Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 16 of 342 (717885)
02-02-2014 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by herebedragons
02-02-2014 8:27 AM


It either means
quote:Besiyata Dishmaya (Aramaic: בסיעתא דשמיא) is an Aramaic phrase, meaning "with the help of Heaven".
or
Bs'd
Stick with the first meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by herebedragons, posted 02-02-2014 8:27 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by herebedragons, posted 02-02-2014 10:24 PM Eliyahu has replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 17 of 342 (717886)
02-02-2014 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
02-02-2014 8:07 AM


The authors (Rabbi Yitschak Goldstein and Eliyahu Silver) use the non-word "en" to mean both "in" and "and", and from looking at other pages at their site (echadnl - MountZion) it would appear that their native language is likely Dutch.
Bs'd
Thanks for the heads up, I stand corrected. That page now as well.
And yes, my first language is Dutch. What you see here is school-book English.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 02-02-2014 8:07 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 18 of 342 (717887)
02-02-2014 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
02-02-2014 3:28 PM


So you'd be happy with us taking a snippet of something you said, and making it appear that you are taking the opposite stance from what you have. You wouldn't complain that your words are being twisted or anything, as long as what you said has implications for evolutionist/atheist views then that would be a perfectly valid strategy?
After all, did Faith not concede that faith was discredited?
quote:
"But does this discredit faith?" Yes, I would say, it certainly does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 02-02-2014 3:28 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Eliyahu, posted 02-02-2014 11:54 PM Modulous has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 19 of 342 (717896)
02-02-2014 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
02-02-2014 3:42 PM


Re: Really???
Misrepresentation isn't the point in this case, ...
But it is and you know it.
... the point is only that some things they said can be shown to point to different conclusions than theirs ...
But if you had real evidence for those different conclusions then you wouldn't need to misrepresent what they say, you could just use the evidence.
... I don't see that Eliyahu claimed they meant what he got iout of them anyway. ...
The best one could claim that Eliyahu got from the quotes that he likely got from some other creationist site ... is confusion. Certainly anyone who states that Gould and Eldredge are saying evolution is disproven by their articles is confused at best, possibly ignorant or deluded regarding the actual papers (getting the quote mines second hand) or at worse deranged or just plain lying.
This is an entirely different situation. But I'm not following this thread, ...
What a surprise. Just jump in with judgmental spouting, and don't bother with facts ... they just get in the way, yes?
... I just thought it was illogical to claim somebody's observation can't be used for a different purpose than it was intended.
Then you don't need to quote anyone -- just make your own observations.
But to imply that people are saying something other than what they mean is ignorant defamation of character. It's dishonest Faith, very dishonest.
In the case of the other thread I HAVE been misrepresented and I don't think anybody has ever fairly and honestly recognized the point I've been making. ...
And you don't like it do you? Why do you think anyone would like being misrepresented? When do you think misrepresentation becomes honest? Really?
Meaning does matter doesn't it Faith?
... And what I've said isn't being used for any other conclusion, ...
Other than what you've said does not explain the evidence and is based on outright fantasy?
Yes, you are right that nobody has made any scientific conclusions based on your "observations" -- because they have no objective empirical basis.
... it's just being misrepresented in such a garbled way it makes no sense.
GIGO
But this is typical, what you've said, just not getting the point in either case. Bad logic, bad thinking. Typical./
No Faith, the point is that any misrepresentation is dishonest. It doesn't matter how much you sugar coat it for yourself, it is still dishonest.
You have the gall to say that dishonesty is acceptable ... when creationists do it ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 02-02-2014 3:42 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 7:11 AM RAZD has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 20 of 342 (717897)
02-02-2014 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
02-02-2014 3:28 PM


It doesn't matter what Gould or any others themselves meant, if what they said has implications for creationist views that's a perfectly valid way to use their quotes.
Well in that case there's a huge gap --- more of a bottomless abyss, really --- between the bit of Eliyahu's post where he quotes Gould and Eldredge, and the bit where he writes "So there we have it: NO evolution".
He needs to fill that gap by explaining why the "implications" of Gould and Eldredge's work are in fact the exact opposite of what Gould and Eldredge thought they were: why Eliyahu concludes "So there we have it: NO evolution" and that their writing "rips apart the evolution theory" when they write "In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record" (Gould) and "My version of how the evolutionary process works lines up very well with Darwin’s" (Eldredge).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 02-02-2014 3:28 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 7:20 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 21 of 342 (717903)
02-02-2014 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Eliyahu
02-02-2014 4:19 PM


Stick with the first meaning.
LOL. I figured that was it, but the other meaning popped up as the second hit, and I just couldn't resist.
(from Message 1)
This should be enough to settle the whole evolution vs creation debate.
It's hard to believe a few out-of-context quotes could settle the entire debate. I think you need to provide a few of your own arguments.
So there we have it: NO evolution, but sudden appearance and stasis.
Your quotes do not really support this conclusion, do they? Gould and Eldredge argued against gradualism, not evolution itself.
I don't really have a problem with you quoting Gould and Eldredge, even out of context like this, but you need to develop your own arguments and show how their statements support your premise. You are using their arguments as if Gould and Eldredge themselves have reach the same conclusion as you and that is what is dishonest.
Let's hear your own personal arguments to see if you even have a clue about what the issues are.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Eliyahu, posted 02-02-2014 4:19 PM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 6:59 AM herebedragons has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 22 of 342 (717905)
02-02-2014 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eliyahu
02-02-2014 6:43 AM


You missed a quote or two
You missed this quote from Gould:
quote:
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.
My bold.
Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eliyahu, posted 02-02-2014 6:43 AM Eliyahu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2014 11:41 PM Pressie has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 23 of 342 (717909)
02-02-2014 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Pressie
02-02-2014 10:50 PM


Re: You missed a quote or two
A quote or two?
There is a whole Quote Mine Project devoted to tracking down and clarifying creationists' misuse of quotes.
Taking quotes out of context and trying to make them say the opposite of what they really say is a major part of creationist rhetoric on the interwebs.
If you don't have the evidence, that's the kind of dishonesty that you have to resort to. But it is still dishonesty, even if it is one of the mainstays of creation "science."

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Pressie, posted 02-02-2014 10:50 PM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 12:24 AM Coyote has replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 24 of 342 (717910)
02-02-2014 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Modulous
02-02-2014 4:29 PM


The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
So you'd be happy with us taking a snippet of something you said, and making it appear that you are taking the opposite stance from what you have. You wouldn't complain that your words are being twisted or anything, as long as what you said has implications for evolutionist/atheist views then that would be a perfectly valid strategy?
Bs'd
No, I would not be happy about that, and no, that is not what I'm doing.
I give exact quotes, nothing changed about them, nothing distorted, and what those quotes say, and what those evolutionists say, is that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely STASIS, and sudden appearance without any link with supposed predecessors.
And those are the simple facts. You evo's better get used to them.
The fossil record flatly contradicts Darwin, and is fully in line with creation.
HalleluJah!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Modulous, posted 02-02-2014 4:29 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Coyote, posted 02-03-2014 12:20 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2014 8:14 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2014 8:38 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2014 12:54 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 25 of 342 (717913)
02-03-2014 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Eliyahu
02-02-2014 11:54 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
I give exact quotes, nothing changed about them, nothing distorted, and what those quotes say, and what those evolutionists say, is that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely STASIS, and sudden appearance without any link with supposed predecessors.
And those are the simple facts. You evo's better get used to them.
The fossil record flatly contradicts Darwin, and is fully in line with creation.
That is not correct.
You may be able to take quotes out of context and dishonestly make them say that, but how do you account for the fact that the scientists who are being mis-quoted say that creationists are mis-quoting them?
They're being polite: creationists are lying to you. And you are trying to pass those lies on to us.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Eliyahu, posted 02-02-2014 11:54 PM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 7:41 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 26 of 342 (717914)
02-03-2014 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Coyote
02-02-2014 11:41 PM


Re: You missed a quote or two
Bs'd
A quote or two? I have a lot more of 'm. Unfortunately, they didn't make it past the moderator, but for those who are interested, here they are:
fossils - MountZion and they all say the same: There is NO evolution to be found in the fossil record, only STASIS, and sudden appearance.
There is a whole Quote Mine Project devoted to tracking down and clarifying creationists' misuse of quotes.
Please explain in what way I am misusing quotes.
Taking quotes out of context and trying to make them say the opposite of what they really say is a major part of creationist rhetoric on the interwebs.
Taking a quote out of context is a necessity if you want to quote the quote. No way around it. Quoting the whole book would just be to much of a botheration.
And no, I'm not trying to make the quote say the opposite, everybody with two working braincells can see that the quotes say what I say they say, namely that there is NO evolution to be found in the fossil record, only stasis and sudden appearance of new species.
And everybody who claims different, is a dishonest person who is trying to cheat his way out of the fact that the fossil record shows the opposite of his believes.
If you don't have the evidence, that's the kind of dishonesty that you have to resort to. But it is still dishonesty, even if it is one of the mainstays of creation "science."
What I see here is the dishonesty of a evolutionist who cannot accept the fact that the fossil record totally disproves his believes, and therefore starts to badmouth the messengers.
So you believe that the quotes have been distorted to the point that they seem to mean the opposite of what they really say.
So according to you, what those quotes really say, is that there is no stasis to be found in the fossil record, and no sudden appearance of new species, only fine gradual development of new species, all according to Darwin.
So, this quote for instance: "Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."
Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95, speaking about the Bighorn basin inWyoming USA.
S.M. Stanley is an evolutionist and professor at theJohn Hopkins university in Baltimore.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of thepunctuated equilibrium theory.
One of his articles isPaleontologyand earth system history in the new millennium which has been published inGeological Society of America
For more info aboutprof Stanley look here: Earth & Planetary Sciences | Johns Hopkins University
That quote, according to you, having been distorted to mean the opposite of what it really says, is really saying that the fossil record is full of convincing transitions from one species to another.
Put this way, the dishonesty of your remark is immediately visable, but I would say: Show me.
Show me how the quotes have been distorted, show me the real original undistorted quotes, with as much context as you like, and then show me how they all say that evolution is everywhere in the fossil record.
Of course, you will not be able to do anything close to that, and that shows us who is the real liar here.
Have a nice day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2014 11:41 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 02-03-2014 12:37 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 28 by Pressie, posted 02-03-2014 12:43 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 29 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-03-2014 1:19 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-03-2014 2:46 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 27 of 342 (717916)
02-03-2014 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Eliyahu
02-03-2014 12:24 AM


Re: You missed a quote or two
Sorry, you are not able to pull the wool over my eyes with your rhetoric and those quote-mined quotes.
Half my study for my Ph.D. exams was in the fields of fossil man and human osteology. (I passed, by the way.)
I know something about the fossil record, and the major figures whom you are mis-quoting. I would be willing to bet you do not have any such knowledge, but rather pick up your "learning" from creationist websites.
That's unfortunate, as they are lying to you and you are accepting those lies uncritically.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 12:24 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 1:38 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 28 of 342 (717917)
02-03-2014 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Eliyahu
02-03-2014 12:24 AM


Re: You missed a quote or two
Now you are being dishonest about Darwin,too!
Eliyah writes:
So according to you, what those quotes really say, is that there is no stasis to be found in the fossil record, and no sudden appearance of new species, only fine gradual development of new species, all according to Darwin.
While, in reality, Darwin wrote:
and lastly, although each species must have passed through numerous transitional stages,. it is probable that the periods, during which each underwent modification, though many and long as measured by years, have been short in comparison with the periods during which each remained in an unchanged condition.
p 410f
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=tex...
Please stop being dishonest. You’re doing your religion a disservice by your dishonesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 12:24 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(2)
Message 29 of 342 (717919)
02-03-2014 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Eliyahu
02-03-2014 12:24 AM


Re: You missed a quote or two
A quote or two? I have a lot more of 'm. Unfortunately, they didn't make it past the moderator, but for those who are interested, here they are:
fossils - MountZion and they all say the same: There is NO evolution to be found in the fossil record, only STASIS, and sudden appearance.
Did you refuse to read message 5 by RAZD?? He disproved your supposed point. He gave you an example that shows gradual change. Are you incapable of reading? Are you incapable of comprehending?
YEC:"There is no A."
RAZD: Places A in front of your face.
YEC: Repeats, "There is no A."
Conclusion: Religion damages mental processes and leaves its victims incapacitated and incapable of dealing with the real world.
I'm going to bed. Somebody wake me when the lobotomy's complete.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 12:24 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 1:49 AM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 30 of 342 (717920)
02-03-2014 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Coyote
02-03-2014 12:37 AM


Re: You missed a quote or two
Sorry, you are not able to pull the wool over my eyes with your rhetoric and those quote-mined quotes.
Half my study for my Ph.D. exams was in the fields of fossil man and human osteology. (I passed, by the way.)
I know something about the fossil record, and the major figures whom you are mis-quoting. I would be willing to bet you do not have any such knowledge, but rather pick up your "learning" from creationist websites.
That's unfortunate, as they are lying to you and you are accepting those lies uncritically.
Bs'd
So far you didn't get any further than saying: "Your quotes are lying".
With that you implicate that the big evolutionists from whom these quotes are coming are lying.
That is a bit too much to accept, so I stick to the only other conclusion which is that you are lying.
Oh, by the way, I hope we can get this debate above the level of calling each other a liar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 02-03-2014 12:37 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-03-2014 3:30 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2014 12:19 PM Eliyahu has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024