Meaning the existence of a Creator cramps your style?
Anyone forced to bow to a lie might as well be a slave.
Meaning you'll stop trying to convince others?
Posted on 11/05/2003 5:29:49 AM PST by truthfinder9
All day Saturday, November 15, 2003
Most of science is an objective search for the truth.
However, the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) seems to abandon that concept when the discussion turns to the question of our origin. Only one answer is allowed - naturalistic evolution.
On October 18, 2002, the AAAS Board decreed that all public schools and AAAS members should censor and suppress the scientific challenge to the naturalistic explanation of our origin - Intelligent Design. Darwinists claim that life is not designed. Other scientists disagree. The AAAS, in a curiously unscientific fashion, seeks to suppress that scientific disagreement. WHY?
The fourth annual symposium on Intelligent Design, DDD IV, will address that question with 18 experts in biochemistry, neuro science, cosmology, physics, chemistry, geology, philosophy, theology and the law.
I trust it won't be necessary. Are you planning on dropping by?
Yes and no. The world has betrayed your viewpoint by making you wrong. The very heavens mock you. You need to make some minor allowance for that when crying about science not paying enough attention to your "truth."
Oh, and BTW, if Gould actually believed there were transitionals, why did he invent the fairy tale known PE?
The bottom line is that evo apologists have redefined what it means to be a transitional form. Regardless, where is the fossilized
Meaning the existence of a Creator cramps your style?
Anyone forced to bow to a lie might as well be a slave.
Meaning you'll stop trying to convince others?
Here Gould talks straight to people like you.
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.Is it starting to come back to you yet?...
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.
Answer: They exist only in the minds of the evos.
Out for a bit.
Don't know about angels, but those 10-billion year old quasars don't fit in your story very well. Now I mean it, gone for supper.
Students who think for themselves are creationists.
Students who have difficulty in that area prefer evolution.
Smarter students are creationists.
The not-so-smart are evos.
The study is scientific so you should love it.
Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who turn many to righteousness like the stars forever and ever.
The Lord's quasars were burning with a purpose for spiritual man ere there ever was a man.
Then the not-so-smart ones go to college and the smart ones fry burgers.
It is true that he has no professed belief in Lord Vishnu. Or Zeus. Or Wodan. So what? Does that make him against the Easter Bunny too?
Now, I have said some things that might seem critical of a creator, things of the form, "God shouldn't tell people to behave the way Discovery Institute is doing in that paper." When I do that, I don't really think the creator of the universe is ordering people about. What I'm really saying is that faith in things unseen doesn't seem to be all that healthy for everybody. The people trying to order science and science education about for sure do not understand science and often don't really want to. They should not be humored.
Throw me in the water and I swim to shore. The Puritans would probably have burned me.
No, he did not, as anyone with an ordinary level of reading comprehension knows if they've read anything of Gould's besides the out-of-context quotes that creationist sources like to parade around. Gould discussed many, many transitional forms, including over half a dozen here. Excerpt:
Still, our creationist incubi, who would never let facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yield, and continue to assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring those that have been found, and continuing to taunt us with admittedly frequent examples of absence.
How is it you are more informed than your superiors?
How is it that you are so poorly informed about what Gould actually believed?
Oh, and BTW, if Gould actually believed there were transitionals, why did he invent the fairy tale known PE?
He didn't invent it, Darwin did, and it's no fairy tale:
I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed." (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 140-141)This is classic Punctuated Equilibrium -- from Charles Darwin in 1859.But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification. (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 152)
"It is a more important consideration ... that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change." (Darwin, Ch. 10, "On the imperfection of the geological record," p. 428)
"Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]
[All quotes from Darwin's 1859 "On the Origin of Species"]
The bottom line is that evo apologists have redefined what it means to be a transitional form.
"The bottom line" is that you make a lot of amusing claims without a shred of support.
Regardless, where is the fossilized:
half feather / half scale
On Sinosauropteryx :
half leg / half wing
On Protarchaeopteryx :
half foot / half hoof
On late Condylarths:
Yeah, I know, lousy picture -- can't find a decent one on the web. But the "one hooflet per toe" structure easily meets your "half foot half hoof" requirement, as do the feet of modern Tapirs (themselves sort of a living fossil):
etc etc etc.
Yes indeed, etc. etc.
Answer: They exist only in the minds of the evos.
Uh huh... Well certainly, there are a lot of things that exist only in *your* mind.
Perhaps we can help each other in understanding the other's viewpoint, perhaps not, but I am willing to try. The problem is much deeper than where one was academically educated. It goes to the core of being, one's purpose here on earth. Perhaps you see the reason that you are on the earth is to procreate and to advance the species? If so, you must have many children!
In contrast, I am of no particular notice, just a defender of the word bespoken in ages past to the apostles. It matters not whether I am here or there, but here I am at this moment. And here you are. Perhaps we must make the most of out time together, for tomorrow the wind will blow where it wilst.
Why do you profess to speak for your brother? Have you not enough unbelief to occupy yourself?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.