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.
And sorry, but no amount of manuscripts prove your desert tribal totem god and zombie lord are real any more than 25,000 copies of The Lord of The Rings makes Gandalf, Sauron or Frodo real.
What? Gandalf is not real? WAAAAA!!!!!!
Man, next thing I know you'll be dissing the Great Pumpkin!
I haven't read through the entire thread, but didn't Darwin once quoted that he got ill when he looked at a peacock's feathers because it reminded him of God staring at .him back in the face?
The triune Godhead is everywhere, down to the atom
Creationists are very happy to quote Darwin - it's just that in their eagerness, they rather often end up quoting stuff he never actually said.
Darwin didn't have much of a grip on sexual selection and writes jokingly to a friend and colleague (Asa Gray):
Quote:
It is curious that I remember well time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, & now small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick! Under this point of view your story of the Black Pigs in the Everglades delights me, & supports other cases, which though founded on very good evidence I could hardly digest.
So, no. No mention of God staring him back in the face. No argument for the " triune Godhead" being everywhere. Just a joke shared between two friends.
From his correspondence and books, we can tell that Darwin didn't appear to spend much time thinking of God.
Gould and I do not agree on much, that is for sure. Yet we do agree on one thing. The fossil record does not, and will not support the theory of Evolution.
Gould does not agree with you on that. This has been pointed out to you, with extensive quotes, in context. Gould was convinced that the fossil record perfectly supported evolution, but with a different pacing (Punctuated Equilibrium) than was the prevailing idea in his time.
Gould knew his words were twisted by people like you, to make it sound as if he was saying things he obviously weren't and quote him as an authority in support of an idea he found laughable. It is not very honest.
For years, the family tree use to be based on what science claimed was revealed in the fossil record. Yet for a Christian to suggest that the fossils record did not paint such a picture. Such a claim by them would be considered by believers in evolution, as unscientific heresy. However, now that some high level believers in evolution have seen the error of their way. They are now agreeing with what Christians have been saying all along, at least on the fossil records lack of evidence. Of course, this is just one small battle, yet, the outcome agrees with Christians beliefs. The reality is. The fossils record is just another one of evolutions false beliefs based on presumed science. Hopefully, this revelation will make people think twice before they fully imbrace any scientific future claims made about evolution. The reality that fossils do not exist to support a family tree or bush, only reveals all the more. That evolution is more of an unsubstantiated hypotheses, and far from a fact that some would have us believe.
Well, Kudos to the previous posts who have comprehensively shown up what you are doing here.
(1) misrepresenting a 'scientisr' by quotemining
(2) Presenting this as a small disproof of evolution, which it isn't.
(3) hopefully suggesting that, since this is a crack in the theory of evolution (which it isn't) it is only a matter of time before the whole thing comes crashing down leaving the only other alternative. Goddunnit, as told in Genesis.
I thank you for this, that your dishonest quotemining, biased disregard for evidence and projection of your own faith -based prejudices onto science, which works quite differently, is showing quite effectively why Creationism, right or wrong is not a science, and has no business to call itself 'science' because it does not understand, use or respect science.
It dresses up the far - fetched fantasies of a cult - which it is, just as much as is flat -earthism, Pyramidiotology, Gods from outer space and Atlantis - in misunderstood or misrepresented scrappits of science-jargon to make it look credible.
I'm saying this not to belittle you but to make you see that, even if you were right, the arguments you post here do nothing to demonstrate it.
They can only show how flawed and unscientific Creation 'science' is.
They can only show that, even when the flaws in your posts are shown up, you post more of the same.
Campbell34,
Here is a link to an essay written by Stephen Jay Gould:
He gets into a detailed discussion about the evolution of the whale and towards the end he clearly states that intermediate fossils have in fact been discovered that fill in some of the lineage of the whale. He doesn't agree with your statement that there are no transitional fossils and in fact describes some of them in this essay. Gould can be difficult to read until you get used to his style of writing. You've taken one particular comment that he made but haven't taken into account the overall body of work that he has written which paints a different picture than you're suggesting.
Stephen Gould did believe there was (some) fossil evidence that supports evolution, that is true. Yet most of his life he stated that the fossil record shows (little evidence) that would support evolution. And because of this, he refuted Darwins belief that such evolution occured gradually. And that is why he floated his belief in "punctuated equilibrium". However, "punctuated equilibrium has about as much evidence for it's reality, as Darwins Gradualism. Of course, Gould ignored the belief now being express by other believers in evolution, that the fossil record cannot be a source to verify evolution.
UCLA paleontologist Everett Olson. "I take a dim view of the fossil record as a source of data."
The evolution of the Whale, is based on imagination. And one wonders? When the discovery of the Pakicetus was made by P.D. Gingerich in 1983. Did the find lead to the conclusion? Or was a conclusion made before the find? I say that, because as soon as Gingerich saw the skull, he immediately stated he had discovered the skull of a primitive whale. Wow, thats pretty good. How did he draw that conclusion based only on a skull? And when later discoveries were made, it was learned that the skull was that of a four-footed animal similare to a wolf. However, he did say whale, so now this wolf like animal had to be a transional whale. LOL
Well, Kudos to the previous posts who have comprehensively shown up what you are doing here.
(1) misrepresenting a 'scientisr' by quotemining
(2) Presenting this as a small disproof of evolution, which it isn't.
(3) hopefully suggesting that, since this is a crack in the theory of evolution (which it isn't) it is only a matter of time before the whole thing comes crashing down leaving the only other alternative. Goddunnit, as told in Genesis.
I thank you for this, that your dishonest quotemining, biased disregard for evidence and projection of your own faith -based prejudices onto science, which works quite differently, is showing quite effectively why Creationism, right or wrong is not a science, and has no business to call itself 'science' because it does not understand, use or respect science.
It dresses up the far - fetched fantasies of a cult - which it is, just as much as is flat -earthism, Pyramidiotology, Gods from outer space and Atlantis - in misunderstood or misrepresented scrappits of science-jargon to make it look credible.
I'm saying this not to belittle you but to make you see that, even if you were right, the arguments you post here do nothing to demonstrate it.
They can only show how flawed and unscientific Creation 'science' is.
They can only show that, even when the flaws in your posts are shown up, you post more of the same.
Rather than accuse me of dishonest quote mining. Can you point out (IN DETAIL) where I am being dishonest? Because the rest of your statement is just empty rhetoric. And that rhetoric lacks any details that would support your empty accusations.
Gould does not agree with you on that. This has been pointed out to you, with extensive quotes, in context. Gould was convinced that the fossil record perfectly supported evolution, but with a different pacing (Punctuated Equilibrium) than was the prevailing idea in his time.
Gould knew his words were twisted by people like you, to make it sound as if he was saying things he obviously weren't and quote him as an authority in support of an idea he found laughable. It is not very honest.
I stand corrected. Gould did believe there were a (FEW) fossils that showed evidence for evolution. Yet, he believed there were (only a few).
And for this reason, he refuted Darwins belief of a slow progressive evolution, and replaced it with his own view of "punctuated equilibrium".
However, some believers in evolution now nolonger believe the fossil record can be considered as a source of data. So it appears, it matters little what view one chooses to believe in.
What the true pity is your blatant disregard in curiousity of something you have no idea upon the very foundation in which it is ordained.
Ah, once again a demonstration of your omnipotent knowledge of all things and the knowledge they possess. Not only an arrogant statement, but totally ignorant in addition.
Quote:
I for one, have plenty of opportunity to learn from my faith, as I have undoubtedly over and over again through the course of my life, something you are oblivious to and will always be unless get to know me. It may be unknown to you, but rather very real to me, as I have seen the consistency of its involovement in my life.
You really should take advantage of your "opportunity to learn" and try it instead of regurgitating what you are told. You continue to maintain that only your beliefs could possibly be true, label any other belief as "oblivious" and claim, without knowing anyone here that we must get to know you to appreciate your beliefs. Can you say lack of logic and double standard? These qualities will bring others just flocking to your banner - not.
Quote:
Why do you think Jesus, speaking to the Pharisees, proclaimed its "unknown" factor to them? Because they did not know of its nature, but rather sought a tangible, earthly system, when in fact it was not. It isn't my job to prove to you, but rather be a witness to you, and let the Holy Spirit "regenerate" you into the faith, something that has, as well, been ordained from the beginning of time.
Simple response, there was no Jesus. At least as you conceive of him. All of your reference to his speaking is second hand at best and in all probability part of a PR campaign to gain power.
I will agree with you that it is not your job to "witness" to me. So why do you continue to attempt to? Another logical fallacy or are you lying even to yourself?
Give it a break about what has "been ordained from the beginning of time". You have no clue if anything has or has not been "ordained". Even your precious buybull contradicts itself constantly and does not stick to one story.
Quote:
Tunnel vision is aqcuired by ignoring things that don't pertain to you about the things you represent and believe.
Or believing in things so patently false in the face of all facts to the contrary. Kind of like you.
Quote:
Like I said, I always am open to free thought and discussion about various things in life, and have been in several faiths and ideals contrary to Christianity, however landing into the faith that I am in now, confortable and secure in my future with it.
]
And another lie. You are open to, in your mind, correcting what others think in an attempt to bring their beliefs in line with your own. You have no other interest in a discussion. It would violate your belief system to have to consider the views and questions of others.
Rather than accuse me of dishonest quote mining. Can you point out (IN DETAIL) where I am being dishonest? Because the rest of your statement is just empty rhetoric. And that rhetoric lacks any details that would support your empty accusations.
Because you are not troubling to comprehend what is being said. You are quotemining out of context to give fallacious support to your dislike of evolution.
The previous posts point out in detail where you are being dishonest, not so much in quotemining, because you are just copying and pasting this stuff, but in continuing to do so when it is pointed out to you.
Quote:
UCLA paleontologist Everett Olson. "I take a dim view of the fossil record as a source of data."
You'd better give a link since I can't find any information about this person or where you got this from. Previous similar quotes have been taken out of context inasmuch as they say that biological research is a preferred source of evidence for evolution rather than fossils, which is right. But it was presented as implying that fossils somehow did not support evolution.
Quote:
The evolution of the Whale, is based on imagination. And one wonders? When the discovery of the Pakicetus was made by P.D. Gingerich in 1983. Did the find lead to the conclusion? Or was a conclusion made before the find? I say that, because as soon as Gingerich saw the skull, he immediately stated he had discovered the skull of a primitive whale. Wow, thats pretty good. How did he draw that conclusion based only on a skull? And when later discoveries were made, it was learned that the skull was that of a four-footed animal similare to a wolf. However, he did say whale, so now this wolf like animal had to be a transional whale. LOL
"Did the find lead to the conclusion? Or was a conclusion made before the find?" The conclusion leading to the twisting of facts to suit the conclusion is an example of Creationist thinking, not scientific thinking.
The details about the evolution of the whale are there for you to see, if you troubled to look. Your fantasies about the way the scientists fudged the facts reflects only too well the way Creationists think so no wonder you suppose scientists think the same way.
The fossil dicoveries showed evidence of skeletal links between an early land mammal, a primitive whale and a more whale - like whale.
I seem to recall you (or someone similar) saying you wouldn't believe evolution until there was evidence of a dog giving birth to kittens. When evidence is produced of that order (a wolf into a whale), you reject it because you consider that a wolf can't turn into a whale. Reverse circular argument anyone?
It would be nice if we had a meticulous series of fossils between Ambulocetus and Basileosarus. Sorry, we haven't; but we do have fossil animals showing skeletal similarity that peg out the line or evolution. You may say that it's not enough. You may dismiss it. But the fact is that it is is yet a little more evidence FOR evolution and yet more evidence that doesn't support Creation.
Claim CC216.1:
There are gaps between land mammals and whales. Source:
The transitional sequence from a land mammal to whales is quite robust. See Babinski (2003) or Zimmer (1998) for pictures of some of these.
Pakicetus inachus: latest Early Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1983; Thewissen and Hussain 1993).
Ambulocetus natans: Early to Middle Eocene, above Pakicetus. It had short front limbs and hind legs adapted for swimming; undulating its spine up and down helped its swimming. It apparently could walk on land as well as swim (Thewissen et al. 1994).
Indocetus ramani: earliest Middle Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1993).
Dorudon: the dominant cetacean of the late Eocene. Their tiny hind limbs were not involved in locomotion.
Basilosaurus: middle Eocene and younger. A fully aquatic whale with structurally complete legs (Gingerich et al. 1990).
an early baleen whale with its blowhole far forward and some structural features found in land animals but not later whales (Stricherz 1998).
The whale's closest living relative is the hippopotamus. A fossil group known as anthracotheres links hippos with whales (Boisserie et al. 2005). The common ancestor of whales and hippos likely was a primitive artiodactyl (cloven-hoofed mammal); ankle bones from the primitive whales Artiocetus and Rodhocetus show distinctive artiodactyl traits (Gingerich et al. 2001).
[quote]Fossil remains of the extinct mammal Pakicetus inachus, to give it its proper name, first came onto the agenda in 1983. P. D. Gingerich and his assistants, who found the fossil, had no hesitation in immediately claiming that it was a "primitive whale," even though they actually only found a skull.
Yet the fossil has absolutely no connection with the whale. Its skeleton turned out to be a four-footed structure, similar to that of common wolves. It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises, and crocodiles. In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one.
So, why was a quadrupedal land dweller announced to be a "primitive whale" and why is it still presented as such by evolutionist sources like National Geographic? The magazine gives the following reply:[.quote]
In the famous well - known saying 'It should be obvious to the meanest intellect". If a land animal evolved into a water creature, isn't it reasonable that its land - dwelling ancestor's remains should found in a land environment. The gross and fatheaded misdirection of saying that since Ambulocetus is a primitive whale (which it is in the sense of being a family ancestor) and everyone knows that whales are sea - creatures, then by definition this land creature could not be a whale.
One might as well argue that J.F Kennedy could never have become US president as Kennedy is an Irish name. So he must have been Irish. Are you not ashamed to align yourself with such thinking, either sloppy or dishonest? Can you look at a sea - lion and deny that at one time it must have been a land animal that took to water and evolved to become what it is now? What is your problem?
Don't bother to answer; I know what it is.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-30-2009 at 10:36 AM..
I stand corrected. Gould did believe there were a (FEW) fossils that showed evidence for evolution. Yet, he believed there were (only a few).
And for this reason, he refuted Darwins belief of a slow progressive evolution, and replaced it with his own view of "punctuated equilibrium".
Pretty much. (Although Gould's hypothesis certainly still supports evolution as a slow process.)
Quote:
However, some believers in evolution now nolonger believe the fossil record can be considered as a source of data. So it appears, it matters little what view one chooses to believe in.
I have my doubts as to that, but who cares? For one thing, people can arrive at the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. Some of the old Greek fellas concluded that the Earth was a sphere, not because of observations, but because philosophically, the sphere is a "perfect" shape.
For another, ToE is quite well supported by other sciences at this time.
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.
WAAAAA!!!!!!
