Replies

I went to your website and read the usual junk science put out by devoted evolutionists. Still no mathematical treatment, no clear explanation of the "forces," that supposedly produced the millions of species that have existed on this earth. And the cheap labeling game to try and pull camels out of donkeys, or visa versa. Read my lips, "There are NO transitional species in the fossil record."

Here is to you and shubi about abiogenesis and why I WILL hold your feet to the fire in that TOE assumes the following, even if it does not explicitly state, what this evolutionist made clear on YOUR website:

Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin.

I love how they have to make disclaimer after disclaimer that TOE does not address abiogenesis. To bad they did not make this too clear in Time/Life depictions of evolution, nor make this REAL CLEAR in secondary education in the 60's, 70's, 80's.

And they do not make this clear in beginning biology classes in college EVEN today. But you and shubi must stress this point and isolate TOE from its own axiomatic conclusions. I guess if I must love TOE, I must love its dog, might as well introduce me to all its implications in the beginning. Your theory is false, and it is continually presented in a deceptive manner.

Here is to transitional forms:

Note the following from Dr. Alan Feducia of University of Northern Carolina, one of the world's leading bird experts AND an evolutionist.

‘Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of “paleobabble” is going to change that.’2

Archaeopteryx is the premier (and just about the only species) put forth as a "transitional" form. And yet one of the leading experts on birds who IS an evolutionist himself is honest enough to admit "it is a BIRD!" And this labeling game just goes on anyway.

I made fun of Stevie's name because I WAS aware of the origin of the Steve list...it is called irony.

Darwin's despair: www.custance.org, one of his books.

"BTW you have not yet explained whether you hate Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy, Vishnu, Kali, Osiris, Zeus, Athene etc etc or believe in them. I'd love to know which it is."

I believe in real people and real events, which one of the above do you consider REAL? You already believe in the utter fantasy of life popping up everywhere without any discernible cause, I suppose you sup up on Olympus in your spare time.

Sorry, abiogensis is not part of the ToE.

"Paleobabble" hehehe

There are a few here at FR that are quite fluent in that dialect.

Archaeopteryx is the premier (and just about the only species) put forth as a "transitional" form. And yet one of the leading experts on birds who IS an evolutionist himself is honest enough to admit "it is a BIRD!" And this labeling game just goes on anyway.

So Feduccia (who is not mainstream, BTW, on the subject of bird evolution) says it's a bird. What has that got to do with it being transitional? It's a bird with several features that all modern birds lack, but which reptiles have. It is therefore transitional.

Creationists are so fond of these idiotic semantic games.

I went to your website and read the usual junk science put out by devoted evolutionists. Still no mathematical treatment, no clear explanation of the "forces," that supposedly produced the millions of species that have existed on this earth. And the cheap labeling game to try and pull camels out of donkeys, or visa versa. Read my lips, "There are NO transitional species in the fossil record."

Sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and chanting "Lies, all Lies!" doesn't count as reading something. Once again your example shows your incomprehension: A camel giving birth to a donkey would falsify ToE, not confirm it.

Here is to you and shubi about abiogenesis and why I WILL hold your feet to the fire in that TOE assumes the following, even if it does not explicitly state, what this evolutionist made clear on YOUR website:

Interesting how easily you once again fall into the language of hate, pain, and torture.

I love how they have to make disclaimer after disclaimer that TOE does not address abiogenesis. To bad they did not make this too clear in Time/Life depictions of evolution, nor make this REAL CLEAR in secondary education in the 60's, 70's, 80's.

Don't blame me for the poverty of your education.

I made fun of Stevie's name because I WAS aware of the origin of the Steve list...it is called irony.

You should stay away from humour as you don't appear to understand it. Your "irony" only works if you see (as the rest of your post implied) Gould as an opponent of ToE who wouldn't be on the list if he were alive.

Darwin's despair: www.custance.org, one of his books.

Can you cite the reference more exactly please, so I can see what his source was.

"BTW you have not yet explained whether you hate Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy, Vishnu, Kali, Osiris, Zeus, Athene etc etc or believe in them. I'd love to know which it is."

I believe in real people and real events, which one of the above do you consider REAL? You already believe in the utter fantasy of life popping up everywhere without any discernible cause...

A ludicrous travesty of the ToE and abiogenesis that shows that you still don't understand ToE

... , I suppose you sup up on Olympus in your spare time.

Down through history numerous people have believed in all of the characters I listed. I don't believe in any of them, or your God either. According to you that means I hate them which I think is some kind of projection of your own feelings about things that you don't believe in. It is you that insists that disbelief is the same thing as hate so I have to conclude that you do hate those things. The question isn't which do I consider REAL, because I am not the one going round equating disbelief and hate.

Darwin's despair: www.custance.org, one of his books.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to cite something specific. "one of his books" covers over 10,000 pages of writing done over thirty years.

I can save you some trouble, however. I have researched a dozen claims made on FR that Darwin doubted his own theory. All such claims are rather easily proven to be lies. Not just incorrect interpretations, but deliberate and knowing lies, made by people with no scruples or conscience.

The standard method of writing by Darwin is to present the best case for his opposition and then repute it in detail. People who are entirely lacking in honesty will often pull a snippet from Darwin in which he is presenting his opponent's case -- then falsely impute the sentiment to Darwin.

All this demonstrates is that people who quote out of context are worshipping the Lord of Lies.

I went to your website and read the usual junk science put out by devoted evolutionists. Still no mathematical treatment, B: What type of mathematical treatment are you looking for? And why is one needed? no clear explanation of the "forces," B: Evolution doesn't have "forces". It does have mechanisms, one of them being Natural Selection. that supposedly produced the millions of species that have existed on this earth. And the cheap labeling game to try and pull camels out of donkeys, or visa versa. Read my lips, "There are NO transitional species in the fossil record." B: Your empty assertions are meaningless. Let Gould further illustrate that: In Hen's teeth and Horse's Toes pgs 258-260 : "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. We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibria largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuation and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane. Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equlibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. 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 record includes no transitional forms. Transistional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups" From Dinosaur in a Haystack, Gould has some to say about creatobabblers.. "The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are rare, to be sure, and for two good sets of reasons geological (gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change... ) But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair minded sceptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy. Later on.. Still our creationist incubi, who would never let facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yeild and continue to assert the absence of all trasnitional forms by ignoring those that have been found and continiuing to taunt us with admittedly frequent examples of absence. Here is to you and shubi about abiogenesis and why I WILL hold your feet to the fire in that TOE assumes the following, even if it does not explicitly state, what this evolutionist made clear on YOUR website: Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. I love how they have to make disclaimer after disclaimer that TOE does not address abiogenesis. B: ROFL. It doesn't. Anymore than stellar evolution addresses the formation of stars. There is a logical separation between the two processes. On the other hand creationists don't understand logic, which is why the above needs to be repeated over and over again. Here is to transitional forms: Note the following from Dr. Alan Feducia of University of Northern Carolina, one of the world's leading bird experts AND an evolutionist. ‘Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of “paleobabble” is going to change that.’2 B: Feduccia, is one of the very few paleontologists who argue that birds did not evolve from theropod dinos. However, there is nothing in this statement that indicates that Feduccia thinks archie is not a transitional form. Archaeopteryx is the premier (and just about the only species) put forth as a "transitional" form. And yet one of the leading experts on birds who IS an evolutionist himself is honest enough to admit "it is a BIRD!" And this labeling game just goes on anyway. B: ROFL. When all else fails.. play semantics. Of course Feduccia thinks archie is transitional. It is not a modern bird in any sense. But there is no taxonomic rank or place for "transitional form". Most paleotologists agree that archie is more bird-like than dino-like, and hence call it a bird. But your post is typoical for creationists. No data, no substance, and the quote that you provide don't even support your claims. Creationists hope nobody will notice.