Evolution As Science? Really...?

[Nathan Poe]

It is already known that this whole chart thing is for the horses.

Sure seemed like news to you...

All the different sized horses have been found in different strata both above and below common "modern" horses.

Source?

This has been rejected for sometime now....

Rejected by whom?

Only the uninformed still cling to this, usually because they are reading outdated evolution propaganda....

Seeing as how you cannot/will not support any of your claims, who are you to call anyone uninformed?

 

[HairlessSimian]

Edmond,
It is completely inconsistent of you to have read Gould, then to conclude that Gould disavowed evolution and to post an out-of-context quote of Gould's that appears to support such a notion. This is evidence of poor reading comprehension or a lack of integrity. I have read just about everything Gould has written and I can affirm with proof that he has never questioned the fact of evolution. He wrote prolifically about it. He repeatedly testified in courts about it. His theory of punctuated equilibrium beautifully adds to the mechanistic understanding of evolution and nicely explains the observed stasis and apparent suddenness of species change in the fossil record, which until then had been a sty in evolutionist eyes.
I suspect you haven't actually opened a book of Gould's and that your knowledge of Gould and of punctuated equilibrium is from what others have said about it.
I have a theory about you, Edmond. My theory says that you don't mind being dishonest when it suits you. It nicely explains your OP. It says that it suits you to be dishonest and cheat to score a point, as long as you look good in the eyes of your fellow thinkers, as long as you believe evolutionists deserve contrarian argument - the truth be dammed - or as long as you still have a shred of hope to cling upon that your beliefs will someday be vindicated by science. It's just my theory. Am I wrong?

 

[AndyB]

The teaching of creationism in schools as science not faith is blatant brainwashing of students.

You can accept that evolution exists and that god's creation of the word is a metaphor and still be a good christian. You possible can also be one who's world is based in reality.

 

[Physics_guy]

Finally came back to this thread. Obviously Edmond has not read any of Gould's papers or books. Pity for Edmond - Gould was a fantastic writer and could simplify concepts quite well to laymen's terms. It seems Edmond has no idea what Gould was actually arguing against nor any idea what Punctuated Equilibrium actually is. Too bad.

By the way - don't act like an arrogant ***** when you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Just a little recommendation.

 

[Edmond]

Finally came back to this thread. Obviously Edmond has not read any of Gould's papers or books. Pity for Edmond - Gould was a fantastic writer and could simplify concepts quite well to laymen's terms. It seems Edmond has no idea what Gould was actually arguing against nor any idea what Punctuated Equilibrium actually is. Too bad.

By the way - don't act like an arrogant ***** when you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Just a little recommendation.

An example of a typical evolutionists response...jump at the first assumption that will help subtanitiate your own fragile theories. That is the kind of reasoning that Darwin and Lyell used to start this whole modern evolution fiasco. It is as presdicatable as Pavlov's feeding experiments.

Sorry, but your assumptions are based on a lack of any true knowledge about what you presented as...being ...obvious. Again, just like the assumptions that preceeded the failure of evolution....they are not obvious either...just ask millions of scientists who have taken billions of man-hours trying to validate Darwin's accumptions...

See thread Quote Mining? No, Fact Stating. S J Gould Essay Disclosing the Debacle of Darwin’s Ev for the actual answers...
-----------------------------------------

 

[Loudmouth]

An example of a typical evolutionists response...jump at the first assumption that will help subtanitiate your own fragile theories.

It is not an assumption, it is a conclusion inferred from the evidence. Again, 9 commandments seem satisfactory for you.

Sorry, but your assumptions are based on a lack of any true knowledge about what you presented as...being ...obvious. Again, just like the assumptions that preceeded the failure of evolution....they are not obvious either...just ask millions of scientists who have taken billions of man-hours trying to validate Darwin's accumptions...

What were those assumptions?

See thread Quote Mining? No, Fact Stating. S J Gould Essay Disclosing the Debacle of Darwin’s Ev for the actual answers...

You have responses waiting for you in that thread. You might want to read it yourself.
-----------------------------------------[/QUOTE]

 

[Physics_guy]

An example of a typical evolutionists response...jump at the first assumption that will help subtanitiate your own fragile theories. That is the kind of reasoning that Darwin and Lyell used to start this whole modern evolution fiasco. It is as presdicatable as Pavlov's feeding experiments.

My "theories" are hardly fragile or dear - they are simply logical assessments based on the evidence. You haven't read any of Gould's numerous books or papers, have you? I know you have read and misunderstood numerous quotes of his probably taken from some creationist site, but you haven't actually gone back and read what he was saying have you?

Sorry, but your assumptions are based on a lack of any true knowledge about what you presented as...being ...obvious. Again, just like the assumptions that preceeded the failure of evolution....they are not obvious either...just ask millions of scientists who have taken billions of man-hours trying to validate Darwin's accumptions...

Funny how the overwhelming majority (something like 99% of the world's biologists) support the Theory of Evolution and Common Descent, isn't it? I know, they spent all those "billions of man hours" as part of some big ruse in the giant atheist conspiracy they are part of, right? You creationists need to go out buy some more tin-foil hats.

See thread Quote Mining? No, Fact Stating. S J Gould Essay Disclosing the Debacle of Darwin’s Ev for the actual answers...

I read it - I saw you mangling Gould's intentions quite well - your YEC handlers must be proud of you, nothing like good old intellectual dishonesty to bring in the faithful, right? Don't worry, God won't care if you lie to convince people of your message, just that you bring them to him, right? Those commandments were really just guidelines, right?

Thanks for the entertainment.

 

[Edmond]

My "theories" are hardly fragile or dear - they are simply logical assessments based on the evidence. You haven't read any of Gould's numerous books or papers, have you? I know you have read and misunderstood numerous quotes of his probably taken from some creationist site, but you haven't actually gone back and read what he was saying have you?

You may want to read the thread...Quote Mining? No, Fact Stating. S J Gould Essay Disclosing the Debacle of Darwin’s Ev...to re-evaluate some of your assumptions... Taken from a creationist site? On the contrary, you'll find the Gould essay derived from the Gould Library.

Funny how the overwhelming majority (something like 99% of the world's biologists) support the Theory of Evolution and Common Descent, isn't it? I know, they spent all those "billions of man hours" as part of some big ruse in the giant atheist conspiracy they are part of, right? You creationists need to go out buy some more tin-foil hats.

Well, that is NOT actually a peculiar fact at all. Letls all at the FACTS. Consider, first the FACT that 99% of the world's biologists were first educationally indocrinated exclusively into evolution. Consider secondly, the FACT, that the same 99% have been hired to make most of their liveihood by trying to amass 'evidence' and information and doing research to 'affrim' what they have been indocrinated into believing is the ONLY answer to what we see of life including and most importantly...the origins of human kind. So no, it is actually not surprising at all as a matter of FACT.......

I read it - I saw you mangling Gould's intentions quite well - your YEC handlers must be proud of you, nothing like good old intellectual dishonesty to bring in the faithful, right? Don't worry, God won't care if you lie to convince people of your message, just that you bring them to him, right? Those commandments were really just guidelines, right?

Mangling his intension? Read the thread referred to above. Those were not Gould's 'intention'. They ARE his CONCLUSIONS. I would suggest you distinguish the difference and heed his CONCLUSION very carefully. They come from a man who was not afraid to be honest with his evaluations about Darwin's assumptions...as he well points out throughout the essay.....

Thanks for the entertainment.

Likewise, indeed....

------------------------------------------------

 

[Tomk80]

A funny thing in Edmond's posts is that the more the thread progresses, the more erratic he gets. The more erratic he gets, the more smilies he uses. I wonder what it is possible to create a smiley scale for the erraticness of Edmond?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

A funny thing in Edmond's posts is that the more the thread progresses, the more erratic he gets. The more erratic he gets, the more smilies he uses. I wonder what it is possible to create a smiley scale for the erraticness of Edmond?

Its a stress response.

Ghost

 

[Tomk80]

Its a stress response.

Ghost

Is there any literature on the correlation between smiley-use and stress? Maybe some scales that are rigorously defined?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Is there any literature on the correlation between smiley-use and stress? Maybe some scales that are rigorously defined?

Not yet but I am looking for a new research project. ... oh hang on...

Ghost

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Is there any literature on the correlation between smiley-use and stress? Maybe some scales that are rigorously defined?

I think CF needs to add one like this.

 

[Edmond]

Edmond,
It is completely inconsistent of you to have read Gould, then to conclude that Gould disavowed evolution and to post an out-of-context quote of Gould's that appears to support such a notion. This is evidence of poor reading comprehension or a lack of integrity. I have read just about everything Gould has written and I can affirm with proof that he has never questioned the fact of evolution.
He wrote prolifically about it. He repeatedly testified in courts about it. His theory of punctuated equilibrium beautifully adds to the mechanistic understanding of evolution and nicely explains the observed stasis and apparent suddenness of species change in the fossil record, which until then had been a sty in evolutionist eyes.
I suspect you haven't actually opened a book of Gould's and that your knowledge of Gould and of punctuated equilibrium is from what others have said about it.

I really think it would be wise for you to go and read the OP of the CE thread...Quote Mining? No, Fact Stating. S J Gould Essay Disclosing the Debacle of Darwin’s Ev...before you continue to dig the hole any deeper. ..

I have a theory about you, Edmond. My theory says that you don't mind being dishonest when it suits you. It nicely explains your OP. It says that it suits you to be dishonest and cheat to score a point, as long as you look good in the eyes of your fellow thinkers, as long as you believe evolutionists deserve contrarian argument - the truth be dammed - or as long as you still have a shred of hope to cling upon that your beliefs will someday be vindicated by science. It's just my theory. Am I wrong?

Dido above notation. I know confrontation with the truth on issue makes some of you very mad. I'd suggest you get used to it. There will be a lot more of it coming to the world. There won't be any opportunity to argue any longer with the truth I'm referring to. ...

-----------------------------------------------

 

[pantsman52]

I really think it would be wise for you to go and read the OP of the CE thread...Quote Mining? No, Fact Stating. S J Gould Essay Disclosing the Debacle of Darwin’s Ev...before you continue to dig the hole any deeper. ..



Dido above notation. I know confrontation with the truth on issue makes some of you very mad. I'd suggest you get used to it. There will be a lot more of it coming to the world. There won't be any opportunity to argue any longer with the truth I'm referring to. ...

-----------------------------------------------

Wow Edmond, I can't imagine how you act in real life. I could imagine you arguing with me and saying that the sky is green.

 

[Edmond]

Wow Edmond, I can't imagine how you act in real life. I could imagine you arguing with me and saying that the sky is green.

It would be a novel approach for you guys to stay on task of the subject of the OP and the content being discussed. Instead you address the commentary of a post instead of the content. This response is a common example of that fact.

I suppose that is one way to handle information when the comment, based on direct content form a prominent indivaual from your own camp, like Gould, says straight out that the assumptions of the origianator of this modern bio evolution debacle, Darwin, were completely in error and not at all what we see in real life in the field.

That is the point I make about getting used to the truth. That is what this idea of science AND LIFE is supposed to be all about. I suggest you get used to it.

--------------------------------------------

 

[perplexed]

I suppose that is one way to handle information when the comment, based on direct content form a prominent indivaual from your own camp, like Gould, says straight out that the assumptions of the origianator of this modern bio evolution debacle, Darwin, were completely in error and not at all what we see in real life in the field.
--

Gould questions only one of Darwins assumptions but he agrees with Darwin's ideas as a whole. Darwin stated that evolution ALWAYS happens slowly in geological time. Gould thinks evolution can happen quickly in geological time.

 

[Loudmouth]

Since Edmond accepts Gould as an authority, I will include some more Gould quotes for him.

"It [PE] represents no departure from Darwinian mechanisms." (Gould and Eldredge 1977, Section IV, "PE as the basis for a Theory of Macroevolution", page 139)

"No theory of evolutionary mechanisms can be generated directly from paleontological data ... We can apply and test, but we cannot generate new mechanisms." (Gould and Eldredge, p. 93)

"PE is a model for discontinuous tempos of change at one biological level only: the process of speciation and the deployment of species in geological time." (Gould and Eldredge 1977, p. 145)

And I especially like this one:

"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 1983)

I assert that it is by design AND stupidity.

 

[RouterX]

I always find it interesting that Christians get so bothered by the teaching of evolution. The fact is, resurrection of the body after death is denied in science class as well, but we don't have a problem with that.

The resurrection of Christ and creation are both miracles beyond our comprehension.

If someone was to come up to me and say, "Science proves that Christ could not have died and rose again." I would simply shrug that comment off. I have faith that Christ has risen. So, when someone comes up to a Christian and says, "Science proves that Genesis 1 is incorrect.", we need to tell them about our faith instead of attacking their science.

Bonhoeffer was quite clear about theologians not touching the science argument. He states, "we are stuck in the middle", between creation and the end-times. We are unable to comprehend God's creative act and should not even go there. Let's let scientists do what scientists do. They will be the first to admit when they are on the wrong track. The scientist should not affect our understanding of the miracle of Genesis just as he does not affect our understanding of the miracles of Christ.

Theologians do not make good scientists but they make excellent witnesses for Christ. During these times of debate over ID versus evolution, let's make sure we use the opportunity to witness for Christ. Isn't it a shame that Christians in North America are becoming known more for their defense of creationism than they are for their faith in Jesus Christ?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

It would be a novel approach for you guys to stay on task of the subject of the OP and the content being discussed. Instead you address the commentary of a post instead of the content. This response is a common example of that fact.

This response is a common example of what happens when someone, like you, makes claims and ignores all evidence that they are false.

I suppose that is one way to handle information when the comment, based on direct content form a prominent indivaual from your own camp, like Gould, says straight out that the assumptions of the origianator of this modern bio evolution debacle, Darwin, were completely in error and not at all what we see in real life in the field.

Gould does NOT say that or anything like it. That he does is simply a blatant lie on your part.