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.
"The fossil record itself (PROVIDED NO DOCUMENTATION) of continuity-of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form. (Stanley,S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981,p. 40.)
Stanley, like Gould, was simply arguing against a gradual, uniform rate of evolution, he wasn't arguing against evolution. Another quote from the very same book:
Quote:
Superb fossil data have recently been gathered from deposits of early Cenozoic Age in the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming. These deposits represent the first part of the Eocene Epoch, a critical interval when many types of modern mammals came into being. The Bighorn Basin, in the shadow of the Rocky Mountains, received large volumes of sediment from the Rockies when they were being uplifted, early in the Age of Mammals. In its remarkable degree of completeness, the fossil record here for the Early Eocene is unmatched by contemporary deposits exposed elsewhere in the world. The deposits of the Bighorn Basin provide a nearly continuous local depositional record for this interval, which lasted some five million years. It used to be assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked together in such a way as to illustrate continuous evolution. Careful collecting has now shown otherwise. Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time. David M. Schankler has recently gathered data for about eighty mammal species that are known from more than two stratigraphic levels in the Bighorn Basin. Very few of these species existed for less than half a million years, and their average duration was greater than a million years.
That doesn't sound like the words of a man who thinks evolution is a myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
(Gould, Stephen J., believed the arguement of an imperfect fossil record, Yet, he finally concluded that such oustanding regularity could not be entirely artificial. "The Hardening of the Modern Synthesis, "1983, p. 81.
I'm assuming you've personally read all of these books, since you cite them as sources? No, I'm sure you haven't. If you had, you'd actually understand Stephen J. Gould's ideas. Heck, you wouldn't have to even read any of his books. A quick search online for FULL quotes would easily convey his true intentions. Or you could easily see that Gould himself got a little sick of being misquoted by creationists all the time:
Quote:
"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. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."
Have you just completely ignored the numerous posts in this thread that show exactly how you've taken quotes out of context, or simply posted a portion of the quote so that it appears to say something it doesn't? Good grief, I did that very thing just this morning, and several others have done so as well throughout this thread, yet you continue on as if you've read none of them.
What I have posted is that believers in Evolution now claim that the evidence for evolution cannot be found in the fossil record. I have used the names of Henery Gee, Stephen Gould, and others. If what I have stated is not believed by them. Can you show me where they refute these beliefs?
What I ignore, are people who pretend their statement do not exist. And I ignore people who try to suggest that their stated beliefs were somehow taken out of context, when they are not.
Now, unless you can show clear evidence that they simply do not believe their own statements, you will not convince me that your conclusion is even close to accurate. It's so clear and obvious what these people are saying. It appears to me, your so into the theory of evolution, that you have now moved into deep denial, and cannot handle the simple truth of their statements.
In no way have I suggested that Henery Gee does not believe in evolution. Yet I cannot deny what Gee has so clearly pointed out in his book. "In Search For Deep Time"
"Fossils are isolated points in deep time, and can never be linked with certainty. The fossil evidence is unable to support evolutionary narratives. These scenario's can never be tested by experiment and so are unscientific. Traditional palaeontology is story telling. We can never be certain that Archaeopteryx is the missing link between birds and dinosaurs."
Now, prove to me Gee does not believe what was just stated?
And please, don't come here telling me I have taken anything out of context, unless you are prepared to back up your accusations with facts.
Your assigning your own definitions to terms merely shows your lack of understanding of the subject.
Yes, creationism is based on faith.
Science is based on observation and no one has observed gawd unless under the influence.
What you believe has no relevance to the truth, merely to what you believe.
BTW, your buybull is merely a poorly written morality play that some take as a truth while most dismiss it.
How am I "bullybull" - ing? I was just staing my opinion in regards to yours. What I see constantly among atheists is when they can't grasp a subject, they in turn just outright refute it based on pressuposition and a rather contradictory "emotional" response.
You still are failing to grasp science in terms of an all-knowing God. He is the source, like an atom is the source of matter, God is the source of an atom. I don't expect you to understand it, but refuting it on grounds of observation is pointless and meaningless IMO, when He Himself stated that it is something which "cannot be seen".
I wasn't a Christian my whole life, and I did dabble in your existential nature of Atheism for some time in my life, and concluded that there is a soul and spirit in regards to the human being, something that atheism seems to contradict and proclaim as fact, when in fact, they have no proof either way.
Where is the science in that?
Atheism is a belief system, regardless of how you want to portray it, it is just that, and nothing more. An intellectual belief system that disregard the very essence of the intellectual mind, and how it is related to the spirtual nature of man.
Your system will fail, when you die unfortunately.
What if you are wrong about everything, and I am right?
If I am wrong, then I turn to dust, but if you are wrong, well...you know the answer, I don't have to spell it out for you.
Do you really think there is no reason as to why you are here, on this board, debating with Christians like myself, or is it just "chance"?
Now, prove to me Gee does not believe what was just stated?
And please, don't come here telling me I have taken anything out of context, unless you are prepared to back up your accusations with facts.
I've already responded to this very quote. Either you missed my post, or you have no concept of what Gee was discussing in that quote. I never said Gee did not believe his own statement, I said that you are misinterpreting his comments. Actually, you're not. You're simply repeating what you've read on Creationist websites. Here's a quote from Gee, on page 35 of the book you keep bringing up:
Quote:
The evidence of evolution is everywhere around us, in the signs that diverse organisms share a common morphological heritage. That Fred and I (his cat) have a common ancestry is not in dispute, not because of fossils, but because of features we share thanks to our common evolutionary birthright.
He then goes on to discuss all of the similar anatomic features he and his cat share. If you care to actually read the book, you can do so here:
How am I "bullybull" - ing? I was just staing my opinion in regards to yours. What I see constantly among atheists is when they can't grasp a subject, they in turn just outright refute it based on pressuposition and a rather contradictory "emotional" response.
So simple that even you should be able to see, let alone say it. You cite your buybull as if it were a sole truth instead of a myth.
Quote:
You still are failing to grasp science in terms of an all-knowing God. He is the source, like an atom is the source of matter, God is the source of an atom. I don't expect you to understand it, but refuting it on grounds of observation is pointless and meaningless IMO, when He Himself stated that it is something which "cannot be seen".
You continue to claim that your gawd is a source. Yet you have no physical proof or empirical evidence of this gawd.
Science, as I stated, has nothing to do with an unprovable gawd. It is based on provable observations and physical evidence. Not on faith.
Quote:
I wasn't a Christian my whole life, and I did dabble in your existential nature of Atheism for some time in my life, and concluded that there is a soul and spirit in regards to the human being, something that atheism seems to contradict and proclaim as fact, when in fact, they have no proof either way.
What you conclude is meaningless unless you have a solid proof to support it.
BTW, it is not "my" atheism, it is a widely held philosophy based on observation. You have no proof to support your belief, yet insist that it is the truth. An atheist has observable proof on his side. I shall go with proof every time.
Quote:
Atheism is a belief system, regardless of how you want to portray it, it is just that, and nothing more. An intellectual belief system that disregard the very essence of the intellectual mind, and how it is related to the spirtual nature of man.
Yet again you insist that your definition is the only possible one. You continue to put your misplaced thoughts out there as if they were fact, or at least meaningful. They are neither.
Quote:
Your system will fail, when you die unfortunately.
One is tempted to tell you the exact same thing.
Quote:
What if you are wrong about everything, and I am right?
If I am wrong, then I turn to dust, but if you are wrong, well...you know the answer, I don't have to spell it out for you.
Are you truly trying to bring in Pascals Wager into this? Debunked as being totally unprovable and a mere theists silly gambit.
Quote:
Do you really think there is no reason as to why you are here, on this board, debating with Christians like myself, or is it just "chance"?
I am here to see if there are any logical thoughts being brought forth. You appear to be here to try to bring an unwanted theology to those who differ with you. A total waste of time.
Stanley, like Gould, was simply arguing against a gradual, uniform rate of evolution, he wasn't arguing against evolution. Another quote from the very same book:
That doesn't sound like the words of a man who thinks evolution is a myth.
I'm assuming you've personally read all of these books, since you cite them as sources? No, I'm sure you haven't. If you had, you'd actually understand Stephen J. Gould's ideas. Heck, you wouldn't have to even read any of his books. A quick search online for FULL quotes would easily convey his true intentions. Or you could easily see that Gould himself got a little sick of being misquoted by creationists all the time:
I did not say Stephen Gould himself was trying to make a case against evolution. I was pointing out the obvious, that there is no evidence for evolution in the fossil record. Stephen Gould believes in Evolution, and that is why I used his arguement here.
So many times, we here from your side suggesting that there is an abudance of evidence in the fossil record that proves evolution. Stephen Gould cannot be pointed to as a bias Creationist, and that is why his own statement, is so much more powerful.
And it is Stephen Gould who is telling you.
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. 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 fossils."
There is no misquoting here. It is a simple understanding that as a believer in evolution, Stephen Gould honestly stated that the fossil record did not support the theory of evolution. And that is why he pointed to their extreme rarity as a trade secret of paleontology. And that is why he stated that what is found in our text books was only (INFERENCE), and not based on fossils.
I've already responded to this very quote. Either you missed my post, or you have no concept of what Gee was discussing in that quote. I never said Gee did not believe his own statement, I said that you are misinterpreting his comments. Actually, you're not. You're simply repeating what you've read on Creationist websites. Here's a quote from Gee, on page 35 of the book you keep bringing up:
He then goes on to discuss all of the similar anatomic features he and his cat share. If you care to actually read the book, you can do so here:
It appears to me what Gee has stated has gone right over your head. The arguement had nothing to do with Gee's belief in evolution. It had everything to do with his clear statement that there is no evidence in the fossil record that can be used to support or prove evolution. Because that evidence (IS GONE). I did not misinterpret his words. And it was never about, if Gee is a believer in evolution or not. Of course he believes evolution, he just confirms the fossil record cannot prove it. And I agree.
I did not say Stephen Gould himself was trying to make a case against evolution. I was pointing out the obvious, that there is no evidence for evolution in the fossil record. Stephen Gould believes in Evolution, and that is why I used his arguement here.
So many times, we here from your side suggesting that there is an abudance of evidence in the fossil record that proves evolution. Stephen Gould cannot be pointed to as a bias Creationist, and that is why his own statement, is so much more powerful.
And it is Stephen Gould who is telling you.
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. 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 fossils."
There is no misquoting here. It is a simple understanding that as a believer in evolution, Stephen Gould honestly stated that the fossil record did not support the theory of evolution. And that is why he pointed to their extreme rarity as a trade secret of paleontology. And that is why he stated that what is found in our text books was only (INFERENCE), and not based on fossils.
He states that it's a rarity, not nonexistent (which is what you're saying). And you should really quote the entire thing:
Quote:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. 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 geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.
Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.
For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]
As I stated earlier, Gould is simply arguing against Darwin's gradualist view of evolution, which in fact the fossil record does not reflect. You are not misquoting, you're "underquoting", ie., quote-mining. And apparently you missed the quote I posted earlier where Gould himself expresses his irritation at being misquoted by creationists.
So simple that even you should be able to see, let alone say it. You cite your buybull as if it were a sole truth instead of a myth.
Did I say it was your truth? This is an assumption based on zero evidence. It is my truth, and yours, if you want it.
Quote:
You continue to claim that your gawd is a source. Yet you have no physical proof or empirical evidence of this gawd.
Like I said and will say it again, it is "what cannot be seen".
Quote:
Science, as I stated, has nothing to do with an unprovable gawd. It is based on provable observations and physical evidence. Not on faith.
I agree, science is developed upon theories, tested and proven to be a fact of the system and order of the "natural" world. Did I ever say God was natural, in the carnal, atomic sense? No I did not. I said He is behind it all, which is contrary to what you, and other atheists put forth, that He is somehow, a natural being, with blood and guts, when He is clearly not, as the scripture states.
Quote:
What you conclude is meaningless unless you have a solid proof to support it.
Possibly, and it does require a level of faith to believe in it, but that is all it takes. Just as you have "faith" in a proven science, regardless of whether the system is consistently proven over and over again, which roughly about 50% of Physics, most of the Evolution theories, if we can even call evolution a science, because it is merely based on an illegitimate foundation that peeps like yourself consider proof. Mathematics, in every sense, are indeed theories put into practice, developed and proven on paper, but what about its involvement in the probablility factors? Yes, there are measurements, but are they accurate, or are they just an "educated guess." It appears that many well renowned scholars and mathematicians tend to side with the latter, and base ther conclusion on merely infantile "educated guesses". Possibly a revision of your statements may be underway?
Quote:
BTW, it is not "my" atheism, it is a widely held philosophy based on observation. You have no proof to support your belief, yet insist that it is the truth. An atheist has observable proof on his side. I shall go with proof every time.
AHHH! A Philosophy! Now you are getting somewhere.
Quote:
Yet again you insist that your definition is the only possible one. You continue to put your misplaced thoughts out there as if they were fact, or at least meaningful. They are neither.
Like I said, I never considered it to be yousr, or anyone else's truth, but mine only. However, are you confident, that yours is the all truth of all truth? Because in the known universe, there is only one constant, and what that constant is, is based upon what you consider to be the truth for yourself. Mine is Jesus Christ. Are you willing to bet your "biological synergetic energy" on that?
Quote:
Are you truly trying to bring in Pascals Wager into this? Debunked as being totally unprovable and a mere theists silly gambit.
Debunking is not my forte, and neither is yours as it appears, but is left alone to Christ. That is His job IMO, and further to add, every little debunking atttempt that atheism has attempted to induce upon the scripture, has been thoroughly exhausted by known secular and religious scholars for over a century. Is suggest you pick up a couple of books from both sides, instead of applying the same-old tunnel vision that atheist continue to present to the theological creeds, and come up with something new and improved, so we can yet again, dismantle their entire system with a few words.
Quote:
I am here to see if there are any logical thoughts being brought forth. You appear to be here to try to bring an unwanted theology to those who differ with you. A total waste of time.
Ditto. Then why continue with your banter? I am a witness, therefore it is my duty and calling from Christ to help the "lost" sheep, not the righteous.
Your are merely trying to proselytize by cloaking your words in contradictions and ignorant faith in the unknown. Without regard to what you claim, this is what you are doing. Yet you attempt to appear impervious to it or any discussion that may cause you thought.
A true pity. Your beliefs leave you with no oppourunity to grow or learn. You rely only on gawd says so and you claim faith in it and only anything that seems (usually incorrectly) to support that belief. True tunnel vision.
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.
Either you missed my post, or you have no concept of what Gee was discussing in that quote. I never said Gee did not believe his own statement, I said that you are misinterpreting his comments. Actually, you're not. You're simply repeating what you've read on Creationist websites. Here's a quote from Gee, on page 35 of the book you keep bringing up:
