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

[AirPo]

More fatal faulty assumptions about radio carbon dating that add to the existing assumptions upon which the evolutionary assumptions of an earth that IS billoins of years old are based. Oh, yes. ....

http://www.contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php

Why is this not found at an evolutionist site? Gee, I don't know?? ....


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

Because it's invalid. There, now you know.

 

[Loudmouth]

More fatal faulty assumptions about radio carbon dating that add to the existing assumptions upon which the evolutionary assumptions of an earth that IS billoins of years old are based. Oh, yes. ....

http://www.contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php

Why is this not found at an evolutionist site? Gee, I don't know?? ....


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

Do you like baseball? I do. Whenever I see a creationist site listed it always looks like a big, fat, fastball coming right down the pipe. I'll show you why (as if I already didn't with the other creationist sites you listed). I'll list the supposed assumptions that C14 dating is based on and why they are not assumed but conclusions based on real data.

Assumption one: "First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates."

Constant decay of radioisotopes is not assumed, it is a conclusion drawn from cosmological and geological data. First, new isotopes are produced in supernova and their decay energies can be measured. The energy given off during decay is directly tied to the other decay characteristics as determined by well understood and accepted formulas. One example is Supernova 1987a. Therefore, constant decay rates are not assumed, they have been measured to be constant. The only thing that is capable of changing decay rates is extreme pressures and temperatures.

Secondly, the conditions required for C14 to decay at a different rate would destroy the sample. C14 is used to date organic material that is less than 50,000 years old. The temperatures and pressures needed would turn these samples into ash.

Assumption 2: "The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years."

Already discussed. C14 formation has fluctuated in the past, and the amount of those fluctuations is known. Therefore, C14 dates can be calibrated to take those fluctuations into effect. I wonder why you never read about these calibrations on creationist websites?

Assumption 3: "Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere."

This is nothing but a reiteration of assumption 2. C14 has not remained constant, but those fluctuations have been measured and are used when dating organic remains.

Looks like that fastball is sailing over the fence.

 

[HairlessSimian]

you wouldn't lie.

Right thanks for the waring Loundmouth. A little warm under the collar? . I'll give you a 6 to 10,000 year spread. It takes no greater amount of time to get ALL OF RECORDED HUMAN HISTORY into that span of time. The rest is all part of the evolutionary mythological assumption theory. It’s base on the old evolutionist circular reasoning syndrome. First, assume that fossils evolved over billions of years from a common ancestry. ( Already refuted as dramatically lacking any credible evidence by Stephen Jay Gould. See OP and following..) Then, take those assumptions and further assume the dates of the rocks. Next, construct a full "geologic Column' that does not actually exist anywhere in the world and invent a strata graphic structure for plugging assumed astronomical dates of the layer of the earth’s crust...of course determined by what?....The "age" of the fossils. Now I ask myself this question....That is science???? .....

SJ Gould NEVER refuted common ancestry. Stop spreading lies.

 

[Edmond]

you wouldn't lie.

SJ Gould NEVER refuted common ancestry. Stop spreading lies.

You seem to be having a problem with reading comprehension at the moment. Read the full article at the site presented in the OP. Gould clearly stated in several places that NO gradual development between species has ever clearly been found in the fossil record. That was Dariwn's failed hypothesis upon which his entire assumption of evolution rested...( also clearly stated by Gould). Ergo...Gould's rescue attempt for evolutionary biology...Punctuated Equilibrium. He also made that very clear in his essay Opus 200.

Without transitions between kinds what happens to common ancestry? There is no substantiating evidence it has ever existed in the past. That is the root meaning of the word ancestry...meaning the hereditary past. You don't really come form a ape. Oddly enough, that is probably not seen as good news from your perspective.

Common ancestry was only a hopeful conception in Dariwn's imagination. It obviously never came to full term in reality. Oh well, as he said..'Survival of the fittest' old boy. That obviously was not a very fitting idea. It is nothing more than a fabble. By the way, this is speading truth Hairless...not lies. You seem to have the two concepts inverted. ...


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

 

[perplexed]

Edmond
please give a summary of Darwins statements and describe how Goulds statements dispute it. As far as I can tell Darwin says evolution happens and is always slow in geological and normal time whereas Gould says Evolution happens but Darwin was wrong to say it was always slow.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Edmond.

You are in the grip of an overarching prior commitment to Biblical literalism that blinds you from even the ability to read for meaning when doing so would damage your preconceptions.

As such you have nothing useful to say. You are on ignore.

 

[Edmond]

Edmond.

You are in the grip of an overarching prior commitment to Biblical literalism that blinds you from even the ability to read for meaning when doing so would damage your preconceptions.

As such you have nothing useful to say. You are on ignore.

That is an astonishing statement. May I reciprocate with my diagnosis of your position?

I perceive you to you in the clutches of a blinding and overpowering commitment to evolutionary liberalism. I believe its deception is blinding you from the ability to read for content and meaning when doing so would destroy the preconceptions you have chosen to stake your eternity on.

As such you will compromise nothing in your belief and have little more than the typical evolutionary rhetoric to offer. I'm sure you found that to be very profound....and insightful.

However, unlike yourself, I am not offended by the opposing position or about debating someone of the opposing opinion. ...

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

 

[Dannager]

That is an astonishing statement. May I reciprocate with my diagnosis of your position?

I perceive you to you in the clutches of a blinding and overpowering commitment to evolutionary liberalism. I believe its deception is blinding you from the ability to read for content and meaning when doing so would destroy the preconceptions you have chosen to stake your eternity on.

As such you will compromise nothing in your belief and have little more than the typical evolutionary rhetoric to offer. I'm sure you found that to be very profound....and insightful.

However, unlike yourself, I am not offended by the opposing position or about debating someone of the opposing opinion. ...

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

The difference, of course, being that Karl will deny that your accusations are the truth and will likely be correct, being of a scientific (and thus accepting and even encouraging of change) persuasion. Would you deny that you place your convictions stemming from the Bible above evidence, should such evidence exist? Therein lies the difference.

 

[Edmond]

The difference, of course, being that Karl will deny that your accusations are the truth and will likely be correct, being of a scientific (and thus accepting and even encouraging of change) persuasion. Would you deny that you place your convictions stemming from the Bible above evidence, should such evidence exist? Therein lies the difference.

I might say, you are taking great license referring to anything of evolutionary origns as 'scientific'. All of it, starting with Darwin and Lyell, was based on nothing more than gross and very fragmented natuarlistic observations and a hopeful refutation of traditonal perceptions about the world, life and their beginning. As for its true objective scientific value, it has been a hoax from its beginnings. It has since become a self-perpetuating 'task' of some realms of 'science' of prove that this conception can be rescued. One such rescue attempt was Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory...to replace Darwin original 'evolutionary scientific' failed gradualism assumption.

Modern evolution has never, since its beginings, come to the tables of science objectively trying to be either disproven or proven. From day one its full agenda has been to prove itself a viable and survivable idea. That is not the method of testing any true scientific assertion.

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

 

[Edx]

From day one its full agenda has been to prove itself a viable and survivable idea. That is not the method of testing any true scientific assertion.

IF YOU SAY SO MR EDMOND SIR...

 

[Caphi]

I might say, you are taking great license referring to anything of evolutionary origns as 'scientific'. All of it, starting with Darwin and Lyell, was based on nothing more than gross and very fragmented natuarlistic observations and a hopeful refutation of traditonal perceptions about the world, life and their beginning. As for its true objective scientific value, it has been a hoax from its beginnings. It has since become a self-perpetuating 'task' of some realms of 'science' of prove that this conception can be rescued. One such rescue attempt was Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory...to replace Darwin original 'evolutionary scientific' failed gradualism assumption.

Modern evolution has never, since its beginings, come to the tables of science objectively trying to be either disproven or proven. From day one its full agenda has been to prove itself a viable and survivable idea. That is not the method of testing any true scientific assertion.

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

I guess backpedaling is the cool thing to do nowadays. First your position was that Gould was a creationist. That's been shot down. Now you say that he's trying a "rescue attempt." I think you're the one grasping to rescue your position, Edmond. What do you plan to do when your new position is refuted? Like this: Punctuated equilibrium is neither a hasty assumption nor is it a Gould creation. The idea has been around for considerable time - in fact, biologists were of two camps over the issue, one favoring gradualism, the other punctuation. Gould is not rescuing anything. He's simply making it clear that he's a punctuationist (as it were) and providing arguments to his case. There's nothing new here, just another instance of the back-and-forth intelligent discussion within the community of science.

 

[Edmond]

I guess backpedaling is the cool thing to do nowadays. First your position was that Gould was a creationist. That's been shot down.

You are certainly either kidding or you simply have not read his own essay Opus 200. In it Gould makes it quite clear that he is not an advocate of creation or a creationist.

Now you say that he's trying a "rescue attempt." I think you're the one grasping to rescue your position, Edmond. What do you plan to do when your new position is refuted? Like this: Punctuated equilibrium is neither a hasty assumption nor is it a Gould creation. The idea has been around for considerable time - in fact, biologists were of two camps over the issue, one favoring gradualism, the other punctuation. Gould is not rescuing anything. He's simply making it clear that he's a punctuationist (as it were) and providing arguments to his case.

Again, you must not have read Gould's essay. In it Gould uses that exact expression with regard to his attitude toward Darwin's assumptions about gradualism and its embarrassments to science.

There's nothing new here, just another instance of the back-and-forth intelligent discussion within the community of science.

Very nice attempt, but its not that easy! Your interest in ignoring what Gould is saying is really all the indictment that is needed to clarifiy your intensions. Again, truth is not the thing sought by so many evolutionists. ....



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

 

[perplexed]

Edmond is obviously a troll. It is irrational to be annoyed by his little games.

 

[Caphi]

You are certainly either kidding or you simply have not read his own essay Opus 200. In it Gould makes it quite clear that he is not an advocate of creation or a creationist.

Yeah, just keep backpedaling. All the cool creationists are doing it, right?

Again, you must not have read Gould's essay. In it Gould uses that exact expression with regard to his attitude toward Darwin's assumptions about gradualism and its embarrassments to science.

Embarrassments? Please, Edmond, you give yourself too much credit. Gradualism is no more an "embarrassment to science" than the prospect that the world is spherical. It was a nice theory which was working nicely until someone got nitpicky, and then it had to be modified ever so slightly.

Very nice attempt, but its not that easy! Your interest in ignoring what Gould is saying is really all the indictment that is needed to clarifiy your intensions. Again, truth is not the thing sought by so many evolutionists. ....

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

Now wait, let me try to follow your argument here. The fact that I'm debating with you is evidence that I'm lying? That's the best one I've heard in a while. Seriously, do some proper debating or not at all.

 

[Edmond]

[/color]
Yeah, just keep backpedaling. All the cool creationists are doing it, right?

Embarrassments? Please, Edmond, you give yourself too much credit. Gradualism is no more an "embarrassment to science" than the prospect that the world is spherical. It was a nice theory which was working nicely until someone got nitpicky, and then it had to be modified ever so slightly.

Again, for anyone who is interested...simply read Stephen jay Gould's essay, Opus 200...site location supplied in the OP. His conclusions and wording are very clearly placed. ...

Now wait, let me try to follow your argument here. The fact that I'm debating with you is evidence that I'm lying? That's the best one I've heard in a while. Seriously, do some proper debating or not at all.

You seem to keep loosing the point of this entire thread...The content of Gould's essay in the OP. I have not presented my argument. What I have presented are Gould's summaries of Darwin's dream child....it was called gradualism. Darwin should have named it delusionalism. It was anything other than 'science'. What a joke that 150 year old charade was.


This may be a tramatic change for you, but go to the data...not to the dream. But be ready...it will begin to put you in touch with more of the real world not the 'CD' (Charles Darwin) world. ....

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

 

[perplexed]

Do people doubt Edmond is playing games?
Here is a quote that shows Gould supports Darwin that Edmond will ignore


[font=Arial, Helvetica, Ms sans serif]“The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. It in fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism. […]"

[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, Ms sans serif]— "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change," The Panda's Thumb, New York: W. W. Norton, 1980, pp. 182-184.[/font]

 

[Ophis]

Again, for anyone who is interested...simply read Stephen jay Gould's essay, Opus 200...site location supplied in the OP. His conclusions and wording are very clearly placed. ...
[/color]
[/color]You seem to keep loosing the point of this entire thread...The content of Gould's essay in the OP. I have not presented my argument. What I have presented are Gould's summaries of Darwin's dream child....it was called gradualism. Darwin should have named it delusionalism. It was anything other than 'science'. What a joke that 150 year old charade was.


This may be a tramatic change for you, but go to the data...not to the dream. But be ready...it will begin to put you in touch with more of the real world not the 'CD' (Charles Darwin) world. ....

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

What exactly are you trying to argue against Edmond? It seems to be changing rather rapidly. A few posts ago you were arguing against common ancestry, and evolution in general. Now you seem to be arguing only against gradualism, having suddenly ceased to mention the other aspects of evolution, and claim to be using only Gould's arguments, all of which are against gradualism specifically rather than evolution in general.

 

[Edmond]

What exactly are you trying to argue against Edmond? It seems to be changing rather rapidly. A few posts ago you were arguing against common ancestry, and evolution in general. Now you seem to be arguing only against gradualism, having suddenly ceased to mention the other aspects of evolution, and claim to be using only Gould's arguments, all of which are against gradualism specifically rather than evolution in general.

You seem to be strongly hung-up on the words against and arguments in your speech. The focus I favor of is the truth. Dr. Gould has spoken the truth about Darwin's asunmptions about gradualism. Darwin's assumed process just happened not to be reality. Gould makes that clear. That is the truth.

The lie of evolution has had its brief day in the sun. Though some may and will go on believing it will not be the thing that is going to change. What is changing is that it is continuing to become more openly exposed as a fallacy, a lie. Some will choose to go on believing the lie. That will not change....

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

 

[Dannager]

Prediction:

Do people doubt Edmond is playing games?
Here is a quote that shows Gould supports Darwin that Edmond will ignore


[font=Arial, Helvetica, Ms sans serif]“The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. It in fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism. […]"

[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, Ms sans serif]— "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change," The Panda's Thumb, New York: W. W. Norton, 1980, pp. 182-184.[/font]

Observation:

You seem to be strongly hung-up on the words against and arguments in your speech. The focus I favor of is the truth. Dr. Gould has spoken the truth about Darwin's asunmptions about gradualism. Darwin's assumed process just happened not to be reality. Gould makes that clear. That is the truth.

The lie of evolution has had its brief day in the sun. Though some may and will go on believing it will not be the thing that is going to change. What is changing is that it is continuing to become more openly exposed as a fallacy, a lie. Some will choose to go on believing the lie. That will not change....

Conclusion:
perplexed's theory holds true!

 

[Dragon02]

If by "some" you mean "everyone who matters", then, yes, only some people will continue believing evolution.