The evolutionist mindset

npetreley · Aug 11, 2002

I can imagine certain things could possibly have happened in spite of the fact that there is no confirming evidence in the fossil record, my imaginary scenario violates laws of physics, and nothing like what I imagine has ever been observed. Therefore evolution has earned its reputation as being a fact.

ardipithecus · Aug 11, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley
I can imagine certain things could possibly have happened in spite of the fact that there is no confirming evidence in the fossil record, my imaginary scenario violates laws of physics, and nothing like what I imagine has ever been observed. Therefore evolution has earned its reputation as being a fact.

 

That certainly does not describe evolution which has loads of confirming evidnece in the fossil record, does not violate any laws of physics, and the basic proposed mechanism have been observed and thus quite rightly deserves to be considered factual.

 

seebs · Aug 11, 2002

What I love is the subtle difference; chickenman's article was "a creationist mindset", because honesty compelled him to admit that not all creationists think that way, only some.

Nick's article is titled "The evolutionist mindset", because whatever would compel him to admit that not all evolutionists think that way, he doesn't have it.

Christian Soldier · Aug 11, 2002

"That certainly does not describe evolution which has loads of confirming evidnece in the fossil record, does not violate any laws of physics, and the basic proposed mechanism have been observed and thus quite rightly deserves to be considered factual."

Gould and Eldredge admit there aren't "loads" of evidence in the fossil record. It's sad to see lesser educated evolutionists blindly holding on to the worn-out myth that there is. Please note that no evidence is presented, just the usual unfounded proclamations that there are "loads" of it.

The "basic proposed mechanism" has NOT been observed. None of the key tenets of Darwinism have been observed.

Despite all the evolutionist histrionics, evolution remains an unproven theory.

edgeo · Aug 11, 2002

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
Gould and Eldredge admit there aren't "loads" of evidence in the fossil record.

Please document your assertion.

It's sad to see lesser educated evolutionists blindly holding on to the worn-out myth that there is. Please note that no evidence is presented, just the usual unfounded proclamations that there are "loads" of it.

Click to expand...

Good, I suppose that means you have some of your own.  I'd love to hear it.

The "basic proposed mechanism" has NOT been observed. None of the key tenets of Darwinism have been observed.

Click to expand...

Talk about unfounded proclamations!  So what tenets do you refer to?  and what is the 'basic proposed mechanism?'

Despite all the evolutionist histrionics, evolution remains an unproven theory.

Click to expand...

Who said that it was proven?  I think you are confused here.  Do you understand what science does?  What a theory does?  I can oly agree with you that this is a sad situation when people make assertions about science but have no understanding of it.

Caffeine Socialism · Aug 11, 2002

I suggest that our knight in shining armor come up with a more plausible origin of life theory that has a better explanation for how humans are related to the most lowly bacterium (are they really that lowly?).

Hint: Creationism is an -ism.

Jerry Smith · Aug 11, 2002

Gould and Eldredge admit there aren't "loads" of evidence in the fossil record.

I guess you will have to provide a reference for this. Before you do, let me explain that I am wincing, because, while I know you will find no such "admission" in their writings, you will find that they commented on the state and quality of the fossil record as it pertains to fine-grained transitionals. I hope you will kindly skip all of those irrelevant quotes and go straight to the ones where they admit that there isn't much evidence for evolution in the fossil record. (Note, I didn't ask you for quotes saying that species-level transitional fossils are rare, or that there is little evidence for gradualism in the fossil record - because you didn't claim that they "admitted" that. I only ask for those that show them admitting that there is little evidence for evolution in the fossil record.)

I'll wait. 

Christian Soldier · Aug 11, 2002

"The oldest human fossils are less than 4 million years old, and we do not know which branch on the copious bush of apes budded off the twig that led to our lineage. (In fact, except for the link of Asian Sivapithecus to the modern orangutan, we cannot trace any fossil ape to any living species. Paleontologists have abandoned the once popular notion that Ramapithecus might be a source of human ancestry.) Thus, sediments between 4 and 10 million years in age are potential guardians of the Holy Grail of human evolution---the period when our lineage began its separate end run to later domination, and a time for which no fossil evidence exists at all."

Stephen Jay Gould, "Empire of the Apes", Natural History, May 1987.

chickenman · Aug 11, 2002

you'll notice that gould is talking about 4-10 million years ago, the earth has been around for ~4.5 billion years, and life at least 3 billion (or is it more) years. Gould comments on a scarcity of fossils for this specific window of time.

That in no way validates your claim.

sbbqb7n16 · Aug 12, 2002

Well I have been touring New York recently and I noticed soemthing in the Musuem of Natuarl History... there is a lot of open space filled in by scientists on quite a lot of the fossils there. In fact I remember one that has 1/2 a jaw on one side.. some of a forehead... and a couple other bits and pieces here and there... however the "scientist" behind it all showed the whole rest of the skull and what it exactly looks like based off the minute pieces... then claims that it is proven to be a human fossil for x-million years ago. I have observed that you have to have the mindset of "evolution is true" to believe in what the fossils supposedly represent. However I found it quite easy myself to see where the possiblity that it was possibly not a full grown individual... someone with a birth-defect (not a new species), a midget, not even a human, not even fossils from the same creature... it doesn't seem concrete enough to claim that all human life comes from some other people unless you already believe that we did. Just my thoughts

seebs · Aug 12, 2002

In many cases, the fossil pieces you're looking at match with similar pieces from other, more complete fossils; you aren't always seeing the best possible demonstration in the world.

I think it's concrete enough to be VERY convincing; essentially, we have a long series of hominids with gradually fuller and rounder skulls over a period of millions of years, and *MANY* instances of some of those skulls. An alternative theory would have to be something like "and then, for a million years, every human that was born grew to about 4' tall, with a deformed skull, and then died".

Christian Soldier · Aug 12, 2002

"you'll notice that gould is talking about 4-10 million years ago, the earth has been around for ~4.5 billion years, and life at least 3 billion (or is it more) years. Gould comments on a scarcity of fossils for this specific window of time.

That in no way validates your claim."

We were discussing the alleged evolution of a one-cell organism to man. Gould's statement clearly indicates that there is no fossil evidence of a link between ape and man. So that breaks the alleged evolutionary chain, rendering the one-cell to man hypothesis completely unproven.

So yes, my claim is validated. Gould acknowledges that the alleged chain from one-cell to man has a clear break in it. The missing link is still missing.

Please provide irrefutable scientific proof that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that life is at least 3 billion years old. That's sheer speculation on your part.

npetreley · Aug 12, 2002

Originally posted by seebs
In many cases, the fossil pieces you're looking at match with similar pieces from other, more complete fossils; you aren't always seeing the best possible demonstration in the world.

And in many cases, a few bone fragments is all we have. Care to give us the exact statistics, and demonstrate that the ones referred to are elsewhere complete, or are you just going to wave your hands?

chickenman · Aug 12, 2002

I guess you will have to provide a reference for this. Before you do, let me explain that I am wincing, because, while I know you will find no such "admission" in their writings, you will find that they commented on the state and quality of the fossil record as it pertains to fine-grained transitionals. I hope you will kindly skip all of those irrelevant quotes and go straight to the ones where they admit that there isn't much evidence for evolution in the fossil record. (Note, I didn't ask you for quotes saying that species-level transitional fossils are rare, or that there is little evidence for gradualism in the fossil record - because you didn't claim that they "admitted" that. I only ask for those that show them admitting that there is little evidence for evolution in the fossil record.)

We were discussing the alleged evolution of a one-cell organism to man.

no, we were discussing evolution

chickenman · Aug 12, 2002

Please provide irrefutable scientific proof that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that life is at least 3 billion years old. That's sheer speculation on your part.

these are the currently accepted ages, you should provide proof that they aren't correct

chickenman · Aug 12, 2002

oops, sorry

Life on Earth began at least 3.85 billion years ago, an international team of scientists reports in the cover story of the Nov. 7 issue of the journal Nature.

The scientists, from UC San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCLA's Department of Earth and Space Sciences, the Australian National University and England's Oxford Brookes University, present evidence that pushes back the emergence of life on Earth by 400 million years.

make that 3.85 billion years ago

D. Scarlatti · Aug 12, 2002

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
Gould and Eldredge admit there aren't "loads" of evidence in the fossil record.

You mean Niles Eldredge?

So there it is: creationism's worst nightmare in a nutshell. [...] We now see that successful early human species - like absolutely all other kinds of successful species that have been on Earth over the past 3.5 billion years - remained anatomically stable as long as their ecosystems remained stable.

The evidence is just too good: ironically, the fossil record of human evolution is one of the very best, most complete, and ironclad documented examples of evolutionary history that we have assembled in the 200 years or so of active paleontological research. And, as we shall see (in Chapter 6), creationist attempts to punch holes in this incredibly well documented history of human evolution are simply puerile and downright wimpy.

- Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism, from the conclusion to chapter 3, "The Fossil Record."

It's sad to see lesser educated evolutionists blindly holding on to the worn-out myth that there is.

So (your source) Niles Eldredge is a "lesser educated evolutionist"?

Jerry Smith · Aug 12, 2002

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
"The oldest human fossils are less than 4 million years old, and we do not know which branch on the copious bush of apes budded off the twig that led to our lineage. (In fact, except for the link of Asian Sivapithecus to the modern orangutan, we cannot trace any fossil ape to any living species. Paleontologists have abandoned the once popular notion that Ramapithecus might be a source of human ancestry.) Thus, sediments between 4 and 10 million years in age are potential guardians of the Holy Grail of human evolution---the period when our lineage began its separate end run to later domination, and a time for which no fossil evidence exists at all."

Stephen Jay Gould, "Empire of the Apes", Natural History, May 1987.

Thanks for the quote, but I was already aware of the fact that there are some "missing links" in the ape/human fossil transition in the fossil record. Are you going to validate your claim that Gould and Eldredge admitted that there was little evidence of evolution in the fossil record, or are you wrong about that?

Zadok · Aug 12, 2002

And in many cases, a few bone fragments is all we have. Care to give us the exact statistics, and demonstrate that the ones referred to are elsewhere complete, or are you just going to wave your hands?

HA!!! Shows how much you know about 'fossils'.

The best possible fossils you can have are the skulls of the animals. They can show climate, diet, and placement within the animal kingdom. Place those pieces with other evidences and you can get quite alot from just a couple of fragments and teeth or whatnot. Police detectives do the same exact thing that geologists do with the earth.

When the superficial, canned arguments run out, you creationists switch subjects, declare that you have 101 other things to do, or even attack us for "wasting your time". We get silence. After digging our way through the canned arguments, we get silence. It's as predictable as gravity.

I have seen it a dozen or more times on this forum in the last 5 months. After utterly nuking your 'stock' arguments you go quite dead in the mouth. I have seen it done when some cocky creationists bring in "Hovind Creationism", or even "Duane Gish Creationism".

I sat down for a nice dinner over at one of my friends house with some of his family. He was on leave from the Air Force and invited me over. And while we where eating they turned on the television to one of the "christian stations" which (luckly for me) was teaching some silly "bible science" crap.

I sat there and rebuttled every single claim they presented. They had a hack that was supposed to be a paleontologist (they couldn't even spell paleontologist which just goes to show you what a load this crap is) and he had somewhere between 5 and 6 degrees from who knows where, because they never said where he got all of them from.

One man pointed to a leg bone and stated ignorantly that "this is the leg bone of a stegosaur, which is one of the large sauropods". What a fraud.
He aslo pointed to a trilobite on a large map that represents idex animals from the Phanerozoic Eon, and said it was an "elrathia kingi". It WASN'T!!! It was a "PHACOPS RANNA". Frauds, all of them.

He even talked about the mezozoic era and pointed his fingure down the map to show where it began. HE POINTED TO THE PERMIAN EPOCH then started up. He even stated that scientists take an "OATH OF INDOCTRINATION!!!!!", ???????????????? They even used the 'piltdown man" nonesense and brought in every single rebuttled claim EVER!!!

These people have no idea what the heck they are saying. These people are "telling lies for god" for the ignorant multitudes... Pathetic!!!

npetreley · Aug 12, 2002

Originally posted by Zadok

HA!!! Shows how much you know about 'fossils'.

The best possible fossils you can have are the skulls of the animals. They can show climate, diet, and placement within the animal kingdom.

These people have no idea what the heck they are saying. These people are "telling lies for god" for the ignorant multitudes... Pathetic!!!

Whell gawlee. Ah shure bin humileeated bah dem edeekated sciuntists hoo thunk up Nebraska Man cuz theyall hadda tooth frum an exstinked sooeee pig. Dat shews jest howe grate dese fosills kin be frum da skulls.

The evolutionist mindset

pumpkin sailor

Active Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

QUESTION EVOLUTION

Active Member

Imagine all the people.

Fish out of water

QUESTION EVOLUTION

evil unamerican

Veteran - Blue Bible Dude

God Made Me A Skeptic

QUESTION EVOLUTION

pumpkin sailor

evil unamerican

evil unamerican

evil unamerican

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

The Fossil Hound

pumpkin sailor

Similar threads