Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

Science Knows Nothing About Evolution!

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate

Author

Message

bart007
Little Goldfish

Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 50

Location: Rockland NY

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:13 pm Post subject:

Ana wrote:

bart007 wrote:

outspoken anti-creationists foe

This phrase tells me all I ever need to know about your mindset. You're not questing for the truth; you're looking for a fight.

Hello Ana.

That geologists was very active on the evolutionary forums, opposing creationists., and not just on the science. He encouraged college students to do the same. He was foe of the creationsist, he was anti-creationist, not just in the science, but personally with ad hominem attacks.

He attacked me by accusing me of: quote-mining, not understanding the primitive earth atmosphere, being wrong about the miller-urey experiment, etc. He lost every debate with me on an evolution science forum.

I'm certainly not looking for a fight. I was hoping to get an intelligent discussion on the validity of evolution theory. Unless I'm debating scientists or scholars, it seems never to happen on these forums. So far, the responses to my posts on this forum have been at best trite, and most have been positively dishonest and mean spirited.

And yes, I'm not questing for the truth, I'm sharing it per the topic. But I will lend an ear to any who, on topic, wishes to express what they believe to be true and why.

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8322

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:48 pm Post subject:

bart007 wrote:

He attacked me by accusing me of: quote-mining, not understanding the primitive earth atmosphere, being wrong about the miller-urey experiment, etc.

It sounds like he had you pegged pretty well!

bart007 wrote:

He lost every debate with me on an evolution science forum.

Somehow I find that hard to believe... Maybe in your mind...

bart007 wrote:

I'm certainly not looking for a fight. I was hoping to get an intelligent discussion on the validity of evolution theory.

So far, the responses to my posts on this forum have been at best trite, and most have been positively dishonest and mean spirited.

No, you definitely aren't here to discuss anything. Even the mean and trite people here have tried to engage you in honest debate, but you're completely uninterested. We ask you for references and for you to explain your arguments, and you're just not interested.

In fact, you haven't changed very much since the last time you visited this forum...

But fine, we'll give you a chance to prove that you're interested in an honest discussion. So far you've lectured A LOT, and the evil evolutionists here have responded to several of your points. However, you haven't responded to a single important question we've asked.

So if you truly are interested in discussion, then prove it. So far we've responded to you, but you haven't responded to us. That asymmetry shows that what has been going on here is NOT a discussion.

So let's see you answer a scientific question which challenges your position: Never once has the fossil of a large mammal (let alone a human) been found below the K-T boundary. If the Book of Genesis were true, then we would expect to find the fossils of large mammals mixed in with the dinosaurs, because it says that all of the creatures were created in a six day period. This is scientific evidence against Biblical creationism. Do you have a response to this argument?
_________________
"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.

FFT
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337

Location: Memphis

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:31 am Post subject:

bart007 wrote:

yes, I really do know who Gould was, and I read most of his books and many of his articles. I am quoting him in context.

Stephen Jay Gould wrote 20 books and almost innumerable articles. Using typical creationist quote mines of his work demonstrates that this statement of yours is simply false. Especially the claim that you are quoting him in context. In each of the quotes you posted, Gould was writing to promote punctuated equilibrium. None of his statements actually had the intent to convince people that evolution itself was false, merely incomplete. The modern take on his views is that he was right, to an extent--prior to the idea of punctuated equilibrium there was only gradualism. To compare the two is like comparing a car that always moves five miles per hour no matter what and a car that is either completely stopped or is moving 100 miles an hour. The reality seems to be somewhere in the middle. This has been demonstrated by tests of evolutionary algorithms.

Of course, I'm doing nothing but wasting my time by explaining this to you, but then I'm not particularly concerned with which nonsense you care to peddle.

bart007 wrote:

He lost every debate with me on an evolution science forum.

This doesn't mean much. It's quite easy to "win" arguments using a shotgun approach or simply outright lying (like, say, quote-mining prominent scientists to make them look like they were saying something they were not). Scientists (and the scientifically-minded) tend to be bothered by falsehoods in regards to science, at least, and tend to want to correct such mistakes. Unfortunately, creationists have the tendency to spew out dozens at a time, which leaves the scientists with little time to make any counterargument after rebutting said mistakes if they can even get that far.

So to say you "won" a debate is pretty much entirely irrelevant when it comes to the validity of what you're saying. I've won plenty of debates (in person and over the internet) but I don't use this fact as if it lends me credibility. The only times I tend to refer to these is to mock the other individuals involved (like the one guy that admitted that the flood had to have been localised, realised this contradicted the Bible and then got stuck in a loop--I think I crashed his brain).

bart007 wrote:

I'm certainly not looking for a fight. I was hoping to get an intelligent discussion on the validity of evolution theory.

By using out of context quotes and gigantic blocks of text you copied from elsewhere. Sure, absolutely, you're looking for an intelligent discussion.

Please.

bart007 wrote:

So far, the responses to my posts on this forum have been at best trite, and most have been positively dishonest and mean spirited.

Trite? Absolutely. You've said absolutely nothing original, we're just as tired of it as you are. The responses are just as tired as the "arguments." Thing is, it's creationists that keep repeating the same old refuted arguments. It's not like one can legitimately claim that the responses to trite arguments are in and of themselves trite when they don't show up except when the arguments themselves do.

Mean-spirited? Sure, to an extent. I don't like hacks that can't be bothered to do any of their own work.

Dishonest? Prove it.

bart007 wrote:

And yes, I'm not questing for the truth, I'm sharing it per the topic.

See, this is the kind of thing that wants me to really show you what "mean-spirited" can entail.

But you're not worth it. I'll settle for proving you're a hypocrite:

bart007 wrote:

I was hoping to get an intelligent discussion on the validity of evolution theory.

bart007 wrote:

And yes, I'm not questing for the truth, I'm sharing it per the topic.

_________________
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.

bart007
Little Goldfish

Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 50

Location: Rockland NY

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:54 am Post subject:

One side may seem right until the other side speaks!

Stephen Jay Gould:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

("Evolution as Fact and Theory," published in _Discover_ magazine, May 1981.)

My Response:

This is what Gould says in his anti-creationists tracts as fodder for the general public. But what does he say when speaking to his fellow scientists.

"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the 'official' position of most western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Bauplane are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments: there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record(curious mosaics like archaeopteryx do not count)." Paleobiology 3:147, 1977, Gould & Eldredge.

I agree with Gould's stated position in Paleobiology, which he completely contradicts in his anti-creation campaign in 1981. [See below for more info on that campaign,]

Dogmatic evolutionist>Thanks to Jim Lippard and Deaddog, who posted these excerpts earlier. I
>knew my archives would come in handy. Smile

(Actually, they often do)

My response back then: I guess the excerpt from Paleobiology is in those archives also, you probably missed it.

FFT wrote:

bart007 wrote:

yes, I really do know who Gould was, and I read most of his books and many of his articles. I am quoting him in context.

I've never seen an alogrithym work without Intelligent Design involved. And it is no surprise that the Designers always get what they want to get from an algrithym, they just have to tweak the design till they get it. A very self fullfilling prophecy. It is pathetic that evolutionists had to resort to computer prograns to provide artificial evidence for their theory that can not be found in the fossil record, in the real world, or in the laboratory.

Evolutionists get excitement in the brain when they use the phrase "Quote Mining". Its is a propaganda trick to deceive unwary minds that you somehow refuted an opponent's argument and that the opponent ought to have all his arguments summarily dismissed without any further consideration of what he actually wrote and whether it is true or not. Such a tactic is known as lies and deception. Something i've see much too often coming from the minds of dogmatic evolutionists

The use of accusing a Creationists as a quote miner is akin to racists labeling black people as inferior, of inferior intelligence, suitable only for menial labor, and they need to be told what to do. You are placing a perjorative label on a group of people and hoping it sticks so you can mock them and browbeat others to do the same. Yes, I'm talking to you FFT. You are just that kind of person. That is what you are trying to do to me.

I will have none of that.

In the 1960's, Gould and Eldredge went to South America. They saw first hand what all paleontologists knew, the fossil record does not look at all like Darwinian evolution, nor the Modern Synthesis aka Neo Darwinism.

The fossil record is a record of the abrupt appearance of the distinct species followed by little or no change during their entire duration in the fossil record, only to become extinct, or they are still alive today.

Gould acknowledged this in the 1967:

"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.""

In the 1960's, Gould and Eldredge understood that the fossil record did not support Darwinian evolution, and that the fossil record did not look at all like Evolution. They were both marxists and atheists and their worldview tells them evolution had to occur, it has to be a fact, or their worldviews would be without any foundation.

To save Evolution as a viable materialistic conecept, they invented a new Theory of Evolution that accepts the Fossil Record as it really is while explaining how evolution can still occur. They came up with Punctuated Equilibria, which states that evolution occurs too quickly and in small populations, and that is why evolution can not be found in the fossil record. Thus they write in there 1972 paper. (Note the rehashing the wording Gould used in 1967):

Under the influence of phyletic gradualism, the rarity of transitional series remains as our persistent bugbear. From the reputable claims of a Cuvier or an Agassiz to the jibes of modern cranks and fundamentalists, it has stood as the bulwark of anti- evolutionist arguments.... 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 (see above) in comparing theories to party lines, for it renders the picture of phyletic gradualism virtually unfalsifiable.-Eldredge, N., & Gould, S. J. 1972, "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism,"

In my post on the fossil record, I provided many in context quotes from of the leading evolutionary Paleontologists, some before and many after Gould & Eldredge declared these facts to be so. In that paper they detailed many of the alleged evolutionary transition of the past that students learned in school and how each one of these evolutionary transitions were proven to be erroneous.

Evolutionists Gould & Eldredge continued their attack against the prevailing Neo-Darwinian Theory and promotion of their theory, PE:

"The remarkable fact that such blatantly inadequate data have been so widely accepted as convincing proof of gradualism only reinforces our claim that gradualism has always rested on prior prejudice rather than paleontological data."-Gould, S. J., and Eldredge, N. 1977, "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered," _Paleobiology_ 3:122.

In the famous Chicago conference of 1980, The paleontologists, including Gould and Eldredge, debated the biologists and the overall consensus of that debate was that 'Microevolution plus time does not equal Macro-evolution'. This was a refutation of all forms of Darwinism.

So does this mean PE won the day as the NEW Theory of Evolution? The answer from liberal materialistic Academia was a big NO!. The reason being was that PE was based solely on the absence of evidence for evolution, its claim of abrupt appearance of the species followed no significant evolutionary during their duration in the fossil record was too close to what the creationary scientists have been claiming all along.

In the 1970's, leading evolutionary scientists and creationary scientists were debating creation vs evolution and the creationary scientists were winning these debates. By 1981, it got so bad that an angry Carl Sagan issued a statement that evolutinary scientists to "... stop debating creationists because we are losing everyone."

The materialistic science community became incensed that creation was gaining popularity while evolution was under fire from within and without. In America, heavy pressure was placed by the powers that be in Academia on Gould, Eldredge, Stanley and others to tone down their rhetoric against the Modern Synthesis and to say that PE was complementary to the Darwinian Theories (which it certainly was not).

Stanley had to rewrite his 1979 college textbook greatly reducing his rhetoric against Darwinism and adding an anti-creationists chaprter that was void of any science.

In addition, starting in 1981, there came a flurry of books and articles from evolutionists attacking Creationists and propagandizing for evolution. These were marketed to the general public and for Junior and Senior High school students.

Even worse, evolutionists threw all morality out the window by deciding on a new approach to winning the evolution/Creation debate, and this was to launch vicious and numerous character assassination attacks on Creationists in order to publicly discredit creationists and to soil and muddy their image. Those that participated ought to be ashamed, for the anti-creationists books contained trash science, and the personal attacks were simply mean-spirited and anti-science. Top pro-evolutionary scientists agreed not to debate the science with Creationists and opted for mob and wolf pack obfuscations of the science, as found on internet groups such as talk origins, and by propagandizing through the liberal media and in schools while denying Creationists the opportunity to use the same venue for presenting Creation (also known as censorship).

I have quoted Stephen J Gould in context. If FFT feels otherwise, then he ought to demonstrate how any particular quote was taken out of context.

As for me, I have not only quoted Evolutionists in context, but I have also demonstrated that the leading paleontologists were in agreement with the statements of Gould and Eldredge concerning the fossil record.

FFT wrote:

Of course, I'm doing nothing but wasting my time by explaining this to you, but then I'm not particularly concerned with which nonsense you care to peddle.

[Deletions]

bart007 wrote:

And yes, I'm not questing for the truth, I'm sharing it per the topic.

See, this is the kind of thing that wants me to really show you what "mean-spirited" can entail.

But you're not worth it. I'll settle for proving you're a hypocrite:

bart007 wrote:

I was hoping to get an intelligent discussion on the validity of evolution theory.

bart007 wrote:

And yes, I'm not questing for the truth, I'm sharing it per the topic.

The whole of your reply lacks any science, and it lacks refutation of anything i wrote. Apparently you get angry when I point out responses to my post that are non-responsive to the substance of my posts, but are filled with sophistries, including personal attacks as part of a smear campaign. You and P12 share this characteristic on non-responsive replies filled with personal venom.

The brunt of your admitted 'mean spiritness' is your unsubstantiated declarations that my quotes of Gould are out of context. I have provided plenty of context, including historical context of the quotes, that demonstrate my quotes were in context. I have posted these Gould quotes and arguments on other forums and when I was accused of quote mining and distortion by dogmatic evolutionists like yourself, several evolutionists with PHD's actually came to my defense and confirmed I actually portrayed Gould's views quite correctly.

"To thine own self be true,
And it must follow as the night the day
Thou canst not then be false to any man."

William Shakespeare

bart007
Little Goldfish

Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 50

Location: Rockland NY

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:38 am Post subject:

P1234567890 wrote:

bart007 wrote:

He attacked me by accusing me of: quote-mining, not understanding the primitive earth atmosphere, being wrong about the miller-urey experiment, etc.

It sounds like he had you pegged pretty well!

You could not possibly know that, you have no knowledge of those debates. Your comments are simply an attacks on me, you offer baseless insinuations.

The rest of your comments are similar.

You did not give any credible response to any of the posts I presented. If i were wrong about any of it, it is not revealed in any comment you make, and they are really not even comments, they are unsubstantiated declarations.

Now you ask me to respond to your pet issue, the K/T Boundary and human fossils. Based on the quality of your previous postings, full of innuendo, sophistries and false accusations on your part, you give me no reason to do so.

Bouncer
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:07 pm Post subject: It's real easy takes no effort at all.

bart007 wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

bart007 wrote:

He attacked me by accusing me of: quote-mining, not understanding the primitive earth atmosphere, being wrong about the miller-urey experiment, etc.

It sounds like he had you pegged pretty well!

Well at least if you are as well versed in the subject as you claim. Cite one dig where human fossils have been found below the K/T boundary. Youre making this difficult when you don't have to do so.

Where I come from it's known as put up or shut up.
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1

Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer

"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline

FFT
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337

Location: Memphis

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject:

bart007 wrote:

Stephen Jay Gould:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

("Evolution as Fact and Theory," published in _Discover_ magazine, May 1981.)

My Response:

This is what Gould says in his anti-creationists tracts as fodder for the general public. But what does he say when speaking to his fellow scientists.

"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the 'official' position of most western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Bauplane are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments: there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record(curious mosaics like archaeopteryx do not count)." Paleobiology 3:147, 1977, Gould & Eldredge.

I agree with Gould's stated position in Paleobiology, which he completely contradicts in his anti-creation campaign in 1981. [See below for more info on that campaign,]

Again, you're not reading what you post or you're intentionally missing the point. The first and second statements are in no way contradictory. In the first he points out that creationists quote him as if he is saying there are no transitional forms, in the second he says nothing about lacking transitions--merely smooth transitions.

bart007 wrote:

Evolutionists get excitement in the brain when they use the phrase "Quote Mining". Its is a propaganda trick to deceive unwary minds that you somehow refuted an opponent's argument and that the opponent ought to have all his arguments summarily dismissed without any further consideration of what he actually wrote and whether it is true or not. Such a tactic is known as lies and deception. Something i've see much too often coming from the minds of dogmatic evolutionists

I'd happily post the context proving that you're quote-mining but in the past it's proved to not be worth the effort.

bart007 wrote:

The use of accusing a Creationists as a quote miner is akin to racists labeling black people as inferior, of inferior intelligence, suitable only for menial labor, and they need to be told what to do. You are placing a perjorative label on a group of people and hoping it sticks so you can mock them and browbeat others to do the same. Yes, I'm talking to you FFT. You are just that kind of person. That is what you are trying to do to me.

I will have none of that.

Going to call me a Nazi next?

Not all creationists are so low as to remove words from their context. Those that are deserve to be called on it. I'm not libeling you in any way, as my accusation that you are quote-mining can quite easily be proven. Would you like me to?

bart007 wrote:

The whole of your reply lacks any science, and it lacks refutation of anything i wrote.

The closest I got to science was an analogy explaining the difference between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. This was intentional.

The only thing I was attempting to "refute" was your statement that you had read most of his books and many of his articles. Reading creationist quote lists is not equivalent to actually reading his books, and it's clear from the fact that you've posted no quotes not readily available online that you've not actually read his books. Certainly not "most" of them.

bart007 wrote:

The brunt of your admitted 'mean spiritness' is your unsubstantiated declarations that my quotes of Gould are out of context.

Fine. I can see this isn't getting anywhere.

Here's a great example of context removal:

bart007 wrote:

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."

Quote:

We need to remember that the only evidence about the way events occurred in the past is found in the geological records. However sophisticated advances in molecular genetics and molecular engineering may become eventually, the fact that a genetic change or even a new species might be generated eventually in the laboratory does not tell us how new species arose in the past history of the earth. They merely provide possible mechanisms. At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth. My own view is that this does not strengthen the creationists' arguments.
___
It is strikingly clear in the geological records, when life had reached the stage where organisms were capable of living in a previously unoccupied region of the planet, such as the move from estuaries to dry land, the appearance of plants growing to great heights which provided a location (habitat) for climbing animals, or when birds and insects actually moved up and flew in theair[sp] above the earth's surface. Large numbers of new species appeared at these times; this has been called radiation, a spreading out of life.
___
Surely it is not unreasonable to suppose that the Creator utilised existing life forms to generate new forms. I have already suggested that the Creator would operate within the framework of the universe He had created in forming the physical world. May this not be the same for the biological world?

So clearly he still believes that there is more than enough evidence to support the theory of evolution.

bart007 wrote:

"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).

What? You're seriously posting something "from a scientist" and you don't even know who said it?

It sounds like a Gould or Eldredge quote, of course, but who knows! The point is, while the latter part of the statement is certainly true, it doesn't in any way imply that we should be able to discover a perfect record of these transitionals. And if you actually read it, you'll see that the latter statement is an argument from anti-evolutionists, not a claim of the theory of evolution

And I can't find any record of this statement anonymous or not anywhere. Where did you find it?

bart007 wrote:

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.

And in the same manner, judging by all the volcanic matter involved.

bart007 wrote:

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.

Question: dug out a mini-grand canyon in what? What sort of material was this "mini-grand canyon" formed in?

bart007 wrote:

"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.

Rarity of transitional forms, not absence, for starters. Stephen Jay Gould was very outspoken about the rarity of transitional forms between species but that the same was not true of transitional forms between major groups.

bart007 wrote:

"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)

Tom S. Kemp wrote:

Spearheaded by this extraordinary journal, palaeontology is now looking at what it actually finds, not what it is told that it is supposed to find. As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the "punctuated equilibrium" pattern of Eldredge and Gould. Irrespective of one's view of the biological causes of such a pattern (and there continues to be much debate about this), it leads in practice to description of long-term evolution, or macroevolution, in terms of the differential survival, extinction and proliferation of species. The species is the unit of evolution.

bart007 wrote:

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.

Impossible? Why?

So many Gould and Eldredge quotes throughout this thread, and not a single one of them actually supports your viewpoint. Anyway, bored now.
_________________
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.

wilber
Banned

Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 581

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject:

FFT Apologies for my previous post. You have obviously spent some time on this thread and I appreciate the debate. I would also like to hear any response re the K/T boundary. wilber

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8322

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:06 am Post subject:

bart007 wrote:

You did not give any credible response to any of the posts I presented. If i were wrong about any of it, it is not revealed in any comment you make, and they are really not even comments, they are unsubstantiated declarations.

Maybe you need to go back and read my posts again, because I *very purposefully* made sure to include relevant scientific arguments against your points.

I can see the game you're playing: You're acting like the guy who is caught by his wife in bed with another woman, and just keeps repeating, "What are you talking about? There's no other woman in here!"

You've come here to lecture and NOT to have an open, honest exchange of ideas. Whenever anyone challenges your dogma, you simply ignore them by claiming that their arguments are worthless (or insulting, or filled with innuendo and sophistry, etc.). Your MO is pretty transparent:

1. Give massive, poorly-expressed posts which nobody wants to read, and then

2. Refuse to respond to anyone who actually wants to engage you in open, honest debate.

bart007 wrote:

Now you ask me to respond to your pet issue, the K/T Boundary and human fossils.

I've got plenty more where that came from. For example, why do our genomes look exactly like what you'd expect from billions of years of evolution?

If God created all of the creatures, then why did he give some whales hind legs?

And if the Bible is true, then why does it say that the world is flat?

If you had any intellectual integrity, you'd address the problems with creationism and the K-T boundary, as well as these other questions.

bart007 wrote:

Based on the quality of your previous postings, full of innuendo, sophistries and false accusations on your part, you give me no reason to do so.

Nice! This isn't easy to do, and I actually applaud you for this one.

There's a clever set of writing guidelines which include gems such as,

Quote:

Remember to never split an infinitive.

and

Quote:

Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.

In the same ironic spirit, your paragraph gives a *wonderful* example of sophistry accusing me of sophistry!
_________________
"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.

bart007
Little Goldfish

Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 50

Location: Rockland NY

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:40 pm Post subject:

FFT wrote:

bart007 wrote:

I'd happily post the context proving that you're quote-mining but in the past it's proved to not be worth the effort.

[/quote]

Hey why not start off with a slur, a sneer. It helps to discredit all that I post here, without ever addressing what I actually wrote. I am a new person on this forum and was looking forward to good discussions here and instead, I've been treated like dirt.

I don't recall Gould offering transitional forms as evidence of evolution, but I have not read everything he wrote, perhaps you know of a few. I've always thought He and I had the same view on transition forms, that every fossil and animal and plant are transitional in that all are in some stage of evolutionary transition between what came before and what new changes will occur next. And this ongoing process must be so if The General Theory of Evolution be true.

Stephen Gould was fully aware that the only real paleontolgical evidence that could be supportive of the General Theory of Evolution would be the establishments of phylogenies. Darwin thought they would be found, his theory depended on it also. Evolutionist Gordon Rattray Taylor, in his book 'The Great Evolution Mystery' quips "sure the fossil record is imperfect, but you'd think they'd find at least 1 or 2 phylogenies."

When Gould states that ""At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the 'official' position of most western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Bauplane are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments: there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record(curious mosaics like archaeopteryx do not count)." it is clear that his statement in an anti-creationists article in Discover magazine: "Transitional forms ... are abundant between larger groups." is irrelevant to the establishment of phylogenies, and thus to useless as evidence confirming Evolution. This is the contradiction between his two statements.

I also quoted Paleotologist Colin Patterson who criticized the use of alleged transitional forms as artificial

Patterson, along with Rosen, Forey, and Gardiner, blame evolution for the lack of progress in Paleontology, and with respect to the above, state:

"The search for fossils has produced superficially acceptable sequences, as it was bound to, for few transformations, however fantastic, are forbidden by the Darwinian or neo-Darwinian picture of evolutionary process. Yet the sequences consist of nothing more than the abstractions from paraphyletic groups such as rhipidistians, osteolepiforms, and labyrinthodonts."
Rosen, Forey, Gardiner, & Patterson 'Lungfishes, Tetrapods, Paleontology, and Pleisomorphy' 168 Bull. Am. Museum of Natural History (1981).

These are where those transitional forms Gould spoke of come from. It was a dishonest comment from Gould, for he knew better. His argument for PE was always that evolution happened into too short a geological period to be observed. He clearly states that the fossil record is one of abrupt appearance followed by little or no change (i.e. stasis). An intermediate form in light of PE makes no sense.

Do you know of any intermediate forms that Gould offered as evidence of evolutionary transitions?

[quote="FFT"]

bart007 wrote:

FFT wrote:

Going to call me a Nazi next?

Not at all. You were using labels to demonize me, to dehumanize me. It was your modus operandi i was criticizing, not racism. I do not find that to be funny. I also went on to supply context in justification of my quotations.

FFT wrote:

Not all creationists are so low as to remove words from their context. Those that are deserve to be called on it. I'm not libeling you in any way, as my accusation that you are quote-mining can quite easily be proven. Would you like me to?

Yes I would. I have had no difficulty to defend these same quotes before, I'm up to the challenge.

bart007 wrote:

The whole of your reply lacks any science, and it lacks refutation of anything i wrote.

FFT wrote:

I have quoted Gould on many topics because I found him to be fairly honest in his assessments except for those rare times he is playng to the gallery. His fairness includes his paper on horse evolution where the extinction of a minature horse made all the difference between horse evolution over 60,000,000 years and no evolution over the same period. His views against progressivism in the fossil record as he addressed the complexity of the Burgess shale, His article on evolution of the ear referencing snake hearing, His analysis between Louis Aggassiz view of the fossil record being more objective than Darwin's, His view that Buckland, Cuvier were correct about the Catastrophism of the Fossil record and Lyell and Darwin were wrong about the gradualism of the fossil record, etc. etc.

[quote="FFT"]

bart007 wrote:

The brunt of your admitted 'mean spiritness' is your unsubstantiated declarations that my quotes of Gould are out of context.

Fine. I can see this isn't getting anywhere.

Here's a great example of context removal:

bart007 wrote:

Quote:

The only fact he gave was that the fossil record is one of abrupt appearnce of the different bauplanes. That is what I quoted him on. The fact that he points out that genetics may only suggest how evolution may happen, but only the fossil record can really tell us how evolution actually occurred (But he admits it does not do that) is irrelevant to the factual observation I quoted him on. There is no out-of-context quoting here.
___

FFT wrote:

[Ambrose:]"It is strikingly clear in the geological records, when life had reached the stage where organisms were capable of living in a previously unoccupied region of the planet, such as the move from estuaries to dry land, the appearance of plants growing to great heights which provided a location (habitat) for climbing animals, or when birds and insects actually moved up and flew in theair[sp] above the earth's surface. Large numbers of new species appeared at these times; this has been called radiation, a spreading out of life.".

Yes, but these radiations are simply the expression of existing genetic information or some recombination thereof. It is not the Evolution under discussion which requires new information continously for evolution from bacteria to man to be a reality.
___

FFT wrote:

[Ambrose] "Surely it is not unreasonable to suppose that the Creator utilised existing life forms to generate new forms. I have already suggested that the Creator would operate within the framework of the universe He had created in forming the physical world. May this not be the same for the biological world?"

So clearly he still believes that there is more than enough evidence to support the theory of evolution.

What are you reading? I see no scientific support for evolution in your quotes above. Here is what he says about the reality of biological evolution, based on his expertise in in his own field, Biology/Genetics.

"The frequency with which a single non-harmful mutation is known to occur is 1 in 1000.The probability that two favorable mutations will occur is 1x10e3 x 10e3 = 1x10e6, 1 in a million. Studies of Drosophila have revealed that large numbers of genes are involved in the
formation of separate structural elements. There are as many as 30 - 40 genes involved in a single wing structure. It is most unlikely that fewer than five genes could ever be involved in the formation of even the simplest new structure, previously unknown to the organism. The probability now becomes one in one thousand million million. We already know that mutations in living cells appear once in ten million
to once in one hundred thousand million. It is evident that the probability of five favorable mutations occurring within the a single life cycle of an organism is effectively zero.

Let us consider the alternative possibility that five mutations occur spontaneously within a large population of interbreeding organisms. They will have to be brought together eventually in a single organism, if they are to generate the structure of a new level of complexity,
favorable for natural selection.

According to our definition, each of the genes we are considering is due to a mutation which will give rise to hitherto unknown structure of additional complexity once it meets the other four genes in the fertilized egg cell. It would be indeed be surprising of any [one
alone] of these mutations could, at the same time, modulate an existing structure in the manner that it would be selected favour ably by natural selection. It is only when the five genes find themselves together that a selective advantage will emerge. They are more likely
to be present independently, within the population, as so called neutral genes. ... In the absence of selective advantage, the probability of the five genes coming together simultaneously within a single organism is extremely small." [about 1 in 1x10e15].

"Improbability increases at an enormous rate as the number of genes Increases."

Evolutionist and cell biologist E.J. Ambrose, "The Nature and Origin of the Biological World", Ellis Horwood, 1982, pp 120-121, 123.

bart007 wrote:

FFT wrote:

What? You're seriously posting something "from a scientist" and you don't even know who said it?).

It was Stephen Jay Gould, The Anon referred to the person making the quote. I was given the JW book by a JW friend and at the City College of NY library in 1972, I was able to confirm the quote from the actual source, but I have long lost that info. I was an evolutionists at that time and I was trying to prove my friend wrong. I thought at the time that it was probably an incorrect or out-of context quote. I was wrong.

FFT wrote:

It sounds like a Gould or Eldredge quote, of course, but who knows! The point is, while the latter part of the statement is certainly true, it doesn't in any way imply that we should be able to discover a perfect record of these transitionals. And if you actually read it, you'll see that the latter statement is an argument from anti-evolutionists, not a claim of the theory of evolution).

And I can't find any record of this statement anonymous or not anywhere. Where did you find it?).

See above

FFT wrote:

bart007 wrote:

And in the same manner, judging by all the volcanic matter involved.).

FFT wrote:

bart007 wrote:

Question: dug out a mini-grand canyon in what? What sort of material was this "mini-grand canyon" formed in?).

I do not know. Geology is not a science I'm that familiar with.

FFT wrote:

bart007 wrote:

Again, a reference to transistional forms between groups is absurd because groups do not evolve into groups.

[quote="FFT"]

bart007 wrote:

Tom S. Kemp wrote:

The extra material you quoted from that article is merely a description of PE, and not a comment pertaining to evidence for evolution. There was no need to quote that part.

FFT wrote:

bart007 wrote:

]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.

Impossible? Why?

So many Gould and Eldredge quotes throughout this thread, and not a single one of them actually supports your viewpoint. Anyway, bored now.

They most certainly do support my viewpoint, the fossil record supports the creationists view of abrupt appearance followed by limited change of each type. This has been the creationist view going back to before Darwin. The absence of phylogenies is a big blow to the theories of Evolution. I have use the testimony of expert witnesses from the leading evolutionary scientists speaking in their field. On both sides this is not about science, it is about whose worldview will prevail. Evolution tells us that death is inevitable, Creation tells us that life has a purpose and it can be eternal.

I'll make a confession. It is hard for me to do this anymore. I've had two strokes recently, the last one two Sundays ago. My mind has trouble focusing. I also have a double herniated discs near my neck that also keeps me in constant pain in my shoulders and left arm. I do regret that I'm not as polite and as patient as i use to be. It took me along time to write this.

Best Wishes

FFT
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337

Location: Memphis

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:55 am Post subject:

bart007 wrote:

Hey why not start off with a slur, a sneer. It helps to discredit all that I post here, without ever addressing what I actually wrote.

Yeah about that. Did you not notice how immediately after I accused you of not reading what you were posting I demonstrated it?

bart007 wrote:

I am a new person on this forum and was looking forward to good discussions here and instead, I've been treated like dirt.

Your first post with this account was a thread entitled "Science Knows Nothing About Evolution!"

bart007 wrote:

These are where those transitional forms Gould spoke of come from. It was a dishonest comment from Gould, for he knew better. His argument for PE was always that evolution happened into too short a geological period to be observed. He clearly states that the fossil record is one of abrupt appearance followed by little or no change (i.e. stasis). An intermediate form in light of PE makes no sense.

Only if you're not thinking clearly about it. Species A - stasis - rapid change - Species B - stasis - rapid change - Species C

Species B is a transitional form between A and C, in this hypothetical.

bart007 wrote:

Do you know of any intermediate forms that Gould offered as evidence of evolutionary transitions?

I don't know of him saying anything specific, but then most of what I know about Gould's work I know solely through creationist quote mines and their context. Gould almost exclusively wrote for the benefit of people that didn't deny the existence of transitional forms between major groups.

bart007 wrote:

Not at all. You were using labels to demonize me, to dehumanize me. It was your modus operandi i was criticizing, not racism. I do not find that to be funny.

I don't find your out of context quotes to be particularly humorous either. And I proved several to have been taken out of context. I used the label to discredit you, certainly, but it's accurate. "Demonize" and "dehumanize"? Now you're just being sensationalist.

bart007 wrote:

I also went on to supply context in justification of my quotations.

For Gould quotes?

bart007 wrote:

I have quoted Gould on many topics because I found him to be fairly honest in his assessments except for those rare times he is playng to the gallery.

Certainly; in context. I have yet to see a Gould quotation from a creationist that wasn't out of context. You've done nothing to affect this assumption.

bart007 wrote:

But to quote him saying that the geological record doesn't contradict conservative creationist accounts (which isn't true anyway but that's not the point) and yet ignore the fact that he doesn't think this actually matters--that's removal of context.

bart007 wrote:

Define "information" in this context.

bart007 wrote:

What are you reading? I see no scientific support for evolution in your quotes above.

I didn't claim there was, I pointed out that Ambrose believes that there is.

bart007 wrote:

FFT wrote:

bart007 wrote: