I desperately need valid proof of creationism.

AthensToJerusalem · Sep 8, 2017

P.S.: You can add this to the list: Evolutionists Tripping Over Human Tracks on Crete | CEH

"Per Ahlberg and his friends publishing in the Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association have gotten their field of paleoanthropology in hot water. Writing in The Conversation, Ahlberg, from the University of Uppsala, says, “Our controversial footprint discovery suggests human-like creatures may have roamed Crete nearly 6m years ago.” Six million years? That’s way back before humans were supposed to have evolved. This not only throws the evolutionary timeline out of whack, it threatens the “out of Africa” hypothesis and suggests (to evolutionists) that humans evolved in Europe."

Job 33:6 · Sep 8, 2017

AthensToJerusalem said:
Could you be more specific? Somehow I find it unlikely that he would write something that contradicts this view of his:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

But I suppose it's possible that he did.

Let me first start by expanding on your quote (as it appears to be...more or less quote mined).

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record.

[1] Referring to Huxley's warning to Darwin, literally on the eve of the publication of Origin of Species, that "[y]ou have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum [nature does not make leaps] so unreservedly." - Ed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't mind at all.

I apologize for those reading this who are already aware. Gould is an advocate of punctuated equilibrium. He operates through geology and paleontology and so all of his research and writing occurs, through that perspective.

And, I'm a geologist, I consider myself to be aware of precisely what he is talking about.

His perspective though, almost exists in competition with the perspective of gradualists and or some gradualist biologists. And yet, not really, as gradualist mutation rates can account for spacing in the fossil succession, but thats another discussion. (see Gould in blue text).

When Gould refers to "tips and nodes", he is referring to fossils, separated or limited by actions of the earth. Which is why he says "He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.".

He is basically saying that people who do not understand geology or reject it, will not understand what he is trying to say or will reject his words (his words being in favor of punctuated equilibrium).

"I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks."

He follows by saying that, he doesnt want his words to be taken out of context as a refutation of gradualistic evolution, just that not all gradual life transitions are preserved in the earth, and therefore not all fossils are seen in the rocks. Without all fossils, this means that gradualism is possible, but so too are other considerations like punctuated equilibrium.

"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

We are the students of lifes history, yet we know that earth has digested much of the fossil succession. Even though we see evolution occurring (as Darwins theory in biology has proposed) in the fossil succession, our collective evidence cannot explain with high precision, how it has occurred.

So what do we do if we see evolution occuring but cannot pinpoint with high precision how it has occurred? (gradualism or punctuated equilibrium?)

"Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. "

He proposes a a form of evolution that fluctuates in frequency or acceleration, based on the extremes of environmental stresses (punctuated equilibrium). The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change (gradualism). In fact, the operations of darwinian processes (mutations via natural selection) should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record (tips and nodes of transitional fossils).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, to summarize, it is him just sharing his thoughts on how evolution occurs. He still is aware that the fossil succession demonstrates evolution, and he is also aware that transitional fossils are prevalent in the fossil succession. He is just taking the discussion to the next level and saying..."ok, now that we are aware that evolution has occurred, lets propose an alternative way that it may have occurred (an alternative to gradualism), based on the evidence we found in the fossil succession". That is punctuated equilibrium in a nutshell. Punctuated equilibrium is a concept built upon an understanding of transitional fossils, and so Gould could not be arguing against the fossil succession. In reality, he is making an argument in favor of it.

sfs · Sep 8, 2017

AthensToJerusalem said:
Could you be more specific? Somehow I find it unlikely that he would write something that contradicts this view of his:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

But I suppose it's possible that he did.

Well, there's this (lifted from the talk.origins site):

[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]

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.

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

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.

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

And then there's the data he actually used in his papers. For example, in their main punctuated equilibrium paper, he and Eldredge included this figure:

It illustrates the kind of jerky evolution he's referring to -- but the jerks occur in the evolution of a single species. In another paper, he includes this figure:

It show the fossil record of several closely related species of early primate. Older samples are on the bottom and more recent one on top; the horizontal axis describes the size of the lower jaw (the number next to each bar is the number of fossil samples found in that layer). There are smooth transitions between some of the species, and one of Gould's "jerks" (more of a twitch, really), to produce the species in the top right-hand corner. So yes, Gould was well aware of transitional fossils.

By the way, many of the other things you wrote in your previous post were incorrect. For example, there are many Biblical scholars who accept an old earth (I would say the great majority, but that depends on who you count as a Biblical scholar). Just among conservative Protestants, that includes N.T. Wright, John Walton, and Scott McKnight, to name three of many.

Nearer to home for me, population geneticists do not think that humans have been deteriorating genetically for thousands of years. There is some concern that modern society and modern medicine have made it possible for deleterious mutations to survive that would have been weeded out previously, but that's a very recent phenomenon and has nothing to do with the validity of evolution.

Job 33:6 · Sep 8, 2017

AthensToJerusalem said:
P.S.: You can add this to the list: Evolutionists Tripping Over Human Tracks on Crete | CEH

"Per Ahlberg and his friends publishing in the Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association have gotten their field of paleoanthropology in hot water. Writing in The Conversation, Ahlberg, from the University of Uppsala, says, “Our controversial footprint discovery suggests human-like creatures may have roamed Crete nearly 6m years ago.” Six million years? That’s way back before humans were supposed to have evolved. This not only throws the evolutionary timeline out of whack, it threatens the “out of Africa” hypothesis and suggests (to evolutionists) that humans evolved in Europe."

Human-like mammals actually go back further than 6 million years.

Sahelanthropus for example is dated at 7 million. But make no mistake, these are not full humans that are being described, these are partial human-partial primitive apes that are being discussed.

By contrast, the morphology of the sole print is not especially hominin-like: compared to a modern human sole print it is proportionately shorter, with a narrow tapering heel, and lacks a permanent arch. The prints are also smaller than any known hominin print population

AthensToJerusalem · Sep 8, 2017

KomatiiteBIF said:
Let me first start by expanding on your quote (as it appears to be...more or less quote mined).

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record.

[1] Referring to Huxley's warning to Darwin, literally on the eve of the publication of Origin of Species, that "[y]ou have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum [nature does not make leaps] so unreservedly." - Ed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't mind at all.

I apologize for those reading this who are already aware. Gould is an advocate of punctuated equilibrium. He operates through geology and paleontology and so all of his research and writing occurs, through that perspective.

And, I'm a geologist, I consider myself to be aware of precisely what he is talking about.

His perspective though, almost exists in competition with the perspective of gradualists and or some gradualist biologists. And yet, not really, as gradualist mutation rates can account for spacing in the fossil succession, but thats another discussion. (see Gould in blue text).

When Gould refers to "tips and nodes", he is referring to fossils, separated or limited by actions of the earth. Which is why he says "He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.".

He is basically saying that people who do not understand geology or reject it, will not understand what he is trying to say or will reject his words (his words being in favor of punctuated equilibrium).

"I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks."

He follows by saying that, he doesnt want his words to be taken out of context as a refutation of gradualistic evolution, just that not all gradual life transitions are preserved in the earth, and therefore not all fossils are seen in the rocks. Without all fossils, this means that gradualism is possible, but so too are other considerations like punctuated equilibrium.

"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

We are the students of lifes history, yet we know that earth has digested much of the fossil succession. Even though we see evolution occurring (as Darwins theory in biology has proposed) in the fossil succession, our collective evidence cannot explain with high precision, how it has occurred.

So what do we do if we see evolution occuring but cannot pinpoint with high precision how it has occurred? (gradualism or punctuated equilibrium?)

"Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. "

He proposes a a form of evolution that fluctuates in frequency or acceleration, based on the extremes of environmental stresses (punctuated equilibrium). The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change (gradualism). In fact, the operations of darwinian processes (mutations via natural selection) should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record (tips and nodes of transitional fossils).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, to summarize, it is him just sharing his thoughts on how evolution occurs. He still is aware that the fossil succession demonstrates evolution, and he is also aware that transitional fossils are prevalent in the fossil succession. He is just taking the discussion to the next level and saying..."ok, now that we are aware that evolution has occurred, lets propose an alternative way that it may have occurred (an alternative to gradualism), based on the evidence we found in the fossil succession". That is punctuated equilibrium in a nutshell. Punctuated equilibrium is a concept built upon an understanding of transitional fossils, and so Gould could not be arguing against the fossil succession. In reality, he is making an argument in favor of it.

First of all, not sure what you mean by "aware". Aware of what? I was "aware" that "evolution is a fact" for most of my life (as well as being an atheist) until relatively recently when I decided to take a step back and take another look at the issue. I could say that you're the one who's not "aware" but that would be condescending and arrogant so I won't.

Also, regarding "quote mining": It's a completely legitimate tactic to use the statements of one's opponents to make a point. Everyone does it. And if you're a creationist, you're almost forced to do it regularly since the great majority of researchers in the sciences are evolutionists. Of course, you can use the quotes of creationists as well, but then people will say they don't matter because they're not "real" scientists. You can't win lol. More often than not, accusations of "quote mining" are simply bizzare.

The problem would be quoting out of context. But I maintain that this is definitely not true for the case in point. And the expanded quote you show only further strengthens the point. Embarrassment, uncomfortable paradox...It's not hard to see there's something important going on here...Gradualism not "seen" in the rocks...So where exactly am I guilty of this "quote mining" you speak of?

But here's something interesting...You claim that the modern theory of evolution does not require gradualism (that's probably why "evo devo" and the so-called third way of evolution is gaining in popularity as an alternative theory). Not only that, but apparently the fossil record is exactly what you'd expect it to be.

Here is how I see it, and how anyone not committed to evolution is bound to see it: You didn't find the fossils you were looking for, the missing fossils Darwin saw as a problem but expected would show up sooner or later. But lo and behold, there's something called the modern theory of evolution which actually doesn't require those particular fossils. In fact, the lack of those fossils is actually evidence of evolution! And since you already know evolution is true (you didn't explain how you know this) and evolution is happening (again, you didn't tell us how), this theory must be the right one, obviously. It's exactly what you'd expect. Statis? Evidence of evolution. Abrupt change? Evidence of evolution. Absence of evidence becomes...evidence. All you need is a new, ad hoc revision of your theory.

When you have a theory such that every imaginable fact can fit into it, you've got a problem. And as far as the fossil record showing evolution, I beg to differ. It's not just a lack of fossils that's the problem. The fossils are totally out of whack. Here are just a few problems:

- the famous Tiktaalik: "Trackways said to be 18 million years older than Tiktaalik, showing digits and alternating steps...These results force us to reconsider our whole picture of the transition from fish to land animals..." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107114420.htm

- “although most textbooks include some sort of speculation on the evolutionary origin of feathers ... [a] morass of contradictory theories and muddy thinking ... occurs in ... much of the literature on this subject” - Dr. Klotz

- "Until now we had assumed that more complex fully roofed nests had evolved from those without roofs. This study demonstrates that in fact it was the opposite, in that these simple nests evolved several times independently, and the bird families that made this switch to simple nests are some of the most species-rich bird families today, such as the Australian honeyeaters.” More Collapsed Darwinian Expectations | CEH

- Mechanism for photosynthesis already existed in primeval microbe https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170131124132.htm

- "India gradually drifted away from Africa and Madagascar towards the north and collided with the Eurasian plate. Scientists assumed for a long time that the subcontinent was largely isolated during its long journey through the ocean and unique species of plants and animals were therefore able to develop on it. However, paleontologists at the University of Bonn are now showing using tiny midges encased in amber that there must have been a connection between the apparently cut off India and Europe and Asia around 54 million years ago that enabled the creatures to move around. The surprising results are now presented in the journal PLOS ONE." https://phys.org/news/2017-01-india-isolated-thought.html

This is just a tiny sample of a whole mountain of problems. Does evolution have any predictive power at all?

When you are at a stage where you are being "forced to reconsider your whole picture" in pretty much all the relevant areas, I think it's time to admit that what you have is not a "fact". It's a research project. And repeating something like a mantra doesn't make it true. This is the very least a rational, honest evolutionist would do.

And if you want to base your acceptance of evolution on "evolution in action", you have an even bigger problem. The changes we observe have to do with rearrangement of already existing genetic information. We've never observed a change where new information is added. It's not just that the changes are too small (in fact, sometimes they're quite big), it's that they're not the right type of change. People should keep this in mind whenever they see the mainstream media bloviating about "evolution in action".

And here's something about natural selection + mutation: "We find that even in enormous populations, natural selection is often very inefficient at distinguishing between mutations that are beneficial and deleterious on average. In addition, substitution rates of all mutations are dramatically increased by variable selection pressures. This can lead to counterintuitive results. For instance, mutations that result in a trade-off but are predominantly deleterious during their lifetime can be much more likely to fix than mutations that are always neutral or even beneficial." Fate of a mutation in a fluctuating environment

Oh and by the way, since you're a geologist, you might be interested in this: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.13182/NT16-98

AthensToJerusalem · Sep 8, 2017

KomatiiteBIF said:
Human-like mammals actually go back further than 6 million years.

Sahelanthropus for example is dated at 7 million. But make no mistake, these are not full humans that are being described, these are partial human-partial primitive apes that are being discussed.

What are you talking about? Tetrapods are all four-limbed vertebrates. That includes humans. Tetrapod - Wikipedia

But either way, the problem is the location: "But surprisingly, fossil and geological evidence indicates that the footprints are 5.7 million years old. That means they predate the period during which hominins are conventionally believed to have left Africa by about 4 million years."

"Are the “mystery feet” human? Barras quotes Robin Crompton (U of Liverpool) admitting, “almost without doubt actual footprints of a bipedally-walking animal"

Job 33:6 · Sep 8, 2017

The bottom line is, you made a quote about Gould, I told you it was incorrect. You asked me to elaborate and I did.

Thats all there is to it. No need to go on a long tangent about creationism vs evolution.

Job 33:6 · Sep 8, 2017

AthensToJerusalem said:
What are you talking about? Tetrapods are all four-limbed vertebrates. That includes humans. Tetrapod - Wikipedia

But either way, the problem is the location: "But surprisingly, fossil and geological evidence indicates that the footprints are 5.7 million years old. That means they predate the period during which hominins are conventionally believed to have left Africa by about 4 million years."

"Are the “mystery feet” human? Barras quotes Robin Crompton (U of Liverpool) admitting, “almost without doubt actual footprints of a bipedally-walking animal"

they arent human feet. Its that simple, and the research paper doesnt say that they are.

Your positions are made of misconceptions and a misunderstanding of paleontology.

Job 33:6 · Sep 8, 2017

"
- the famous Tiktaalik: "Trackways said to be 18 million years older than Tiktaalik, showing digits and alternating steps...These results force us to reconsider our whole picture of the transition from fish to land animals..." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107114420.htm"

Here is another one. 18 million years prior to tiktaalik. Ok, and? Where was it found? Shallow marine environment, mid devonian. ok? Whats the issue? Was it in the ediacaran or the cambrian? No. How about the ordovician or silurian? No. How about the early devonian? No. It was found 18 million years prior to tiktaalik, which in geologic terms basically means it was found in a single layer right below tiktaalik. Its not like it was found in the hadean or something wild. It was found right splat in the mid devonian, right where the transition is already understood to have occurred.

But people who dont understand paleontology do not understand this. And they quote mine and take arguments out of context.

Job 33:6 · Sep 8, 2017

Are the paluxi tracks controversial? To paleontologists yes, because each paleontologist wants to be the one to discover the absolute "first" of a fossil. Ted Daeschler and Neil Shubin found tiktaalik and said hey look, we found the "first", so we are the latest and greatest and all you other paleontologists are washed up. And they found their fossil right in the devonian, age of the fish, where vertebrates first walked on land.

Then someone else came along and so hold up, no no, i found the first. Mine is in the devonian too, but its right before yours. Not by a long shot. Its not like the tracks appeared before fish, or in the precambrian or ordovician or even the silurian or anything like that.

If you had a 4,560 page book, it would be found a mere 18 pages before tiktaalik.

This is not a challenge to the fossil succession, it is confirmation. It is paleontologists fighting it out over very fine tuned and precise details.

sfs · Sep 8, 2017

AthensToJerusalem said:
Does evolution have any predictive power at all?

Yes. Common descent lets us predict all kinds of genetic data. No alternative does that.

AthensToJerusalem said:
The changes we observe have to do with rearrangement of already existing genetic information. We've never observed a change where new information is added.

That's simply false. We see new genetic information all the time. We see it in the lab and we see it in the wild.

Papias · Sep 9, 2017

AthensToJerusalem said:
Could you be more specific? Somehow I find it unlikely that he would write something that contradicts this view of his:
.......

But I suppose it's possible that he did.

His view is not, and has never been, that transitional fossils are insufficient to prove evolution correct.

But first, we need to talk about quote mining. Quote mining is taking part of a quote, especially part out of a long work, like a book, which has, say, a whole paragraph or more discussing an idea that the author is saying is wrong, but explaining fully before refuting in a following paragraph or chapter, and then presenting it alone, out of context. Then pointing to it to misrepresent the author's view.

A very good example of this kind of lying is seen in the use of Darwin's eye quote. Here is what creationists often quote to "show that even Darwin knew the eye couldn't evolve" :

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

The quote is real, but they end it there, instead of including the next sentences:

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

Then, Darwin continues with page after page describing a sequence of plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes, giving examples from existing organisms to show that the intermediates are viable - the exact opposite of what the first quote is presented as.

See how it works? It's basically an elaborate way to lie.

So, what about the quote you gave, from Gould?

As in the above example, it's out of context. In context, it's part of a long discussion explaining that the fossil record shows fewer transitionals at the species level than one would expect if the changes were linear - but they aren't linear and shouldn't be expected to be linear, and hence he's building up to proposing punctuated equilibrium, which is simply the recognition that evolution happens faster at some times and slower at others - and idea that Huxley pointed out in Darwin's time.

Specifically, in this situation, he's talking about species level transitions, not genus level or higher, which show plenty of transitional fossils. Plus, you'll note that even in that quote, he doesn't say they are absent even at the species level, only that they are rare. Just as in the example above, the next part was taken out, which reads:

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.

The quote you gave also cuts out stuff from the middle (where you wrote ...), which also puts it in the context of gradual species evolution vs. evolution at different speeds.

In other words, it's a quote mine - deception.

After seeing himself lied about over and over with this and other similar quote mines, Gould had this to say:

Transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. ....then he discusses several examples of clear transitional sets of fossils....

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.

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

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.

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

See how you've been lied to about how Gould saw transitional fossils? He fully knew that there were hundreds of clear transitional fossils, and it was lying by quote mine that people used to fool you into thinking otherwise.

In Christ-

Papias

Papias · Sep 9, 2017

AthensToJerusalem said:
Also, regarding "quote mining": It's a completely legitimate tactic to use the statements of one's opponents to make a point.

Really? How about this?

Did you know that the Bible says that the atheists are right?

It says:

"There is no God!" - Psalm 14:1

but of course, we know that's a quote mine too. The full text reads:

The fool says in his heart: "there is no God!"

Quote mining is lying. And that violates the 9th commandment.

In Christ - Papias

SkyWriting · Sep 13, 2017

AthensToJerusalem said:
You mean scientific proof? Science can't prove how old the world is one way or another. It's the unobservable past you're dealing with here.

Living Soul · Sep 18, 2017

Never thought I'd see the day when so many people who call themselves Christians would replace God's word with Darwinian evolution. Amazing.

Makes me wonder how they justify the death and resurrection of Christ, or if they've also reduced Jesus to symbolism as well.

sfs · Sep 18, 2017

Living Soul said:
Never thought I'd see the day when so many people who call themselves Christians would replace God's word with Darwinian evolution. Amazing.

They've been around since before you were born, so you shouldn't be surprised. Only most of them do believe the Bible to be God's word.

Living Soul said:
Makes me wonder how they justify the death and resurrection of Christ, or if they've also reduced Jesus to symbolism as well.

Rather than wondering, why not ask them? Or read one of the many books, articles and blog posts they've written? That way you could see what they actually think, rather than just imagining. You could start with Denis Lamoureux's I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution", or with the recent book by New Testament scholar Scot McKnight and biologist Dennis Venema (Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science), or by browsing the BioLogos website.

SkyWriting · Sep 24, 2017

Living Soul said:
Never thought I'd see the day when so many people who call themselves Christians would replace God's word with Darwinian evolution. Amazing.

Makes me wonder how they justify the death and resurrection of Christ, or if they've also reduced Jesus to symbolism as well.

Just because Darwin rejected God as a mechanism for evolution doesn't
mean we need to think anything is random and not pre-planned.

Justatruthseeker · Oct 9, 2017

LoveGodHateSin said:
Hello everyone,

I'm assuming that this is the correct subforum in which to post this topic, but if not, forgive me. Basically, I've grown up in a home that believes in 100% biblical inerrancy and that's what I've believed, but recently I've been having a lot of doubts about creationism in particular. There are a few articles and websites that I have read that seem to completely and almost convincingly refute the idea of creationism. I'll link them below.

Ken Ham's 10 facts that prove creationism - Debunked

Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki

An Index to Creationist Claims

Falsifiability of creationism - RationalWiki

How am I, as a Christian, supposed to keep my belief in biblical inerrancy when there are all of these rebuttals that seemingly debunk creationism? Why can't creationists come up with good rebuttals to evolutionists' claims and rebuttals? If the creation story and the fall of man aren't true then is there no original sin by Adam? If there wasn't then why did God even have to send Christ to die for us, or did He? Was there even divine intervention in the universe's creation or formation? Is my faith just weak? I don't mean to cause controversy, I just really need some answers. I'm so tired of doubting my whole life. If these can't be answered, I'm afraid I may start to slip away to agnosticism. So, if anyone has answers, please share them.

Thank you!

Use your reasoning.

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian and African mate is variation seen in the species. Neither the Asian nor the African evolved into the Afro-Asian. The Asian remained Asian and the African remained African.

Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when Husky and Mastiff mate is variation seen in the species. Neither the Husky nor the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. The Husky remained Husky and the Mastiff remained Mastiff.

So too with the fossil record. T-Rex remained the same from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found. They have simply incorrectly classified subspecies in the fossil record as separate species based upon their beliefs.

In reality these:

Are no more a separate species than these.

But because they never saw them in real life like dogs, they incorrectly classified them as separate species. Their classifications follow their beliefs, not their beliefs what we observe.

It is just like Darwin's finches. Darwin classified them as separate species believing they were reproductively isolated. 200+ years later we test their DNA and find they had been interbreeding since arriving on the islands. Hence they were never reproductively isolated, and speciation never occurred. Yet despite the DNA tests they refuse to correct their mistakes in classification. Continuing to label them as separate species to support their beliefs.

Evolution is incorrect classification after incorrect classification. Error after uncorrected error.

BetzaidaK · Oct 9, 2017

LoveGodHateSin said:
Hello everyone,

I'm assuming that this is the correct subforum in which to post this topic, but if not, forgive me. Basically, I've grown up in a home that believes in 100% biblical inerrancy and that's what I've believed, but recently I've been having a lot of doubts about creationism in particular. There are a few articles and websites that I have read that seem to completely and almost convincingly refute the idea of creationism. I'll link them below.

Ken Ham's 10 facts that prove creationism - Debunked

Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki

An Index to Creationist Claims

Falsifiability of creationism - RationalWiki

How am I, as a Christian, supposed to keep my belief in biblical inerrancy when there are all of these rebuttals that seemingly debunk creationism? Why can't creationists come up with good rebuttals to evolutionists' claims and rebuttals? If the creation story and the fall of man aren't true then is there no original sin by Adam? If there wasn't then why did God even have to send Christ to die for us, or did He? Was there even divine intervention in the universe's creation or formation? Is my faith just weak? I don't mean to cause controversy, I just really need some answers. I'm so tired of doubting my whole life. If these can't be answered, I'm afraid I may start to slip away to agnosticism. So, if anyone has answers, please share them.

Thank you!

Hello,

Creationists often say that the entire universe was created in six literal 24-hour days some 6,000 years ago. With teachings like this, they misrepresent the Bible, which says that God created the heavens and the earth “in the beginning”—at some unstated point before the more specific creative “days” began. (Genesis 1:1) Significantly, the Genesis account shows that the expression “day” is used in a flexible sense. At Genesis 2:4, the entire period of six days described in the preceding chapter is spoken of as only one day. Logically, these were, not literal days of 24 hours, but long periods of time. Each of these epochs evidently lasted thousands of years. Also in Genesis 2:3 God states that he proceeded to rest and has been since the seventh day began. So when the Bible uses the words "days" in the Genesis account, it isn't referring to a literal day but to an extended period one. Example is when someone says "Back in my day..." They aren't referring to a specific day but to a period that encompassed a long period of time. The Bible and Science don't contradict each other as many like to think. The Bible has just been misrepresented in many cases. Creationists, sometimes known as Fundamentalists, do not concord with what the Bible teaches in the Genesis account.

Justatruthseeker · Oct 9, 2017

AthensToJerusalem said:
You mean scientific proof? Science can't prove how old the world is one way or another. It's the unobservable past you're dealing with here.

They could come closer if they followed their own science. But alas it would point to a more youthful age and contradict their beliefs, so they ignore the very science they profess to follow.

For example. Science believes the universe began accelerating after the beginning. They believe time slows under acceleration. Yet they refuse to adjust their clocks for time dilation the further they go back in time. Science says that clocks ticked faster the further one goes back in time. Therefore by using the slower rate of clocks today, they come to an incorrect conclusion as to its age. But it is not merely clocks which ticked faster the further one goes back in time, but by extension decay rates as well. But again, they use the slower decay rate of today to calculate decay rates into the past without taking into account time dilation.

The twin under acceleration does not just have his clock change, but his decay rate as well, he ages less. If he tried to calculate his true age using the rate of his current clocks, he would come to the wrong result. As a matter of fact once acceleration begins, the true rate of time can never be deduced. The twin believed his clocks did not change. That the stationary twins clocks were the ones that changed. His error was made known when he returned to that frame and realized he was younger, not the stationary twin which he believed would be younger. he could not deduce anything correctly, even the changing of his own clocks. Everything he believed was shown to be wrong. Yet understanding we began acceleration an unknown time ago, proponents believe as did the twin that they are correct, even when the twin was never correct about anything concerning time......

I desperately need valid proof of creationism.

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Listening to TW4

Listening to TW4

The Librarian

Active Member

Senior Member

The Librarian

Newbie

Member

Newbie

Similar threads