The Fossil Record: Darwin's Disaster

[Smilin]

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Albert Einstein

 

[Smilin]

The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn are composed entirely of lost airline luggage.

Mark Russell

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Smilin
The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn are composed entirely of lost airline luggage.

Mark Russell

And left socks.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Joe V.
Wow, with that spin it's a wonder Nick isn't involved in politics (then again, maybe he is). Anybody care to post some Bible verses out of context and see what sort of spin we'll get from of that?

- Joe

By all means, quote the Bible and apply the same criteria I stated. The questions would be:

1. In context, does the verse mean what you're trying to demonstrate by using the quote? Does it mean anything in context other than what the quote makes it seem to mean out of context?

2. Is it a proper defense to say that the Bible still teaches what it teaches, regardless of the quote?

Here, I'll even start the process by giving you some examples.

Example of a good quote to prove that G~d actually uses evil and sin: "G~d works everything together for the good of those who love him and are called according to His purpose."

Does that mean that G~d even uses sin and bad things in this case? Yes, it does. If you take the quote in or out of context, it means the same thing.

Example of a poor defense: That doesn't mean G~d loves sin or creates sin. So what? That's not what the quote was meant to demonstrate. So you can't refute it by changing the subject. (Same as "that doesn't mean the author doesn't believe in evolution" is just chaning the subject, not addressing the quote.)

Example of a misquote to prove that G~d can create a boulder so heavy that He Himself cannot lift it: "With G~d, nothing is impossible."

In context, what it says is that G~d can even change the hearts of people who cannot of their own power save themselves.

Example of a poor defense roughly equivalent to the evolutionist's defense of the fossil quotes: "This apparent contradiction doesn't mean there is no G~d!" So what? That's not what the misquote was intended to communicate.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat
  Souljah, from personal (and painful) experience, I've found that 90% of quotes coming from YEC Creationists are bad. Misquotes, deliberate distortions, etc.

   Heck, you can see a nice one of Patterson on an active thread right now (posted by Nick).

 

I too have seen bad things from YEC...luckily, there are many prominent OEC out there.

 

 

[Christian Soldier]

"Souljah, from personal (and painful) experience, I've found that 90% of quotes coming from YEC Creationists are bad. Misquotes, deliberate distortions, etc.

Heck, you can see a nice one of Patterson on an active thread right now (posted by Nick)."

This is at least the third time I have had to explain that I am not a YEC. I don't know how old the earth is.

What don't you get?

Please provide solid evidence that 90% of quotes coming from YEC's are bad. I'm 100% sure you can't---you're simply showing your deep personal bias.

 

[Christian Soldier]

"Let the war of the quote-miners begin!

(Are we having fun yet?)"

Gee, Jerry gave us quotes from a couple of nobodies at the ASA, who were using a lot of terms like "suggests". I'm totally unimpressed.

The individual I quoted, Steven Stanley, is an EVOLUTIONIST scientist of international repute, specializing in paleobiology. His bachelor's degree is from Princeton, his Ph.D is from Yale. He is currently a professor at Johns Hopkins.

'Nuff said.

 

[Christian Soldier]

"oh boy, I love arguments that are just a series of quotes. Let the argument from authority begin!"

All the quotes I provided are from EVOLUTIONISTS, virtually all of them being of international repute in their areas of expertise. Not one of them is a Creationist in any way, shape or form.

 

[Christian Soldier]

"Well, appeal to authority is technically only valid when the authority's opinion is represented correctly. Since creationist quote-mining does not do so, and is basically lying for the faith by omitting relevant passages that entirely change the meaning of the author's words, we can ignore it as yet another pseudoscientific, annoying, ethically bankrupt endeavour that only makes honest people leave the faith after seeing how corrupt these con artists are."

• Please provide solid evidence that I didn't represent their opinions correctly. So far you've only given your own biased opinion.
  
• Please provide solid evidence that Creationist "quote-mining does not do so", and that they are "lying for the faith". You appear to be the one who has a marked problem with telling the truth.
  
• Please provide solid evidence that I omitted relevant passages in order to change the meaning.

Your post is nothing but a biased, opinionated rant. Come back when you're able to provide some hard, unbiased facts.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
"Let the war of the quote-miners begin!

(Are we having fun yet?)"

Gee, Jerry gave us quotes from a couple of nobodies at the ASA, who were using a lot of terms like "suggests". I'm totally unimpressed.

The individual I quoted, Steven Stanley, is an EVOLUTIONIST scientist of international repute, specializing in paleobiology. His bachelor's degree is from Princeton, his Ph.D is from Yale. He is currently a professor at Johns Hopkins.

'Nuff said.

And agrees, no doubt, with the substance of the words from the two quotes I provided. However, the two quotes I provided are not mere "quotes" they refer to actual data that contradicts not waht Stanley says, but the idea that you were perhaps hoping others would draw from Stanley's words.

The fact that Stanley would agree with these two authors is obvious from the context material that you left out, but that Late_Cretaceous posted in this thread:

…."..the evidence is now mounting that most of the major fossil groups of the Cambrian arose by rapid evolution…In the first place, fossil assemblages consisting of the imprints of soft-bodies creatures…have been found in many areas of the world, but are never older than latest Precambrian." Steven M Stanley"Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979, pp. 36.

By the way, YEC can apply easily to a person who refuses to accept the evidence for an old earth. The statement, "I don't know how old the earth is," reflects either unfamiliarity with the evidence, or a rejection of the obvious conclusions drawn from it. Your techniques and expressed viewpoints are near identical with YEC. Quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck...  

 

[chickenman]

the fossil record really is only very peripheral to my belief in evolution. What's there is consistent with the theory, what isn't there obviously doesn't refute evolution. To me genetics provides the most convincing evidence for evolution, it provides a mechanism for the process to happen, all the predictions evolution has made about the genetic evidence have been fulfilled. Genetics isn't open to as much interpretation as fossil remains.

 

[Christian Soldier]

"CS, you once asked me why I did not "quote extensively" . How come you don't?"

My quotes are not out of context, so get over it.

Here is the FULL quote from Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker:

Which only proves my case. Thank you!

"Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record."

Dawkin's needs to let Eldredge and Gould speak for themselves. Dawkin's is a gradualist, E & G are punctuationists. E & G don't agree with the gradualist interpretation of the fossil record. There's no reconciling the two interpretations. That's why E & G advocated the punctuationist hypothesis to begin with.

"Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.

Yep!

"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading."

"for some reason", "might be"---are frequently used terms in the evolutionist literature. Dawkins is fully aware that he is engaging in "special pleading", and in denial about the fact that there are marked differences of opinion between gradualists and punctuationists regarding the fossil record.

"My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animals types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative.

As usual, Dawkins is a bit off here. There is a difference in the interpretation of the fossil record between the two groups, but I certainly agree that both groups make an a priori rejection of the Divine Creation explanation.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Perhaps you were eventually going to explain why any of these gaps, whether explained by PE, an imperfect fossil record, or both, represent data that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution? Or were you just going to point out the bleeding obvious - that they leave some questions about the details of evolutionary history unanswered?

 

[Christian Soldier]

"And agrees, no doubt, with the substance of the words from the two quotes I provided. However, the two quotes I provided are not mere "quotes" they refer to actual data that contradicts not waht Stanley says, but the idea that you were perhaps hoping others would draw from Stanley's words.

The fact that Stanley would agree with these two authors is obvious from the context material that you left out, but that Late_Cretaceous posted in this thread:"

Cretaceous's quote, like your post, proves absolutely nothing.

"..the evidence is now mounting that most of the major fossil groups of the Cambrian arose by rapid evolution…In the first place, fossil assemblages consisting of the imprints of soft-bodies creatures…have been found in many areas of the world, but are never older than latest Precambrian." Steven M Stanley"Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979, pp. 36."

Cretaceous's out of context quote (please note the quote starts in the middle of a sentence) still does nothing to disprove the quote I provided. First, let's see the "mounting" evidence. Second, he states they are "never older than latest Precambrian." What don't you get about "never". Doesn't say much for the gradualist hypothesis. Of course, the punctuationist hypothesis isn't verifiable, so it's junk also.

Not to mention the fact that evolutionists are just guessing at the age of the Cambrian to start with. A few years back, it was dated at about 600 million years, now evos are saying 530 million years! OOOPS!---they were off by "only" seventy million years!. To be honest, they don't know if they're 70 million years off or 470 million years off---it's all just an evolutionist guessing game, the age will most likely be revised again in a few years.

"By the way, YEC can apply easily to a person who refuses to accept the evidence for an old earth. The statement, "I don't know how old the earth is," reflects either unfamiliarity with the evidence, or a rejection of the obvious conclusions drawn from it. Your techniques and expressed viewpoints are near identical with YEC. Quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck...  "

Your statement is pure foolishness. You are of the incredibly naive opinion that the age of the earth has been "scientifically proven." For something to be established as scientific fact, it must have been observed. Please provide the names of the scientists who observed the earth being created. You say you can't? Then sorry, Charlie---an old earth (or young earth) is not "proven" at all.

Even IF it were proven, the evolutionist opinion of about 4.5 billion years is nowhere near old enough to be able to account for the evolutionary fairy tale. So I could care less if the 4.5 hypothesis is right or not.

Just a few years ago, if someone had suggested that the speed of light has not always been constant; self-proclaimed science "experts" like Jerry would have bellowed "you're not familiar with the evidence." So much for Jerry's OPINION. Now even Hawking, Rees (Britain's Astronomer Royal) and Paul Davies are strongly suggesting that it has not been constant. Another "unquestioned fact" of science bites the dust!

By attempting to brand me as a YEC, you prove yourself to be presumptuous and not very bright.

 

[chickenman]

Even IF it were proven, the evolutionist opinion of about 4.5 billion years is nowhere near old enough to be able to account for the evolutionary fairy tale. So I could care less if the 4.5 hypothesis is right or not.

care to back that up?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
"And agrees, no doubt, with the substance of the words from the two quotes I provided. However, the two quotes I provided are not mere "quotes" they refer to actual data that contradicts not waht Stanley says, but the idea that you were perhaps hoping others would draw from Stanley's words.

The fact that Stanley would agree with these two authors is obvious from the context material that you left out, but that Late_Cretaceous posted in this thread:"

Cretaceous's quote, like your post, proves absolutely nothing.

Prove, prove, prove. If you are so much into philosphy and math, why don't you join a philosophy/math debate? My quotes and the links I posted with them clearly show that any interpretation of your out of context quote from Stanley that seems to give weight to the idea that there is no evidence for phyletic evolution is poorly construed. 

"..the evidence is now mounting that most of the major fossil groups of the Cambrian arose by rapid evolution…In the first place, fossil assemblages consisting of the imprints of soft-bodies creatures…have been found in many areas of the world, but are never older than latest Precambrian." Steven M Stanley"Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979, pp. 36."

Cretaceous's out of context quote (please note the quote starts in the middle of a sentence) still does nothing to disprove the quote I provided. First, let's see the "mounting" evidence. Second, he states they are "never older than latest Precambrian." What don't you get about "never". Doesn't say much for the gradualist hypothesis. Of course, the punctuationist hypothesis isn't verifiable, so it's junk also.

You yourself supplied the necessary context for LC's quote prior to his posting. Now you want to quibble over the term "latest" in "latest Precambrian". Big deal. There probably was no multicellular life significantly before the Ediacaran period. What's your point?

"By the way, YEC can apply easily to a person who refuses to accept the evidence for an old earth. The statement, "I don't know how old the earth is," reflects either unfamiliarity with the evidence, or a rejection of the obvious conclusions drawn from it. Your techniques and expressed viewpoints are near identical with YEC. Quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck...  "

Your statement is pure foolishness. You are of the incredibly naive opinion that the age of the earth has been "scientifically proven." For something to be established as scientific fact, it must have been observed. Please provide the names of the scientists who observed the earth being created. You say you can't? Then sorry, Charlie---an old earth (or young earth) is not "proven" at all

Again, all of this about "proven". There is plenty of strong evidence that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. If you reject that evidence, as you reject the evidence for evolution, then the short-hand term for a person like you is "YEC" - Young Earth Creationist.

By the way, did you miss my question:

Perhaps you were eventually going to explain why any of these gaps, whether explained by PE, an imperfect fossil record, or both, represent data that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution? Or were you just going to point out the bleeding obvious - that they leave some questions about the details of evolutionary history unanswered?

 

[Jerry Smith]

deleted (double post)

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck...  

I really enjoy your posts Jerry, but I don't think it's fair to start needlessly insulting ducks by comparing them to YECs.

-brett

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
My quotes are not out of context, so get over it.

Of course they were.  Late_Cretaceous provided the context for each quote you used in your OP, and it's painfully obvious that the intentions of the authors stand in stark contrast to the ideas that you intended the edited versions to convey.  If you didn't intend for them to cast doubt about evolution or an old earth, why in the name of Pete did you choose to edit them without including the parts that explain the author's true opinion?  Or is this just a poorly researched cut and paste job?

-brett

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I don't think there was any research done by CS to get those quotes. I found numerous websites using google that had some, or at least most, of the quotes there as stated.

I really do not understand what CS's original point was. Perhaps I am dense, but it seemed like he was trying to use "evolutionists" words against them. As though there was this dirty little secret that there really is no evidence in the fossil record to support evolution. First of all, none of the scientists and writers quoted were admitting anything. Second of all, if there was some dirty little secret it would have either been exposed by now (I never bought into consiracy theories anyways), or the evolutionists would not admit to it in print.