Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Bradskii]

Such a gentle way of saying it.

I'll remember that one.

B: 'Good grief, how much did that dress cost?'
Mrs. B: 'Not much, it was just a few dollars on sale'
B: 'I think that's an excessive statement of mis-truth'
Mrs. B: 'I beg your pardon..?
B: 'Nothing dear...'

 

[Subduction Zone]

Congratulations, you’re consistently wrong,

I probably know more about science than you do.

And what shows how ludicrous the constant litany from evolutionists that if we understood the science we’d be in lockstep with the religion of atheistic materialism is, is the inconvenient fact of the thousands of creationists with PhDs in science, and especially the fact of the existence of those like Professor Dean Kenyon and others, who were once ardent evolutionists.

LOL!! This claim coming from the person that refuses to even discuss the basics of science. Your actions refute your claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Get serious. Punctuated Equilibrium aka Equilibria, is a ludicrous hypothesis postulated in an attempt to explain away the lack of any evidence in the fossil record of phyletic gradualism.

I see that you are continuing to ignore the fact that transitional forms have been found since that was proposed. You also expect to see that which is not predicted. In other words you are making a strawman argument.

It’s completely nonsensical, because common sense knows isolated populations can’t, and don’t, have the kind of intensive burst of macro evolution required to change body plans.

And yet we have evidence of it. Such a shame.

In fact it wasn’t hard to find information from wildlife biologists who work with endangered species - which are the epitome of isolated populations - that confirmed the fact that isolated populations lose diversity, and don’t gain it.

No, no, no. They are the opposite of what one would look for. I see that you do not understand PE either.

But PE illustrates the fact that evolutionists will grasp at straws and any half-baked idea, as long as it promotes ToE.

Projection.

And yes, it’s an incontrovertible fact that both Gould and Eldridge admitted there’s no evidence in the fossils, and PE is their pitiful attempt to explain the dearth of fossil evidence,

Sigh, fossils have been found since their time. Why do creationists think that no new fossils are ever found?

And there’s nothing wrong with citing people and using quotes - every college level paper written, and most books, cite quotations in them.

That quote mining nonsense originated from the talk origins website.

Actually it is terribly wrong. As shown by my example using the Bible you are justifying arguing that there is no God by abusing the Bible. By the way, are you willing to take up the challenge that AV failed at. I quoted part of a specific verse that said "there is no God". By the way, I did not type that it is a copy and paste from the quote from the Bible. You know that was taken out of context just as your quotes were. Quote mining is almost always used to lie. You cannot win a debate with quote mines.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s bogus.

Transitional fossils are still missing in all the important areas.

And common sense knows that there can’t be short periods of intense macro evolution, to the point of creating new body plans.

Wildlife biologists who work with endangered species- the epitome of isolated populations- confirm that isolated populations lose genetic diversity - thus the facts are diametrically opposed to the PE hypothesis.

But PE is a good example of the fact that evolutionists are willing to accept any half-baked theory tif it promotes ToE.

Nope. We have more than enough transitional fossils. But then you probably do not understand the basic concepts. And though there is more than enough evidence in the fossil record you keep ignoring the strongest evidence for evolution.

Ridiculous.

A quote such as one from Gould admitting that the lack of transitional fossils in all the important places is the trade secret of paleontology, is a valid citation, and is too clear to obfuscate with complaints about quote mining.

Not if it is taken out of context the way that you did. You are in effect defending refuting God by abusing the Bible.

Once creationists point out a problematic fact about ToE, evolutionists fall all over themselves to spin what they originally said, or to spin the facts.

You cannot find any such problems. All you have is quote mining. If you have a genuine problem please bring it up. If you quote mine your error will be made public. You lose when you quote mine.

Which is exactly what Gould did when he saw that his PE hypothesis blew up in his face.

BTW, anyone who ever wrote a college level paper, had to include citations and quotes for every single point they made. It’s SOP.

Pretending there’s something wrong with using quotes from those in the evolutionary field is preposterous and ludicrous - which is the edited version of how I classify whining about quote mining.

No, it never did. PE is still part of the theory of evolution today. And I have doubts if you ever wrote a college level paper. One needs valid sources. You cannot seem to find any. One cannot quote mine, that appears to be all that you can do. Like it or not quoting out of context is almost always an attempt to lie. Refute my quote of the Bible. I doubt if you can. You would need to find the specific verse that I quoted to show that I quote mined.

 

[Astrid]

I'll remember that one.

B: 'Good grief, how much did that dress cost?'
Mrs. B: 'Not much, it was just a few dollars on sale'
B: 'I think that's an excessive statement of mis-truth'
Mrs. B: 'I beg your pardon..?
B: 'Nothing dear...'

Remember Ms Estrid here predicts a massive fail.
Worse than the rancid dumpster fire in
this thread.

 

[Astrid]

Nope. We have more than enough transitional fossils. But then you probably do not understand the basic concepts. And though there is more than enough evidence in the fossil record you keep ignoring the strongest evidence for evolution.



Not if it is taken out of context the way that you did. You are in effect defending refuting God by abusing the Bible.



You cannot find any such problems. All you have is quote mining. If you have a genuine problem please bring it up. If you quote mine your error will be made public. You lose when you quote mine.



No, it never did. PE is still part of the theory of evolution today. And I have doubts if you ever wrote a college level paper. One needs valid sources. You cannot seem to find any. One cannot quote mine, that appears to be all that you can do. Like it or not quoting out of context is almost always an attempt to lie. Refute my quote of the Bible. I doubt if you can. You would need to find the specific verse that I quoted to show that I quote mined.

Why continue after seeing a demonstration of inability to
admit to the smallest error .

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Why continue after seeing a demonstration of inability to
admit to the smallest error .

For the "Lurkers" ?

 

[Astrid]

For the "Lurkers" ?

I guess.
It's been a shameful display.
Anyway, I'm out.

 

[dlamberth]

For the "Lurkers" ?

The conversation has been interesting to watch. And I found myself googling octopus, so I've learned a thing or two.

 

[Astrid]

The conversation has been interesting to watch. And I found myself googling octopus, so I've learned a thing or two.

"Other Minds" is a wonderful book about the octopus.
The strange evolutionary path that led to that marvellous
creature is well worth the book, to read about it, but what
has been learned of their intelligence is stunning.
I sort of thought I knew a bit about the cephalopds,
but!

One thing...I cannot eat octopus any more. : (

 

[AV1611VET]

Off to ig city with you.

Oh OH, Chad!

You've done it now!

 

[AV1611VET]

Adam Sedgwick was ordained in 1818. And was the geologist who NAMED the Cambrian era.

Adam Sedgwick is in aitch.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Adam Sedgwick is in aitch.

No. He is not
NOBODY is in your "aitch'

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why continue after seeing a demonstration of inability to
admit to the smallest error .

It is a slow day.

 

[Bradskii]

"Other Minds" is a wonderful book about the octopus.
The strange evolutionary path that led to that marvellous
creature is well worth the book, to read about it, but what
has been learned of their intelligence is stunning.
I sort of thought I knew a bit about the cephalopds,
but!

One thing...I cannot eat octopus any more. : (

As Spike Milligan once said, he'd never eat anything that was smarter than him.

 

[Bradskii]

It is a slow day.

It's either this or chop all the wood in the garden and stack it under the deck.

 

[Frank Robert]

Congratulations, you’re consistently wrong,

I probably know more about science than you do.

I am sure you misunderstand more science than I know.

And what shows how ludicrous the constant litany from evolutionists that if we understood the science we’d be in lockstep with the religion of atheistic materialism is, is the inconvenient fact of the thousands of creationists with PhDs in science, and especially the fact of the existence of those like Professor Dean Kenyon and others, who were once ardent evolutionists.

Strange! For the third time I recommend that you read before you continue to with your mistaken belief.
A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

"A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" (or "Dissent from Darwinism") was a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank based in Seattle, Washington, U.S... As part of the Discovery Institute"s Teach the Controversy campaign, the statement expresses skepticism about the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encourages careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinism", a term intelligent design proponents use to refer to evolution.[1]

...The Discovery Institute has continued to collect signatures, reporting 300 in 2004,[32] over 600 in 2006 (from that year on the Discovery Institute began to include non-US scientists on the list),[5] over 700 in 2007,[6] and over 1000 in 2019.[4]​

 

[Frank Robert]

Get serious. Punctuated Equilibrium aka Equilibria, is a ludicrous hypothesis postulated in an attempt to explain away the lack of any evidence in the fossil record of phyletic gradualism.

That quote mining nonsense originated from the talk origins website.

Quotes are easily shown to be mined when the quote does not match the written record that it is take from, especially when the parts that are left out are the contain very things that creationists want to avoid.

I can understand your reluctance to reading the talk origin pages. By not reading the quote mining pages you don't have to face the obvious fact that creationists are quote mining which allows you to continue in ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am sure you misunderstand more science than I know.


Strange! For the third time I recommend that you read before you continue to with your mistaken belief.
A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

"A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" (or "Dissent from Darwinism") was a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank based in Seattle, Washington, U.S... As part of the Discovery Institute"s Teach the Controversy campaign, the statement expresses skepticism about the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encourages careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinism", a term intelligent design proponents use to refer to evolution.[1]

...The Discovery Institute has continued to collect signatures, reporting 300 in 2004,[32] over 600 in 2006 (from that year on the Discovery Institute began to include non-US scientists on the list),[5] over 700 in 2007,[6] and over 1000 in 2019.[4]​

Could you please edit out that the Discovery Institute is in Seattle in future posts? That is terribly embarrassing for people that live in the Puget Sound area

 

[Frank Robert]

That’s the point: real science doesn’t require atheism and naturalistic bias - yet the field of evolution has been hijacked by atheism.

Sounds like been locked away in a cave for many many years.

Thus the fact that common ancestry is explainable by a common creator, can’t even be mentioned, let alone considered as one of two possibilities.

As long as God chooses to remain hidden he will remain unavailable for scientific study. In other words, it is God's choice to remain out of science's reach.

And the constant litany from evolutionists claiming that we can’t possibly understand science or we’d be evolution proponents, is beyond ludicrous.

You don't need to be an proponent of evolution to understand it.