an expert in his field. I am an expert in quite a few sciences relating to the Theories of Evolution. I have been researching this field for 38 years. And i started out from the perspective of being an evolutionists. I discovered along the way the the claims on behalf of the two Theory's of Evolution do noy hold up at all.
However, if you do not believe me, at least believe all the evolutionary scientists who are the world's leading experts of the fossil record(and who have the PhD's you so admire) that I have referenced and whom plainly bear witness from their field of science to what I have written concerning the true nature of the fossil record. Yet, in your blind bias, you have refused to do so. So set are you in your own biases and beliefs, and such is the disdain you have for Christiamity, which you wear proudly in ever post you submit to this forum.
You can no longer see the truth. As the esteemed Science Philosopher, Karl Popper, and leading Physicsts Albert Einstein have independantly discovered and stated, One can not see what one does not believe. You are blinded by YOUR beliefs, P12.
Be that as it may, should you continue in your desire to post off topic posts to my thread, please place them in a new thread of your own making in this Creation/evolution forum. I have no desire to address sophistical arguments and matters unrelated to the topic at hand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wilber
Banned
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 581
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow! Bart007 I cannot avoid the fact that what you have written in red to P12 is true. Either he replies correctly to the evidence you have set before him or he loses the argument on the fossil record whether he acknowledges the fact or not.
I await a logical and academic response.
wilber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1. Would you mind pointing out this "solid science pertaining to the actual nature of the fossil record that confirms that said evidence squarely contradicts Evolutionary Theories"? I'm sure it's in that gigantic blue block of text but I don't want to read the whole thing that badly.
Further, it is creationists who tend to use the bifurcation fallacy, thinking that if they "disprove" evolution, they have "proven" creation. P's merely preempted this by showing that creation doesn't have any support.
2. P does do this, but there's a difference between fallacious and valid ad homs. In this case, his points seem rather valid.
3. Again, I'd love to see this "true nature of the fossil record according to bart007."
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wilber
Banned
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 581
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | 1. Would you mind pointing out this "solid science pertaining to the actual nature of the fossil record that confirms that said evidence squarely contradicts Evolutionary Theories"? I'm sure it's in that gigantic blue block of text but I don't want to read the whole thing that badly.
|
Good point - it would take at least 5 mins.
| Quote: | | Further, it is creationists who tend to use the bifurcation fallacy, thinking that if they "disprove" evolution, they have "proven" creation. |
Has Bart007 suggested that? I must have missed it. Maybe you could save me 5mins.
| Quote: | | P's merely preempted this by showing that creation doesn't have any support. |
How has P shown that??? What a strange comment.
| Quote: | 2. P does do this, but there's a difference between fallacious and valid ad homs. In this case, his points seem rather valid.
|
That remains to be seen.
| Quote: | | 3. Again, I'd love to see this "true nature of the fossil record according to bart007." |
But not if it takes 5mins? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bart007
Little Goldfish
Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 50
Location: Rockland NY
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another non-responsive posting. Apparently you chose not to read what i wrote.
| FFT wrote: | 1. Would you mind pointing out this "solid science pertaining to the actual nature of the fossil record that confirms that said evidence squarely contradicts Evolutionary Theories"? I'm sure it's in that gigantic blue block of text but I don't want to read the whole thing that badly.
Further, it is creationists who tend to use the bifurcation fallacy, thinking that if they "disprove" evolution, they have "proven" creation. P's merely preempted this by showing that creation doesn't have any support. |
I have pointed it out in some depth. Feel free to read it when you get a chance.
| FFT wrote: | | 2. P does do this, but there's a difference between fallacious and valid ad homs. In this case, his points seem rather valid. |
Are you here to make vague insinuations. Get to the point, be specific, and and let us know exactly what 'ad homs' you like and why?
| FFT wrote: | | 3. Again, I'd love to see this "true nature of the fossil record according to bart007." |
Again, it is written above. Don't worry, P12 had not read it either, he just did what you did, ignore what I wrote in preference for simply launching a baseless attack on me. If P12 ever stopped to pause and actually think, he would not have time to write all the posts he writes.
You and he are the true defenders of evolutionary theory via Ridicule, Browbeating, and Insults. This has been, and continues to be, the dogmatic evolutionist's scientific method. Insults over substance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8322
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:49 pm Post subject: Re: Science Knows Nothing About Evolution! |
|
|
| bart007 wrote: |
P12, your post is completely non-responsive to the topic of this thread and to the actual arguments from REAL science that the true nature of the fossil record clearly rejects Darwin's Theory of how evolution can occur, as well the General Theory of Evolution that all life has evolved from some initial self replicating molecules to all knwon forms of life.
|
You've got everything EXACTLY backwards! All of the evidence and REAL science is on the side of evolution, and all of the junk science is on the side of creationism.
Never once has anyone made a single observation which even remotely comes close to contradicting Darwin's theories. Not once!
| bart007 wrote: |
Instead, you offer sophistical defenses and refutations.
|
Actually, I'm a logician and I know what is and what is not a fallacious or sophistic response. I am quite sure that my argument above about the K-T boundary is a purely scientific argument, and has nothing to do with rhetoric. Unfortunately, you don't have a scientific rebuttal for it because NO creationist has a scientific rebuttal for it.
| bart007 wrote: |
I offered solid science pertaining to the actual nature of the fossil record that confirms that said evidence squarely contradicts Evolutionary Theories.
|
Really, I must have missed it in the massive post that you cut-and-pasted from some other source. Perhaps if you write a concise argument, I will better be able to understand what it is.
| bart007 wrote: |
In your response, you simply ignore my argument against evolution based upon the true nature fossil record.
|
By all means, cite a scientific paper, and I'll have a look at it.
| bart007 wrote: |
2. Then you offer a sophistical refutation known as Argumentum Ad Hominem. You have unjustly attacked me personally. You surmise in your own imagination that I "don't understand what science is,..." and that I "have no respect for it." Your efforts to denigrate who I am is summed up in your statement: "I suspect that you are a creationist pretending to be a scientist, and to put forth 'scientific-sounding' arguments in order to ensure that they have more credibility..." P12, you do me wrong to treat me so discourteously.
|
So far I haven't seen any arguments on your part to suggest to me that you are a scientist, but if you are, then by all means cite where you published your research, and I will be happy to look at it.
| | |
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
