This is what I believe.

[random_guy]

Way to contradict your self I guess evolution is a tree with ladders on it? Your analogy doesn't really make any sense but then you contradict it. Plus, if evolution is a tree the forks are where the non-transitional fossils would be.

Please show me the contradiction. Evolution predicts life to branch out like a tree, not a ladder. Life forms aren't more evolved than other life forms.

From your post, it seems like you don't understand animal classification at all. When we find a dinosaur-bird transitional, we don't know if it's actually the ancestor of the current birds, rather we know it shows characteristics of both birds and dinosaurs. There could be other dino-birds that actually gave rise to modern birds. Thus, it's extremely hard to say, this is the species that gave rise to this branch.

Really, so wouldn't quoting a 'so called expert' be supportive evidence to his claim? Science works on the the interpretation of evidence, I heard evidence that the world could have been created 6,000 years ago, that the global flood makes sense and on and on. But those scientists are just crackpots because they're not main-stream enough right?

So you believe that if a scientist interprets the evidence to show invisible pink unicorns created the Earth yesterday is just as valid as saying the Earth was created 6000 years ago? And he's not a crackpot since even though it's not mainstream?

I suggest you re-read the quote. Vossler was hoping to show that Gould had doubts about evolution or the fossil record when it was clearly false. The expert that he cited accepts evolution and common ancestory. Not that it matters, science works on evidence, not quotes.

Well if you look at your's you do the same thing. Moreover you ignore everything Gould says just to jump on his back when he says "I also believe we are on the verge of a solution." To be honest All the Gould quotes presented in this thread personally strengthen my believe in a young earth.

Which makes sense because any evidence that contradicts your views of the Bible is false.

 

[Omacron]

5. Mans expulsion from the Garden of Eden is symbolic of his reliance on intellect for survival, rather than only on God.

6. The Garden of Eden is a state of mind and mode of living, not a physical place defined by boundaries past or present.

7. Garden of Eden still exsists today. The animals live there for they rely only on God and are without sin.

8. The flood as recounted in Genises was not global. It covered the world that the ancients had knowledge of.

Does anyone else see the contradictions here? First the garden is symbolic, then its a state of mind, then it exists....with pure animals? And the flood did not destroy it because...it was not in the known world or it was strictly symbolic, or the animals went on the ark and then went back whats the deal with that.

.

I beg your parden. There is no contradiction here. The idea of the Garden of Eden can be symbolic of more than one thing at a time. And as symbols of old, such as the fish symbol of Christianity, did exist and exists now, so may symbols from the beginning of time. If you rely only on God for your survival, that would be your mode of living. If you relied on your intellect to survive, that would be a mode of living. Reliance on either is a state of mind. And to endevor to remove confusion I offer this:

state of mind:

n 1: a temporary psychological state

2: the state of a person's cognitive processes

Further more, God made us and the animals. Jesus said:

Matthew 6

25Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

Are the animals not also the children of God? Have the animals eaten of the tree of knowledge?

Thank you for your input to this discussion, and God bless you.

 

[vossler]

Fine, let's start over, ignoring the quote mining. There's questions in every area of science. There's no problem with that. We still don't exactly know how disease works, but it doesn't mean we should stop teaching Germ Theory.

The quotes were to show that even a highly esteemed 'expert' in the field of paleontology isn't sure about transitional fossils, etc. yet I'm asked to be sure of it. Many evolutionists here would appear willing to bet their house on evolution being 100% true. Rarely, if ever (shernren is one exception) will I see an evolutionist here state they have doubts like Gould did in the quotes I provided. No they come to the table more sure than most people are in their salvation.

Now that's the interesting part of all of this.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

The quotes were to show that even a highly esteemed 'expert' in the field of paleontology isn't sure about transitional fossils, etc. yet I'm asked to be sure of it. Many evolutionists here would appear willing to bet their house on evolution being 100% true. Rarely, if ever (shernren is one exception) will I see an evolutionist here state they have doubts like Gould did in the quotes I provided. No they come to the table more sure than most people are in their salvation.

Now that's the interesting part of all of this.

He was not expressing his doubts. He was noting that transitional fossils are rare but not non-existent. This supports his theory of punctuated equilibrium. He doesn't have any doubts about evolution. All of his doubts were about the traditional assumption that evolution occured at a steady pace.

 

[Dracil]

1, 1.525, 1.8, 1.999999, 2, 2.91, 4.1, 4.1492, 4.56924, 4.592498, 4.6, 4.8, 5

Show me all the missing links in this sequence from 1 to 5.

 

[vossler]

He was not expressing his doubts. He was noting that transitional fossils are rare but not non-existent. This supports his theory of punctuated equilibrium. He doesn't have any doubts about evolution. All of his doubts were about the traditional assumption that evolution occured at a steady pace.

Maybe doubts is an incorrect assessment, I don't really know. He's certainly not, according to those quotes, extremely confident, yet evolutionists here certainly are, which was my only point.

 

[Omacron]

This post is for information only. There may be those out there who do not have the current data.

theory of evolution

n : (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals

the·o·ry n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

For more information on this subject visit this Smithsonian Institution web page.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/primate.html

God bless you in your search for truth and understanding.

 

[random_guy]

Maybe doubts is an incorrect assessment, I don't really know. He's certainly not, according to those quotes, extremely confident, yet evolutionists here certainly are, which was my only point.

Your point is wrong. I doubt you've ever read a paper by Gould. The quotes were quote mined. Again, if I told people the Bible said God did not exist, and left it at that, it would be deceitful. Gould knows what a transitional fossil is.

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not
common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not
entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals
only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become
tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The “hammer” and “anvil” bones of the mammalian ear are
descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is
either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids
(the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular
bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern
mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human,
Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any
ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen
human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively
more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larder body size? Did he create to
mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?

Now, can you honestly say that Gould doesn't know what a transitional fossil is, or that he has doubts about the fossil record, or he's not confident?

I said it before, and I'll say it again. Many Creationists seem to use very dishonest tactics when quoting scientists, and this thread is more evidence of it.

 

[random_guy]

The quotes were to show that even a highly esteemed 'expert' in the field of paleontology isn't sure about transitional fossils, etc. yet I'm asked to be sure of it. Many evolutionists here would appear willing to bet their house on evolution being 100% true. Rarely, if ever (shernren is one exception) will I see an evolutionist here state they have doubts like Gould did in the quotes I provided. No they come to the table more sure than most people are in their salvation.

Now that's the interesting part of all of this.

Again, see my above post. This is false.

EDIT: Would you bet your house that the Sun will rise tomorrow? What about that gravity will still be there tomorrow? That's the level of certainty for evolution. Evolution is a fact and a theory.

In science, you never get 100% proof (hence the making stuff up part), and there's always a chance gravity will reverse itself and fling everything into outerspace, just like there's a chance all mutations stop occurring.

 

[vossler]

Your point is wrong. I doubt you've ever read a paper by Gould. The quotes were quote mined. Again, if I told people the Bible said God did not exist, and left it at that, it would be deceitful. Gould knows what a transitional fossil is.

Now, can you honestly say that Gould doesn't know what a transitional fossil is, or that he has doubts about the fossil record, or he's not confident?

I said it before, and I'll say it again. Many Creationists seem to use very dishonest tactics when quoting scientists, and this thread is more evidence of it.

You can believe the quotes I provided didn't show doubt or questions and that's your perogative. I believe they did. If you wish to call it dishonest and any other negative term you'd like to come up with, again that's your perogative. I don't know what Gould knows or truly believes, I only know in the quotes I came across certainly didn't sound like he was sure. Again, if a world renowned paleontologist doesn't sound sure, why should I.

 

[vossler]

EDIT: Would you bet your house that the Sun will rise tomorrow? What about that gravity will still be there tomorrow? That's the level of certainty for evolution. Evolution is a fact and a theory.

It's always interesting the amount of faith an evolutionist has in his theory. You have more faith in evolution than the vast majority of Christians have in their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And then people are offended when it's referred to as a religion.

I know where I'm placing my bets.

 

[random_guy]

You can believe the quotes I provided didn't show doubt or questions and that's your perogative. I believe they did. If you wish to call it dishonest and any other negative term you'd like to come up with, again that's your perogative. I don't know what Gould knows or truly believes, I only know in the quotes I came across certainly didn't sound like he was sure. Again, if a world renowned paleontologist doesn't sound sure, why should I.

If the Bible, the word of God, believes that there's no God, then why should I?

"There is no God." (Psalms 14:1)

Sounds dishonest, right? I can't believe you're still defending the practice of taking a sentence out from a paragraph, and using that as evidence of an author view.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. That's dishonest, and sadly, it's not surprising that this is occurring. I would wish more Creationists, however, would speak out against this practice.

 

[random_guy]

It's always interesting the amount of faith an evolutionist has in his theory. You have more faith in evolution than the vast majority of Christians have in their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And then people are offended when it's referred to as a religion.

I know where I'm placing my bets.

I believe 1+1=2? Is math a religion since I think this is true? I believe that sun will rise tomorrow. Is this a religion since I believe this.

Your arguments seem to create a false dictotomy. You must accept this with more certainty that that, even though they are different kinds of faith.

 

[vossler]

If the Bible, the word of God, believes that there's no God, then why should I?

"There is no God." (Psalms 14:1)

Sounds dishonest, right? I can't believe you're still defending the practice of taking a sentence out from a paragraph, and using that as evidence of an author view.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. That's dishonest, and sadly, it's not surprising that this is occurring. I would wish more Creationists, however, would speak out against this practice.

Well at this point we'll just have to go our separate ways. If you wish to call me dishonest or any other term you feel is appropriate, that's your perogative. I've said what I wanted to, actually much more than I ever intended to on this subject, so I'll leave you with the last word. God bless.

 

[Omacron]

When I made this post, I didn't intend it to turn into a battling ground for opposing view points. I was mearly making a public statement of my faith. Once a man told me God would condem me to hell for believing we evolved. I disagree with that. I do think that the hatred and bad feelings caused by this subject is the the thing that may rob us of salvation. I read a lot of posts here and on other forums concerning this topic. I have read name calling and other things that are not in the spirit of what Jesus tought us. Are we not to love one another? How is name calling and hurting, loving? I can see people behind their keyboard, fuming over a view that don't fit in with what they have been taught sence they were a child. I can see the person who, to prove a point or some other reason, says an unkind thing. Is this in the spirit of Gods love? I think not. Don't butt your head against the wall trying to convince someone they are wrong. What's the point. Love them. Listen to them with a kind heart, even if you don't think they are right. In matters such as these, it really doesn't matter who is right or wrong. If they proved evolution was correct, or if God himself came down and affermed it one way or the other. What would you do then? Say, "naa naa, see I told you so". So what have you gained? You have gained nothing. Really you have lost. You have lost some of your soul to hatred and spite.

Please, my brothers and sisters, debate in the spirit of seeking understanding and knowledge. Let love and kindness guide your thoughts and actions.

May the peace and love of our lord Jesus fill you.

 

[soda72]

no. Or at least I dont think so. After all religions involve gods.