TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

Here are the larger quotes, from just over 100 pages apart:

quote:

---

From page 59: One striking aspect of these extinction/rebound episodes in life's history is the extraordinary rapidity with which they occur. The Cretaceous extinction about 65 million years ago, which took away the last of the dinosaurs, and perhaps as much as 90 percent of all the other forms of Cretaceous life, took place within the span of a million years. Now, a million years is certainly a long period of time by some standards, but it is an eyeblink in geologic history. Events occurring within less than a million years' time can create patterns of abrupt change in the fossil record: in many places around the world, fossils can be traced up into the highest layers of Cretaceous rocks when, all of a sudden, they just disappear. And the rocks immediately above preserve representatives of the initial repopulation, life's rebound after the collapse. The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record.

​

From page 163: We have already argued that that the fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change. So too, says Teggart, does the historical sequence of human events.

---

Why can't creationists be honest about their quotes?Answer: the evidence contradicts their religious beliefs, so they have to lie about the evidence to make it appear to support their beliefs.Creation "science" as usual.Dishonest. And disgusting.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

No. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And when it comes to the type of nonsense you're peddlin' there is no credible evidence. If there was real evidence you wouldn't have just the creationist websites and literature pushing those claims. (Personally I think these are frauds planted by creationists for the purpose of advancing their religious beliefs, for which they can come up with no better evidence.) For evolution there is evidence. For the type of nonsense you have been posting there is a sad lack of evidence.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

As more and more data is found, our picture of the distant past is becoming clearer.That is the strength of science; it can discard old falsehoods. Would that religious belief was as concerned about accuracy. Track down the creationist who perpetrated the fraud. (He'll be the one selling tickets and books and making a fortune from the gullible.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Why should change in a theory be a problem? It becomes increasingly accurate as it changes, and you should consider that a good thing.Unless you see the theory as dogma, unchanging from the beginning. Is that perhaps the problem?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Who cares?Science is not a personality cult. Tens of thousands of scientists have contributed over the decades, each building on the work of those who went before.But Darwin got the major idea, and that has stood up well.I don't know why creationists keep after Darwin, as if personal attacks would change the theory or lessen the evidence. On another website a crazed anti-evolution zealot keeps claiming that Darwin inspired Marx and Hitler, led directly to eugenics, and other nonsense, as if any of that would somehow make the theory of evolution go away.I guess if you have no evidence against the theory you attack the originator, eh?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

"Strengths and weaknesses" is simply the most recent tactic from the creationists in an effort to get their particular brand of religion taught in public schools.The "weaknesses" that creationists are continually harping about are nothing more than PRATTS, dusted off and run out once again in the hope that they can gain some traction this time.It's like "teach both theories." When that didn't work they dumped that tactic and turned to "strengths and weaknesses."Both tactics rely on deception and misrepresentation.If you actually had the "truth" or TRUTH or TRVTH why is deception and misrepresentation necessary?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

"Strengths and weaknesses" is a ploy used by creationists to get their religion back into the schools. It has nothing to do with science and what science is actually doing. It is, in fact, anti-science. Children should be taught accurately what science is doing, not what one narrow interpretation of one of the world's 4,000 extant religions wants them to be taught."Strengths and weaknesses" is an anti-science propaganda campaign, and amounts to nothing but religious apologetics; it has no place in public school classrooms.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.