does the phrase 'in the beginning...'

[archaeologist]

also, when i say evolution is inferred, and it is, especially in the fossil record, i am not alone in this and it evenhas support from lead evolutionists as well. taken from 'creation and Change' pg. 101:

"{the late} Stephen Jay Gould comments on the weight of fossil findings against evolutionary theory: New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rock rocks of the same region...The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secretof paleontology. the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inferrence, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils... Most species exhibit directional change during their tenure on earth...In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'"

so if evolutionists can see their 'evidence' fails why are 'christians' trying to 'fix' the problem by adding God to what he didnot author?

 

[gluadys]

also, when i say evolution is inferred, and it is, especially in the fossil record, i am not alone in this and it evenhas support from lead evolutionists as well. taken from 'creation and Change' pg. 101:



so if evolutionists can see their 'evidence' fails why are 'christians' trying to 'fix' the problem by adding God to what he didnot author?

Quote mining doesn't help your case.

I expect you have never read this excerpt in context, and have no idea how Gould resolved the apparent contradiction between evolution and the characteristics of the fossil record listed above.

Check back when you have studied Gould's solution. Oh, and no, he didn't need to "add God" to fix this problem.

 

[archaeologist]

i am not quote mining.

post your own quotes, i am not going to do your work for you.

as far as i am concerned everything else would be an excuse to justify not responding to the truth.

 

[gluadys]

i am not quote mining.

post your own quotes, i am not going to do your work for you.

as far as i am concerned everything else would be an excuse to justify not responding to the truth.

I know what Gould's solution was. The question is, do you know what it was.

If you are not quote mining, you will have read the whole article from which this excerpt comes and be able to enlighten us.

If you haven't read the whole article, or have read it but choose not to present Gould's solution, you are quote mining.

 

[archaeologist]

If you are not quote mining, you will have read the whole article from which this excerpt comes and be able to enlighten us.

well post it if you disagree with the conclusion that was drawn. are you that lazy you can't even defend your own statements?

I know what Gould's solution was. The question is, do you know what it was.

sorry unless you post what you think i will just continue with the conclusions i have made from his speaking. if you disagree, then it is up to you to provide the counter argument. i am not going to do my work as well as yours.

but that is one thing i have noticed about the defenders of TE here at this forum. they refuse to post anything to support their statements and positions, which tells me you are 1. not very academic; 2. you are lazy; 3. you have nothing to offer .

{and a little phrase just won't cut it}

If you haven't read the whole article, or have read it but choose not to present Gould's solution, you are quote mining.

you can define it any way you want to but you are making one big assumption if you think i am quote mining; oh and by the way, such practices as i have been doing are well accepted in the academic world, your way is not.

 

[Assyrian]

Archie got the quote from a creationist book 'creation and Change', how is he supposed to know the context or Gould's solution?

 

[gluadys]

sorry unless you post what you think

What I think is not relevant. What Gould thinks is relevant. Do you know what he said in the next paragraph, and in the paragraph after that, and the one after that?

You posted a paragraph in which Gould outlines a "problem" for evolution in the fossil record.

Have you ever read more of the article than that one paragraph?

If not, if you have never read the solution he presents by the end of the article, you are quote mining. You have cited a paragraph that does not faithfully represent Gould's actual position, because it does not show how Gould solved the "problem" he describes.

i will just continue with the conclusions i have made from his speaking.

If you base your conclusions on incomplete evidence, they will not be correct. You need to look at all Gould said, not just one paragraph taken out of context.

 

[gluadys]

Archie got the quote from a creationist book 'creation and Change', how is he supposed to know the context or Gould's solution?

Oh, indeed. I expect it is far too much to ask him to actually read Gould for himself.

 

[theIdi0t]

Archie got the quote from a creationist book 'creation and Change', how is he supposed to know the context or Gould's solution?

Does anyone know where I can read online, what Gould wrote in context? I tried searching through Google with what archie provided, but I only ran across creationist websites spreading the same exact gospel?

 

[archaeologist]

Have you ever read more of the article than that one paragraph?

i will wait till you learn how to post links to back up what you say. until then i am concentrating on othe rdiscussions

 

[theIdi0t]

i will wait till you learn how to post links to back up what you say. until then i am concentrating on othe rdiscussions

Context is always what is important archie. Atheist tend to present certain verses in scripture out of context to promote their case, and creationist do so abundantly as well. At this point we are all familiar with the trolling of that passage from the Origin of the Species:

“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 degree.”

You find this passage on hundreds if not thousands of creationist websites, that omit the rest of the passage where Darwin answers this dilemma. The answer for your question can easily be found if you read a bit further, but as others pointed out it is plain to see that you have not. Even if you are reluctant to admit it.

 

[archaeologist]

i can see your point but what i also look at is that darwin does not look to God does not attribute the 'evolution' of the eye to God thus why are 'believers' jumping on his bandwagon?

his theory is totally a secular construct and has no basis in reality because darwin is making conclusions based solely on observations made in his present, without benefit of observing developement.

in other words, he starts with the conclusion first then builds his theory, something that mallon raked AIG over for doing in another thread.

which is what all evolutionary scientists seem to be doing. they are starting with their conclusion,evolution is responsible, then building the facts around that so they get the 'evidence' the way they want it to be and not the way it is.

example: that video of the lecture at miller college. the dna scientist does the same thing. he siad if evolution is false then such and such should not take place. well that is starting form the conclusion and already ignoring the possiblitiy that other solutins could also have the same result. but it was solely limited to evolution.

sorry but i do not believe that evolutionist are honest in their work or presentations.

 

[archaeologist]

didn't think they would post the article to prove their objection, so the quote stands as true and refutes evolutionists claims to the fossil record.