Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid

WHO WINS THE CREATIONIST/EVOLUTIONIST DEBATES?http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.htmlhttp://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm(I read the Wall Street Journal article quoted in the first link. It was an science professor from the Univerisity of MN and evolutionist who was quoted as saying the creationists "tend to win the debates"). THE FOSSIL RECORD SUPPORTS CREATIONISMCompleteness of the fossil record:"There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world."*Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129."Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track.The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record."Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9OTHER COMMENTS REGARDING THE FOSSIL RECORD"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt." Robert G. Wesson,
'Beyond Natural Selection', 1991, p. 45Quote regarding the general state of the fossil record from a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History:"Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.You say that I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.'I will lay it on the linethere is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record."Dr. Colin Patterson,
Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History (Dr. Patterson is a evolutionist but honest enough to make this declaration), London "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p89Quote from author, paleontologist, evolutionist, and curator of invertebrate paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, Niles Eldredge and co-author Ian Tattersall who is Curator, Deptartment of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History and who is also a evolutionist)."Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersall,
'The Myths of Human Evolution', 1982, p. 45-46A widely read evolutionist and scientist states the following regarding the fosssil record:"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 (Mark Ridley is an evolutionist)Some quotes regarding the fossil record that are more specific: "...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England.
E.J. H. Corner, Evolution in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97"If the genealogies of animals are uncertain, more so are those of plants. We cannot learn a great deal from petrified plant anatomy which shows different spades at different times, but no real phylogeny [transitional plant species changes] at all. There are simply fascinating varieties of the plants we have todaysome new species of courseplus many extinctions: but algae, mosses, pines, ferns and flowering plants are all clearly recognizable from their first appearance in the fossil record." Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 181."We do not know the phylogenetic history of any group of plants and animals." *E. Core, General Biology (1981), p. 299."Fossil remains, however, give no information on the origin of the vertebrates." *Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 587 (1976 edition, Macropaedia)."No fossil of any such birdlike reptile has yet been found." World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 291 (1982 edition). (regarding reptiles becoming birds)"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that." Dr. J. Alan Feduccia,
Prof. Avian Evolution and world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina. Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms by V. Morell, Science 259(5096):764—65, 5 February 1993."For use in understanding the evolution of vertebrate flight, the early record of pterosaurs and bats is disappointing: Their most primitive representatives are fully transformed as capable fliers." Paul C. Sereno,
The evolution of dinosaurs, Science 284(5423):2137—2147 (quote on p. 2143), June 25, 1999"The fossil record does not give any information on the origin of insects." *Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 585 (1978 edition; Macropaedia)."Insect origins beyond that point [the Carboniferous] are shrouded in mystery. It might almost seem that the insects had suddenly appeared on the scene, but this is not in agreement with accepted [evolutionary] ideas of animal origins." *A.E. Hutchins, Insects (1988), pp. 3,4."The common ancestor of the bony-fish groups is unknown. There are various features, many of them noted above, in which the two typical subclasses of bony fish are already widely divergent when we first see them." *A.S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology (1988), p. 53."....squirrels have evolved in patterns that seem to differ in no important ways from their living relative Sciurus. Since Sciurus is so similar to what is apparently the primitive squirrel morphotype, it seems to fit the concept of 'living fossil.’" —*R. Emry and *A. Thorington, "The Tree Squirrel Sciurus as a Living Fossil," in Living Fossils (1984), p. 30."Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." - Dr. Lyall Watson, Anthropologist. 'The water people'. Science Digest, vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44."Unfortunately, the fossil record which would enable us to trace the emergence of the apes is still hopelessly incomplete. We do not know either when or where distinctively apelike animals first began to diverge from monkey stock . . Unfortunately, the early stages of man's evolutionary progress along his own individual line remain a total mystery." *Sarel Elmer and *Irven DeVore and the *Editors of Life, The Primates (1985), p. 15."No fossil or other physical evidence directly connects man to ape." *John Gliedman, "Miracle Mutations," Science Digest, February 1982, p. 90."Even this relatively recent history [of evolution from apes to man] is shot through with uncertainties; authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about details." Theodosius Dobzhanski (he was an evolutionist), Mankind Evolving, Yale Univ. Press, 1962, p168. LARGE RESOURCE OF QUOTATIONS REGARDING THE FOSSIL RECORDhttp://evolution-facts.org/a17c.htmFIVE MUSEUM OFFICIALS SPEAK REGARDING THE LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILShttp://www.creationism.org/books/sunderlan...1TheProblem.htmMORE INFORMATION REGARDING THE LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS IN THE FOSSIL RECORDhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter3.aspTHE SEARCH FOR MAN'S MISSING LINK CAME UP EMPTYLarge number of articles: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...nthropology.aspMore examples of false missing links: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2002/res0205b.htmAn essay: The Fruitless Search for the Missing Link by Jerry Bergman http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BMissingLink...essSearch49.htmWHY THE FIRST LIFE ON EARTH DID NOT ARISE NATURALLYExcellent origin of life essay: http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.htmlMore articles on the origin of life: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.aspFIVE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE MACROEVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESISFive Failures of Macroevolutionary Model: http://www.probe.org/docs/5crises.htmlOTHER ESSAYS ON CREATIONISM General essays: http://www.apologetics.org/articles/articles.htmlArticles regarding mutations and why they are not a good argument for the macroevolutionary hypothesis: : Page not found – Evolution-Factshttp://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut13.htmPage not found – How Does a Cryptocurrency ETF Work? QUOTES FROM SCIENTIST AND OTHERS THAT LEND SUPPORT TO CREATIONISMhttp://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.htmlhttp://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.phphttp://www.nwcreation.net/quotes.htmlYOUNG EARTH ARGUMENTSTHAT SUPPORT CREATIONISMhttp://www.age-of-earth.com/http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.htmlhttp://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/2001/dd-01-16.htmLARGE DIRECTORY OF CREATIONIST SITEShttp://members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creation.htmlSOME EVOLUTIONISTS COMMENT ON THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE EVOLUTIONIST CAMP"So heated is the debate that one Darwinian says there are times when he thinks about going into a field with more intellectual honesty: the used-car business."
-Sharon Begley, "Science Contra Darwin," Newsweek, April 8, 1985, p. 80."We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, .... in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewontin, Professor, geneticist. "The New York Review", January 9, 1997, p. 31 THE UNIVERSE IS NOT ETERNALhttp://godevidences.net/lawsofscience.htmlhttp://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/2001/dd-01-17.htmhttp://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/sld010.htmlIS GOD ETERNAL?http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.htmlhttp://www.carm.org/questions/God_created.htmBIG BANG THEORY PROBLEMS AND CRITICISMSBrief webpages: http://www.origin-of-the-universe.com/http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htmhttp://www.christiancourier.com/feature/december99.htmhttp://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2001/dc-01-04.htmExcellent Comprehensive Essay: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0305ad3.htm CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/http://www.carm.org/issues/science.htmONLINE CREATIONISM BOOK (UNIQUE)http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ441.htmlFALL OF MAN AND CREATIONhttp://www.ldolphin.org/Ruin.htmlre: Quotes of evolutionistI wanted to speak briefly regarding the evolutionist quotes I used in the previous post. First of all I do believe in not taking quotes radically out of context. For example, unless a lot of fairness is used I generally do not like quotes of partial sentences and find them suspect. For example, the Bible says, "....there is no God." Bible scholars will tell you, however, that the Bible declares, "The fool in his heart says there is no God." On the other hand, in a court of law attorneys and judges will cross examine a witness and highlight certain portions of their testimony to show inconsistency. In short, I find that the legal/historical method of discovering truth can shed additional light regarding science issues. Now I do not believe for one instant that some of the evolutionist would like me emphasizing key portions of their public testimony in order to make a point favoring the creationist position. This does not bother me. I clearly indicated that some of the gentleman were evolutionist yet I quoted them in areas we agree. I see nothing whatsoever wrong in doing so. I also recognize that using quotes has its limitations and is not meant to replace a thorough study of the matter.Lastly, many of the quotes are from the 1980's although some are from the 1990's and post 2000. I would remind the readers that in 1980 the evolutionists had over 120 years to prove their case and still did not do it. I would also remind the readers that an appeal to novelty is a logical fallacy. Please see this webpages information: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...to-novelty.htmlIn regards to the above link, while new ideas can overturn old ideas this is not guaranteed by any means. Many times new ideas are have not been sufficiently tested. Of course, this does not mean that we do not seek new information to build on our existing knowledge. I also realize that people can stubbornly stick to antiquated ideas, however, at the same time I also realize that people can jump on new fads prematurely. After all is said and done it is not the newness or oldness of ideas or information but it is their validity that most matters. WHY THE CASE FOR CREATIONISM IS BUILDING AS NEW EVIDENCE IS INTRODUCEDWe discussed the logical fallacy of appeal to novelty and why it is the validity of inofrmation and not whether it is new or old information that is truly important.
At the same time, I would not deny there is new information that sheds light on the issue on whether or not God or naturalistic forces created all the various life forms on earth. The Wall Street Journal article I referred to earlier has an evolutionist declare the creationist are "picking up steam". I believe they are picking up steam because as our knowledge in various science disciplines increases the attempted naturalistic explanations fail in more or more ways. For example, the abiogenesis hypothesis as new evidence comes out is increasingly under attack.THE FAILURE OF THE ABIOGENESIS HYPOTHESIS BECOMES MORE EVIDENT WITH NEW INFORMATIONHere is an essay by a gentleman I have email correspondeded with. I think he has written a very excellent essay on the topic of the abiogenesis hypothesis: http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.aspI think if you look at that essays sources there are numerous citations from the 1990's and this reflects that there is new information that is coming out against the attempted naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.THE IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY FOUND IN NATURE SHOWS ITSELF TO BE A STRONG CASE FOR CREATIONISMHere are two articles published in the 1990's that definitely indicate that a purely naturalistic explanation for life is done if irreducibly complex systems exist and the best information we have at this time is that they do exist: publhttp://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_trueacidtest.htmhttp://www.apologetics.org/articles/machines.htmlThe work of Behe (who is a evolutionist although a theistic evolutionist) prompted the evolutionary scientist Thornhill and Ussery to clarify the issue of irreducible complexity within a macroevolutionary model. I think if you read their work below using the citation I give you this will cleary enable you too see that Behe has not been refuted whatsoever:Thornhill, R.H. and Ussery, D.W., (2000) A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 203: 111-116.BEHE WRITES A LETTER TO THE WALL STREET JOURNALThe Wall Street Journal
February 27, 2004 "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."So lamented Colorado State University biochemist Franklin Harold in "The Way of the Cell" (Oxford University Press, 2001). Ms. Begley reports the very latest "wishful speculations." The flagellum, an astonishingly complex biological outboard motor that some bacteria use to swim, has in recent years been found to be even more sophisticated. Not only does it have a rotary nanomotor that has been dubbed "the most efficient machine in the universe," but we now know it also contains intricate protein pumps that allow it to construct itself, something no human-made machine can do. With breathtaking chutzpah but bizarre logic, a few rather unreflective Darwinists are spinning the increased complexity, which they neither predicted nor explained, as a public relations reprieve for their moribund theory. It's like contending that, although wheels, chassis and a steering column give a car the appearance of intelligent design, when the fuel pump is discovered then happenstance is a better explanation.The Darwinian imagination is a marvel to behold. No wonder Darwinists try to rule out intelligent design "as a matter of principle." It surely can't be ruled out by the evidence.Michael J. Behe
Professor of Biological Sciences
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, Pa.MORE DETAILED RESPONSE OF BEHENow there is no denying the evolutionist who oppose Behe's arguments have attempted to bring forth criticisms of Behe but I believe that if you examine Behe's reply to his critics you will see the inherent soundness of Behe's work and the unsoundness the macroevolutionary hypothesis. I offer the following website of Behe: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:u7ybu...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8So I definitely believe that new information has shed additional light on this subject. I I think it has made the very strong position of creationism even more stronger. Why Darwinism is Theologically UnsoundThe book of Genesis declares the following:"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." - Genesis 1:26Now I would ask any person who is a Christian and declares they are adherent of the macroevlutionary explanation for man's arrival on earth this question:"If men are descendants of apes, where along the way did men obtain their image of God?"Secondly, the Bible declares the following:"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."Accordingly I would ask the following question:"What about the immense suffering caused by mutations and death?"The Bible declares that man's sin caused their to be death, disease, and suffering when they chose to sin. Clearly, the Bible declares that when God looked upon sinless creation it was "very good." Why Creationism Uses Sound Biblical Exegesis1. Are the days in Genesis chapter one 24 hour days?A website declares:"Words generally do not hang in space and in isolation from other words. When they appear in writing, they are always surrounded by other words which serve as modifiers and/or clarifiers......The numerical qualifier demands a 24-hour day.The word "day" appears over 200 times in the Old Testament with numbers (i.e., first day, second day, etc.). In every single case, without exception, it refers to a 24-hour day. Each of the six days of the creation week is so qualified and therefore the consistency of Old Testament usage requires a 24-hour day in Genesis 1 as well....The terms "evening and morning" require a 24-hour day.The words evening (52 times) and morning (220 times) always refer to normal days where they are used elsewhere in the Old Testament. The Jewish day began in the evening (sunset) and ended with the start of the evening the following day. Thus it is appropriate that the sequence is evening-morning (of a normal day) rather than morning-evening (= start and finish). The literal Hebrew is even more pronounced: "There was evening and there was morning, day one. . . . There was evening and there was morning, day two," etc....The words "day" and "night" are part of a normal 24-hour day.In Genesis 1:5, 14-18, the words day and night are used nine times in such a manner that they can refer only to the light and dark periods of a normal, 24-hour day....Genesis 1:14 distinguishes between days, years, and seasons.And God said, "Let there be light-makers in the expanse above to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for the determination of seasons and for days and for years.Clearly the word days here represents days, years represents years, seasons represents seasons. It is a red herring to claim that, if the sun did not appear until the fourth day, there could be no days and nights on the first three days. The Bible clearly says that there was a light source (apparently temporary in nature, Genesis 1:3), that there were periods of alternating light and darkness (1:4-5), and that there were evenings and mornings for those first three days (1:5, 8,13).......The testimony of the fourth Commandment.It is a marvelous thing to observe the unity of the Scriptures and the orderliness with which God carries out His plans. Have you ever wondered why there were six days of creation, rather than some other number? In the light of the apparently instantaneous creation of the new heavens and new earth of Revelation 21, and the instantaneous nature of the miracles of the New Testament, why is it that God takes as long as six days to create everything? And why is it that God rested on the seventh day? Was He tired after all this exertion? No, Psalm 33:6-9 state that "the heavens were made by the Word of the Lord . . . He spoke and it was done. He commanded and it stood fast." There is no hint of exertion here. Genesis 2:2-3 merely means that He ceased working because the created order was completed, not because He was tired.The commentary on these questions is found in Exodus 20:8-11, and it reads as follows:verse 8 - Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
verse 9 - Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
verse 10 - But the seventh day is the sabbath (rest) of the Lord your God. In it you shall not do any work...
verse 11 - For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them and rested on the seventh day...Verses 8-10 speak of man working six days and ceasing from his work on the seventh. These are obviously not eons of time, but normal 24-hour days. A key word in verse 11 is for, because it introduces the rationale or foundation for the previous command. It continues by equating the time period of creation with the time period of man's work week (six days plus one day) and states that God Himself had set the example in Genesis 1. That indeed is the reason why the creation week was 7 days no more, no less. The passage becomes nonsense if it reads: "Work for six days and rest on the seventh, because God worked for six billion years and is now resting during the seventh billion-year period." If God is resting, who parted the waters of the Red Sea in Exodus 14? And what did Jesus mean in John 5:17 when He said, "My Father is working until now, and I myself am working"?"taken from: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-081.htm[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-09-2004]

This is why creationists tend to win debates, but lose out when they are pressed for scientific evidence in a scientific WRITTEN debate. In an oral debate, the creationist will trot out everything you have written in a span of about 5 minutes, and then expect the evolutionist to refute each claim with convuluted and in-depth scientific explanations in the same 5 minutes.Secondly, quote-mining by creationists is a well known phenomenon. For each of your quotes, could you please provide the context for each quote, maybe include the previous and subsequent paragraphs from the paper where the quotes are taken from? Secondly, no matter what an authority states, they can still be wrong. It is the actual evidence that matters.My suggestion to you is this. Pick one topic from the long list above and we will talk about that.

Dear Loudmouth:If you want to assert that my quotes are radically out of context in the paragraphs they were given in, you are free to attempt to show they were. I do not believe you can. I suppose you could say you are disinterested in showing my quotes were radically out of context in the paragraphs they were in and certainly you can choose to be disinterested. I wish to do no arm twisting in terms of making you interested.Secondly, I wanted to provide the whole case for creationism within reason. I suspect some evolutionist may dispute my information and some creationist may choose to defend my information. Perhaps, some creationist will dispute my information too. For example, not all creationist are young earth creationist.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-02-2004]

http://www.bulletin.ac.cn/ACTION/2000121401.htm
Dude, most of your post contain 20 year old enclyclopedia clippings from the 80's They found out a few things since then. I am kinda not wanting to post a long list of links to rebutt 20 yr old encyclopedia quotes. But I am sure If I went through my grand daddys old Almanacs I could come up with a few more "Scientifc" quotes for you to post that no longer apply.[This message has been edited by 1.61803, 03-02-2004]

Dear previous poster:I address that in my material:re: Quotes of evolutionistI wanted to speak briefly regarding the evolutionist quotes I used in the previous post. First of all I do believe in not taking quotes radically out of context. For example, unless a lot of fairness is used I generally do not like quotes of partial sentences and find them suspect. For example, the Bible says, "....there is no God." Bible scholars will tell you, however, that the Bible declares, "The fool in his heart says there is no God." On the other hand, in a court of law attorneys and judges will cross examine a witness and highlight certain portions of their testimony to show inconsistency. In short, I find that the legal/historical method of discovering truth can shed additional light regarding science issues. Now I do not believe for one instant that some of the evolutionist would like me emphasizing key portions of their public testimony in order to make a point favoring the creationist position. This does not bother me. I clearly indicated that some of the gentleman were evolutionist yet I quoted them in areas we agree. I see nothing whatsoever wrong in doing so.Lastly, many of the quotes are from the 1980's. I would remind the readers that in 1980 the evolutionists had over 120 years to prove their case and still did not do it. I would also remind the readers that an appeal to novelty is a logical fallacy. Please see this webpages information:Page not found - NizkorIn regards to the above link, while new ideas can overturn old ideas this is not guaranteed by any means. Many times new ideas are have not been sufficiently tested. Of course, this does not mean that we do not seek new information to build on our existing knowledge. I also realize that people can stubbornly stick to antiquated ideas, however, at the same time I also realize that people can jump on new fads prematurely. After all is said and done it is not the newness or oldness of ideas or information but it is their validity that most matters.I ALSO HAVE:WHY THE CASE FOR CREATIONISM IS BUILDING AS NEW EVIDENCE IS INTRODUCEDSincerely,Ken

I updated my original post. I still feel, however, that an appeal to novelty is a logical fallacy.[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-02-2004]

As noted Applied Epistemology-hypothetico-deductive Bayes Theorist Esteban Hambre noted when faced with the exact same boatload of misinformation from Kendemyer:

quote:

---

This is really amusing. It seems that evolutionists can only be trusted when they seem to support creationism with out-of-context quotes. Are we supposed to believe that Patterson, Eldredge or Ridley are claiming that species don't evolve?

​

I'm sure Dobzhanski's oft-quoted line that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" would not be so conducive to underhanded creationist quote mining. His lifelong commitment to his Orthodox Christian faith should dissolve any argument that evolution is only supported by atheists. So all that's left is some quote concerning the controversies still raging in biology that the creationists hope everyone will misinterpret as ridiculously as they.

​

It's deplorable that creationists still use this tactic. It makes a mockery of reputable scientists and insults the legacy of rational inquiry for which creationists obviously have no respect.

---

My words still stand, Ken. You do nothing except spew links, instead of engaging in debate yourself. Are we supposed to believe that "Behe has not been refuted whatsoever" just because you say so? We've all read Darwin's Black Box and have attacked his methodology and claims in several places on this site.Quotes aren't facts, Ken. If we present the words of someone who affirms the validity of evolution, you claim that person can't be trusted. If you present his words, however, you claim it proves your point.regards,
Esteban "Quote Mining Disaster" Hambre

MrSir,
On you take sir I have to take the position of my parents and lover but to do so would make me fall into their (collective) opinion of me, that I am ill. I am not. It is all so simple I can rehearse this all in my sleep. I was dedicated to uncovering the cause of Change in the time it took the work snake to crawl from this side of the App MNTS to the OTHER side of the Mississippi. I could have cared less how long be aloted for that change but unless one insists my phyiscal capacity is not healthy there is no way but anti-Christian bias to explain how I could not continue at Cornell especially in their renewed promotion to "evolve" the faculty. Somehow unlike my Grandfather the professionals lost sight of the historical origin their profession. Gould did not make this mistake but would on my opnion have to admit that 1/2 his collegues are talking out their hat.

There are eons and eons of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2This puts your young earth nonsense out of business.God said "replenish" the Earth, not "plenish".

To: Mr. HambrePlease comment on my Biblical exegesis and Theology section/To ALL READERS:Thank you for you input regarding the fossil record quotes. I put some in some 1990's quotes as well in my original post. I also added some more quotes in the section where evolutionist speak regarding the current state of affairs in my original post.I still believe, however, that some respondents were using the appeal to novelty logical fallacy. I also mentioned some of the advantages the legal/historical approach has in regards to augmenting science if used properly. I do, however, realize its limitations.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-02-2004]

Um and your point is??????? Microraptor and Archeoptrix are not even the same dinosaur. I freely admit that Evolution does not have all the answers, and perhaps never will, But I have also visited the Museum of Natural History in NYC . I was pretty convinced of the fossil evidence presented. It is kind of hard to ignore a 20 foot TRex skeleton gaping down at you.. Maybe you could get the opportunity to go see the bones for yourself .
click[This message has been edited by 1.61803, 03-02-2004]

kendemeyer,Just for an example of how evolutionists are taken out of context. You used this quote from Patterson in the original post: A person wrote a letter to Patterson, asking if he had indeed been taken out of context. This is Patterson's reply: As you can see, Patterson was only arguing that the fossil record gives us poor information on DIRECT lineages, but fossils are still useable as examples of transitional forms. Read here for more info. This is why evolutionists don't trust creationists when they offer quotes from prominent evolutionists.

Thank you for making it clear that Patterson was quoted accurately:"The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes."I would be interested in seeing the Patterson material that was submitted to the NY Department of Education that is publically available which the Sunderland mentions (see Five Museum officials speak regarding the fossil record). I realize a fuller view of Patterson would be available there.Secondly, Patterson's commnent that less formal talks are less important in terms of their bearing on the truth of matter in the EVC issue seems unconvincing from the creationist side of the aisle. It seems like such discussion would enable people to talk more freely and without heavy social repurcussions in the community of scientist. I do not think anyone would disagree that science is a social enterprise.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-02-2004]

It is accurate, BUT TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT! Do you realize what this means? He was talking about systematics, not the overall corectness of evolutionary theory. For instance, from your previous post, you wrote". . .truth of matters in the EVC issue seems unconvincing from the creationist side of the aisle."You did say those words, didn't you?

Your use of Patterson's quote may have been accurate in terms of the actual words used and the order they came in, but they were taken completely out of context and so were used to give an untrue impression of what he actually said. If this is an example of your best debating skills, I suggest you give up now. Misrepresenting people is JUST NOT DONE! Your reply to Loudmouth is going to fool no-one but yourself and the odd earthworm. All you have done is show that you can't debate in good faith and that you're not averse to tactics which border on the dishonest. Any moderators out there who feel that the message I'm replying to breaks the terms and conditions of the forum?