What Does the Fossil Record Show?

Creation or Evolution: Does it Really Matter What You Believe? ^ | 1998 | Various

[js1138]

I have Wolfram's "New Science"" book, which is why I inserted the word "widely."

However, even if ideas are suggested by computer experiments, the foundation of mathematics is deductive logic.

[Diego1618]

For instance, you reject the Trinity doctrine believing that the Holy Spirit isn't God.

Ah, yes.....the Trinity Doctrine. In order to support "THIS" theory you have to use terms not found in the Bible, rely on false scripture, depend on twisted interpretations that contradict extremely clear scripture, and create a convoluted "THEORY" that no one really understands forcing its adherents to declare it a mystery.

What did your statement have to do with the subject of evolution....anyway?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Math is not science.

[SirLinksalot]

Lessons from Evolutionist scholarship :

http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp

http://www.trueorigin.org/pepmoth1.asp

http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevoletter.asp

JUST TO MENTION 3.

[ToryHeartland]

you expect me to take you seriously?

I have no such expectation. Anyone in such profound denial about the last 150 years of biological science, who believes such a vast body of consistent data can be hand-waved away, is not really a good candidate to listen to anything that I might have to say.

Do, however, please note that my previous post offered the list from Wikipedia as "a very basic place to start." If you have a subscription to Nature, there are rather more scholarly offerings on the topic. I don't see why you see the convenience of a starting list invalid; but we could certainly look at each item on the list in more scholarly format.

Shall we start at the top, with Tiktaalik? University of Chicago is the logical place to start, here.

[Captain Rhino]

Your statement would be true IF there was not so much pressure to conform to the "party line" on the theory of evolution (and other elements of the current cannon of scientific knowledge) within the academic and scientific community.

Not sure if you accessed the link at the end of my previous post but you might take a look at it. The scientist discussed there is not exactly outside the mainsteam scientific community. The article cites figures of 40% of the scientific community having religious beliefs (whatever that means.) But 40% (however large) is a minority and fear of being isolated and dismissed or debarred from research by the majority for un-PC holdings could be a pretty powerful incentive for a dissenting community to keep their collective mouths shut. So the question is:

"Is the notable lack of controversy you cite really evidence of a lack of controversy or is it evidence of an effective campaign to suppress dissenting views?"

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks"

There's not one missing link - ALL the links are missing.

What's interesting is the use of words like "links" and "transitional". The science of taxonomy itself contradicts Darwin's theory.

Paleontology and the words/definitions it incorporates, implies discreetness. Not continuousness. Darwin's continuous idea is merely a meme in our collective mind.

---excerpt from article---

However, even Darwin himself struggled with the fact that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions. ". . . Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? . . . Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1958 Masterpieces of Science edition, pp. 136-137). ". . . The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous," he wrote. "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]" (Darwin, pp. 260-261).

[Coyoteman]

I read the first one. It concludes science or evolution is all metaphysical or some such. Didn't we have a poster on these threads a few days ago saying exactly the same thing? Maybe he wrote the article.

One interesting quote:

Few would argue with the notion that ‘things change.’ But to take the step from ‘things change’ to ‘and therefore, that’s how it all got here’ is a leap of blind, irrational faith that would send even the most fanatical snake worshipper reeling.

Believe it or not, the author is bashing evolution with this quote! Or attempting to. Sounds like it applies more to religion than science.

Anyway, if the rest of the articles are like the first, its probably just more creation "science." Nothing to see there.

[VadeRetro]

Lessons from Evolutionist scholarship :

Three pig-ignorant antiscience screeches from a YEC site are sufficient excuse to dismiss two large catalogs of creationist deceit and your own plagiarization of a Dembski blog entry? (Ignoring for the moment that all said entry showed was that mathematicians of Dembski's special cachet are allowed to not know what "normalize" means and make propaganda hay thereby.)

Another category of YEC argument, "untruth by edited echolalia."

[Matchett-PI]

M-PI wrote: "Your [Douglas K C's} church (one of the spin-offs of Herbert W. Armstrong's cult) rejects many of the core doctrines of the historic Christian religion, doesn't it? For instance, you reject the Trinity doctrine believing that the Holy Spirit isn't God."

Diego1618 wrote: "Ah, yes.....the Trinity Doctrine. In order to support "THIS" theory you have to use terms not found in the Bible, rely on false scripture, depend on twisted interpretations that contradict extremely clear scripture, and create a convoluted "THEORY" that no one really understands forcing its adherents to declare it a mystery. What did your statement have to do with the subject of evolution....anyway?"

Point [1]: Your response is a non sequitur.

Point [2]: The purpose of my post was to bring certain things that float - to the surface so as to become visible to unwary, yet orthodox Christians.

Thanks. LOL

[Coyoteman]

Any thoughts on the question I asked in #184?

It is pertinent to this subject.

[SirLinksalot]

Many Evolutionsts think that by quoting Researchers who find little or no evidence to support the existence of transitional forms, the ones who publish these quotes may be taking at least some of those quotes out of context.

For instance, Stephen Jay Gould wrote,

“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt,”

In reading his publication, what are we to make of this ?

Are we to take it to mean that when he wrote this Gould meant some professionals OTHER THAN that paleontologists know the fossil record contains little in the way of intermediate forms and that transitions between major groups are abrupt?

Am I to understand that taken in context, Gould’s real position is TOTALLY CONTRASTING to what he wrote ?

If the answer to these questions is “yes,” I need explanation. And remember this --- A bare assertion that a quote is taken out of context means little. Back it up.

Don't get me wrong, I THINK that Gould believes in Evolution. It may also be true that he still believed to the end of his day that the fossil record GENERALLY supports evolution.

However, I have to say that INSPITE OF HIS STATED BELIEFS, it DOES NOT NEGATE the observation he and others like him made in their quotations.

[Coyoteman]

For your reading pleasure:

The Quote Mine Project
Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines
"Large Gaps"

Scroll down to Quote #41 and read the rest of it.

[andysandmikesmom]

Matchett-PI...I know that you and I do not agree on the evolution/creation debate...however, I have always taken the time to read the religion threads, and I always note that you are there, and seem to have a grasp of the Scriptures, that I do not have, and are able to point out and discuss areas of the Bible, where some popular 'ministers' or 'reverends', have come to some very different ideas, in opposition to what most mainstream, orthodox religions teach and preach about...

You have already pointed out this Herbert W. Armstrong, and I remember years ago, before he died, when he had a program on TV...if you dont mind, I would like to ask you about another TV preacher, who also has a home base church, but is on, at least here in the Pacific Northwest, for 6 hours at nite...I am speaking about Arnold Murray...

I bring his name up, because in the question and answer portion of his program, he was directly addressing Genesis...saying that there is a gap of millions or billions or years in between Genesis 1:1, and Genesis 1:2, during which time dinosaurs roamed the earth, and if I have my stories straight, also a time when we roamed the earth, but no in physical bodies, but rather in some sort of spirit sense...Murray calls this an 'age'....he then goes to talk about all the races of men, being created on the 6th day of creation, lots of lots of different people, and then Adam and Eve being created on the 8th day(Huh, I never heard of this 8th day)...

Also he asserts that there was a flood that Noah endured...however, this Murray asserts that Noah took on board, not just himself, and his wife, and his sons and daughters in law, but also took two of every other race of human beings aboard the ark...

This is all new stuff to me, and I am at a loss as to where these ideas come from...I bring this up, on this thread, rather than the religious threads, because I have seen some folks on these CREVO threads, make these very same assertions....that there were different 'ages', that the earth itself is billions of years old, but and occupies the gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, thus being of course relevant to this talk about creation/evolution...

Just curious about your opinion of this Arnold Murray, and his very different beliefs regarding creation/evolution...

Thanks in advance...

[VadeRetro]

You cannot blame the last 150 years of science, or the consensus for evolution therein, on "pressure to conform." You have to blame the evidence.

As far as your link goes, the antiscience scoffers on this thread need to read this part:

He tells fellow evangelicals that opposition to evolution undermines the credibility of faith. He finds the first "fundamentally flawed" and warns that the second builds upon gaps in evidence that scientists are very likely to fill in the future, among other objections.

That first sentence: He tells fellow evangelicals that opposition to evolution undermines the credibility of faith.

Creationist propaganda is a melange of willful ignorance and untruth instantly detectable as such. The endless dance of "You can't make me see" which its purveyors engage in amounts to adults misbehaving in public.

... the second builds upon gaps in evidence that scientists are very likely to fill in the future ...

Another problem is the seething hostility to scientific knowledge and the absolute crowing over real or (in many cases) imagined areas of ignorance. Such people are obviously not interested in learning anything. This is not hard to detect. You read a thread like this one and it's out there plain as day.

This is the guy you cite for as evidence for "Yes, Vade, there is a controversy in science after all." No there isn't. It's all trumped up by charlatans to fool credulous people who would have been more at home scientifically in the Bronze Age.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"What's interesting is the use of words like "links" and "transitional". The science of taxonomy itself contradicts Darwin's theory."

Not in any way.

[VadeRetro]

However, I have to say that INSPITE OF HIS STATED BELIEFS, it DOES NOT NEGATE the observation he and others like him made in their quotations.

So your quote mines are "fake but accurate?" Is that you, Dan?

[Oztrich Boy]

IOW, you took all the science out of it. Congratulations -

Creationism - turning science into stamp collecting

In the words of the Prophet

"About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to observe and not theorize; and I well remember someone saying that at this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the colours. How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!"
— Charles Darwin, letter to Henry Fawcett, 1861

[RightFighter]

Monkeys and apes have a common ancestor. Go back further, and you find a common ancestor for all mammals. From that ancestor evolved all the mammals we see today.

This is a load of crap. The common ancestor doesn't exist - it's never been found and it never will be.

[free_at_jsl.com]

This one lost me after the first line. Please read up on the definition of "theory" and how it applies to science. See "theory of gravity" for example.