Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WISE? Gee said useing the fossil record would not be (WISE)? Are those Gee's exact words? I say that, because the exact words I quoted from Gee himself are far stronger than something (not being wise).
Gee's quote. Many of the assumptions we make about evolution, especially concerning the history of life as understood from the fossil record, are, however, (BASELESS).
Why would you substitute Gee's own wording of (BASELESS), with words of your own choosing? I believe Gee's own wording, far more accurately conveys his beliefs. And you suggesting that Gee only ment to say "not wise", is a departure from reality, and a departure from what Gee clearly stated.
So Gee's wording of (BASELESS), now only means (NOT WISE)?
Do you belong to the Jehovah's Witnesses? LOL
And has everyone else been trying to tell me that Gee did not mean (BASELESS)? But he really ment to say (NOT WISE). LOL
I said "not wise" because I didn't quote; I was merely summarizing what he wrote. I find it interesting that the only two people in this thread who are interpreting Gee's words to mean that there is no evidence for evolution in the fossil record are the two people in this thread who have shown that they have practically no understanding of evolution (or science in general) in the first place. If you read more than a few lines off of a creationist website, it is plainly obvious that Henry Gee is, as many of us have said many times in this thread, stating that fossils aren't enough to create a narrative of evolution. Apparently this is just impossibly difficult to understand. I've posted this already, but here it is again, so that we can all see more than just a few sentences of Gee's work:
How many times have people here tried to tell me that Archaeopteryx was a missing link. Yet Gee tells you. "We can never be certain that Archaeopteryx is the missing link between birds and dinosarus." Of course when I said that, I was told I was unscientific, yet when Gee states it, does that make it anymore true?
There's a difference between saying something cannot be a transitional and saying that we cannot know for certain whether it's a transitional. Gee is saying that we can't know for certain, you are saying that it CANNOT be. There's a massive difference.
You can't even get your own arguments straight, can you. You cite Gee as saying that evolution is false yet write that he does support evolution. Cognitive problem you have there?
You also continue to ignore any explanation supplied to you (IGNORANT OF YOU) and continue on your merry way. Even one such as you should by this time begin to get a hint.
I can explain Gees' quotes at least as well as you. I have chosen not to because it is so much fun to see you dangle in a noose of your own words. I am not a scientist. But it is obvious that you are not either. Your religious zealotry does not give you a deeper understanding of anything and your continual misapplying of quoted materials only confirms that you have no knowledge on the subject you speak of.
You are more believable when you speak of your precious prophecies. And you are not believable then.
NOT EVEN ONCE, DID I SAY GEE SAID EVOLUTION WAS FALSE.
Please, can you quote where I said this? Don't worry, I will not hold my breath.
I said, Gee stated, you cannot prove Evolution by the fossil record, because the missing links are gone. I said, Gee stated, that assumptions we make about evolution, especially concerning the history of life as understood from the fossil record, are, however, (BASELESS).
Don't you get it? Gee believes in evolution. Yet he's telling you, the fossil record does not support such a belief, because the evidence is not there.
And even though it does not support such a belief, Gee still believes in evolution.
oh i agree. i just browsed on Gee's deep time book and that is what he is saying. How illuminating though why u did not quote this on the same sentence even:
"we are forced to accept that virtually everything we thought we knew about evolution is wrong because we want to think of history of life as a story."
I am assuming Gee wrote this book as an excuse of the evidently missing links of evolution. so evolutionists clearly made their own problem in the first place. And now making an excuse for the missing links. k. fine.
________________________________________
Alternately, baket, one wonders why you didn't include these passages, from the very book you quote as a denuial of evolution:
"Given the ubiquitous chatter of journalists and headline writers about the search for ancestors, and the discovery of missing links, it may come as a surprise to learn that most professional paleontologists do not think of the history of life in terms of scenarios or narratives, and that they rejected the storytelling mode of evolutionary history as unscientific more than thirty years ago. () Behind the scenes, in museums and universities, a quiet revolution has taken place."
or...
"In societies without science in the sense that we would understand it today, fossils were seen as signs of divine or diabolical action, as the bones of giants or the teeth of dragons, or as the bones of creatures that perished in Noah's flood. Observers innocent of science, ignorant of religious or cultural tradition, and incapable of imagination would no doubt see fossils only as rocks."
and finally, this brief summary of the man you so ardently try to use to denounce evolution:
"Henry Gee, the author, has a B.Sc. in zoology and genetics from the University of Leeds, and a Ph.D. in zoology from the University of Cambridge. He is a senior editor for Nature and "spends most of his time as a manuscript editor specializing in evolutionary and comparative biology". Though he is firmly devoted to "cladistics", in which all species, fossil or living, are "on the top row and ancestor/descendent relationships are not postulated", he is equally firmly devoted to Darwinian evolution in which all species are "related by common descent"."
I said "not wise" because I didn't quote; I was merely summarizing what he wrote. I find it interesting that the only two people in this thread who are interpreting Gee's words to mean that there is no evidence for evolution in the fossil record are the two people in this thread who have shown that they have practically no understanding of evolution (or science in general) in the first place. If you read more than a few lines off of a creationist website, it is plainly obvious that Henry Gee is, as many of us have said many times in this thread, stating that fossils aren't enough to create a narrative of evolution. Apparently this is just impossibly difficult to understand. I've posted this already, but here it is again, so that we can all see more than just a few sentences of Gee's work:
Your summarizing of Gee's words totally changed what he clearly stated. Gee did not say (THE FOSSILS ARE NOT ENOUGHT). Gee said, assumptions we make about evolution from the fossil record, are (BASELESS). I have to keep correcting you, because you keep inserting words and phrases that keep taking us away from what Gee has stated. I would suggest you contact Gee, and ask his permission to rewrite his material. Maybe then it will read the way you want it to read. What appears impossibly difficult for you, is to allow Gee's own wording to guide your understanding.
And Gee tells you (there is no evidence for evolution in the fossil record) because the links necessary to make those connections, (ARE GONE).
Did you miss that part?
There's a difference between saying something cannot be a transitional and saying that we cannot know for certain whether it's a transitional. Gee is saying that we can't know for certain, you are saying that it CANNOT be. There's a massive difference.
Gee has stated, that the fossils cannot tell us if they are transitionals, and those who attempt to do this are story tellers. I say they cannot be found at all. Yet, Gee is telling you, even if they were found we could never know for sure, because the fossils we really need to make all those connections are now gone. And that is why they cannot prove evolution by the fossil record. I find it odd that we have fossils from every time period, yet only the fossils that would prove evolution are always missing. I find that hard to believe, and I believe the reason such fossils cannot be found, is because those fossils never existed in the first place.
And Gee tells you (there is no evidence for evolution in the fossil record) because the links necessary to make those connections, (ARE GONE).
Did you miss that part?
No, this is what we keep telling you, and you are taking it to mean that fossils don't support evolution at all, and you are taking Gee's words to mean this. And now you are conveniently leaving out the word "narrative" that Gee uses more than once, which is the key to his entire point. I would suggest you read the very book you quote from, because it, so far (I'm on page 24) does no support your claims at all.
I have always said, Gee fully supports evolution, why would you think differently?
I also have stated, that Gee clearly states that makeing assumptions about evolution useing the fossil record are (BASELESS).
Would you agree with Gee's statement here?
Any story we tell againts the compass of geological time that links these fossils in squences of cause and effect-or ancestry and descent-is, only ours to make. We (INVENT) these stories, after the fact, to justify the history of life according to our own (PREJUDICES).
Gee believes in evolution for sure. Yet Gee is telling you. Your belief that the fossil record supports evolution. Is a Fairy Tale, based on stories you have invented, and molded by your own prejudices. And assumptions you make about evolution, based on the fossil record, are also (BASELESS).
How many times have people here tried to tell me that Archaeopteryx was a missing link. Yet Gee tells you. "We can never be certain that Archaeopteryx is the missing link between birds and dinosarus." Of course when I said that, I was told I was unscientific, yet when Gee states it, does that make it anymore true?
So now, in spite of all your previous protestations that your buybull holds the only truth, that being creationism, you are reversing yourself and saying that you believe in evolution? Or only the parts that you think support that warm fuzzy lie you are living?
You are a true piece of work, reversing yourself so often that you forget what you started out as.
NOT EVEN ONCE, DID I SAY GEE SAID EVOLUTION WAS FALSE.
Please, can you quote where I said this? Don't worry, I will not hold my breath.
I said, Gee stated, you cannot prove Evolution by the fossil record, because the missing links are gone. I said, Gee stated, that assumptions we make about evolution, especially concerning the history of life as understood from the fossil record, are, however, (BASELESS).
Don't you get it? Gee believes in evolution. Yet he's telling you, the fossil record does not support such a belief, because the evidence is not there.
And even though it does not support such a belief, Gee still believes in evolution.
And you, in your usual bigoted ignorance tried to make this say that evolution is false. Did you use those words, no. Did you try to craft your message to say that? Definitly.
Are you a misleading lying religious bigot without the common sense to know when to shut up? Yes.
I have always said, Gee fully supports evolution, why would you think differently?
I also have stated, that Gee clearly states that makeing assumptions about evolution useing the fossil record are (BASELESS).
Would you agree with Gee's statement here?
Any story we tell againts the compass of geological time that links these fossils in squences of cause and effect-or ancestry and descent-is, only ours to make. We (INVENT) these stories, after the fact, to justify the history of life according to our own (PREJUDICES).
Gee believes in evolution for sure. Yet Gee is telling you. Your belief that the fossil record supports evolution. Is a Fairy Tale, based on stories you have invented, and molded by your own prejudices. And assumptions you make about evolution, based on the fossil record, are also (BASELESS).
How many times have people here tried to tell me that Archaeopteryx was a missing link. Yet Gee tells you. "We can never be certain that Archaeopteryx is the missing link between birds and dinosarus." Of course when I said that, I was told I was unscientific, yet when Gee states it, does that make it anymore true?
Rifleman,
I told you he would try to not answer your reasonable questions. And once again he tries to change the course of the conversation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A more correct reading and interpretation....
) Behind the scenes, in museums and universities, a quiet revolution has taken place."
