- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,352
- 10,607
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Originally Posted by godenver1
The above post doesn't address the issue of the reliable evidence for YECreationism. This post seemingly tried to dispel the credibility of the theory of evolution, but (although I'm no expert) it appears to lack an accurate understanding of what it is. I don't see anyone claiming a single celled amoeba can "turn" into a horse. Give me 5 minutes and I'll try and find an 8 minute YT video covering the basics.
The easter-bunny like fictions of evolutionism are not "wrong because Bible Believing Christians can make life in their own creationist labs better than evolutionists can" or any such thing.
The easter-bunny like junk-science fictions of evolutionism - are simply wrong.
As one of their own says "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" when it comes to the stories of "how one thing came from another" to march up the taxonomic ladder of life.
This is about the paucity of evidence demonstrating the salient point of blind-faith evolutionism.
As one of their own admits - "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" when it comes to the stories of "how one thing came from another" to march up the taxonomic ladder of life.
[FONT="]On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows: [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.[/FONT]
[FONT="]You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwins authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when [/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]they say there are no transitional fossils[/FONT][FONT="]. [/FONT][FONT="]As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]You say that[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="] I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no [/FONT][FONT="]there is no way of answering the question[/FONT][FONT="]. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. [/FONT][FONT="]But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test[/FONT][FONT="].[/FONT][FONT="] So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job [/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="][Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwins Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]
[FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]of course this ignores the fiction that 'all news is good news' if you are an evolutionist.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT] [FONT="] [/FONT]
Sorry about the delay.
This post doesn't address any evidence at all, and claims that evolutionism is "easter-bunny like junk-science fictions (sic)" without any actual evidence to prove so. It is hard for me to actually respond when there's no evidence or sources up for debate. I haven't read the OP in a while, but I believe this thread is about the creationist argument, and not about evolution. I haven't seen a decent defence of the YEC argument other than a certain interpretation of the bible which has been displayed is up for debate, and quite possibly not the correct interpretation.
And then of course
[FONT="]Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museums general text on evolution) in a talk given at the American Museum of Natural History 1981[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]--------------------- Patterson said -[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said I know one thing it ought not to be taught in high school [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] "...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year [/FONT][FONT="]I had a sudden realization. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had [/FONT][FONT="]been working on this stuff for[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled[/FONT][FONT="] for so long... [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow.[/FONT][FONT="] We know it ought not to be taught in high school, [/FONT][FONT="]and perhaps that's all we know about it...[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]about eighteen months ago...I woke up and [/FONT][FONT="]I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth [/FONT][FONT="]in some way."[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
Upvote
0