Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 46 of 342 (717940)
02-03-2014 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Eliyahu
02-03-2014 8:46 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively proves evolution
I see my hopes were in vain.
That you could insult people and expect to be treated differently? How vain indeed.
What a precocious precious little hissy fit. By your works are you known.
If you don't mind I'm going to continue this debate with others.
How long before you don't talk to anyone? Is that what you are looking for?
LOL
Message 5 is still unanswered ... if you truly had an argument that was more than a sad compilation of old discredited misrepresentation quotemines then this post should have elicited your first response to actually show it is in error, where and why, and you haven't done that.
Your failure\inability to respond to Message 5 is more telling than anything you have posted. This
Message 31: I think there are 2 possibilities for the post of Razd, one is: It is totally made up out of thin air, two: It is on the same level as the piltdown man and the Nebraska man, and it will be exposed as a hoax soon enough.
... this of course ignores the third very real possibility that what I posted was in fact evidence of evolution occurring in the past and reasons for punk-eek appearing suddenly.
Your apparent inability to conceive let alone consider this third possibility shows a shallow intellectualism. Sad.
If this is the best level of refutation you are capable of, then your argument is entirely gutted by your failure of ability to support it.
Edited by RAZD, : +
Edited by RAZD, : +
Edited by RAZD, : +

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 44 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 8:46 AM Eliyahu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2014 9:16 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 47 of 342 (717942)
02-03-2014 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
02-03-2014 8:59 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively proves evolution
Message 5 is still unanswered .
It was 'answered' in Message 31. I'll save you the click through if you like: It is made up or its fraudulent. Yep, it's that good. 'Real' paleontologists know that Eliyahu is right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2014 8:59 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2014 9:23 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 48 of 342 (717943)
02-03-2014 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Modulous
02-03-2014 9:16 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively proves evolution
I saw that. It is not an answer, it is denial and willful ignorance coupled with delusion.
It is made up or its fraudulent. Yep, it's that good. 'Real' paleontologists know that Eliyahu is right.
yeah we got a treasure with this one. and then he whines about Dr A.

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 47 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2014 9:16 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 49 of 342 (717944)
02-03-2014 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Eliyahu
02-03-2014 7:41 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56
Czarnecki Mark is an evolutionist and a paleontologist.
Your sources are lying to you.
quote:
Freelance writer and Maclean's theatre critic Mark Czarnecki
Source
I always rely on theatre critics for cutting edge commentary on science.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 7:41 AM Eliyahu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2014 11:11 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 50 of 342 (717945)
02-03-2014 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Eliyahu
02-03-2014 8:46 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
If you don't mind I'm going to continue this debate with others.
This will not, of course, prevent me from pointing out your dumb lies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 8:46 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 51 of 342 (717946)
02-03-2014 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Eliyahu
02-03-2014 7:41 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
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?
Dishonest evolutionistic scientists.
So according to you the very scientists you're using as sources for your exercise in quotemining are liars and not to be trusted, Gould in particular perjuring himself on the witness stand.
Well in that case, you should make that clear when you're quotemining them. For example, you could write:
The WELL-KNOWN LIAR and CRIMINAL PERJURER Stephen Jay Gould, who LIES ABOUT PALEONTOLOGY and SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED ABOUT THE FOSSIL RECORD wrote "Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 7:41 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 52 of 342 (717949)
02-03-2014 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Eliyahu
02-03-2014 6:59 AM


This is totally incompatible with evolution, and totally supports creation.
So is your position that the earth is old and God created a new species every million years or so, or by creation do you mean a literal 6 days?
There is A LOT more where this came from
Ooooh the sheer volume of evidence against evolution is underwhelming.
In context, out of context, it doesn't matter, because the context does not in any way alter the meaning of the quotes.
So the context is irrelevant.
Yeah, this is the way so many handle the Bible (or in your case, the Torah?). Pluck out a verse and make it mean what you want it to.
I'm not a paleontologist, so my personal arguments on the fossil record are irrelevant.
But Gould and Eldredge are not here to defend themselves or to present their arguments. You, however, are.
What I do is I show what big shot evolutionists say about the fossil record
Your whole argument is simply an argument from authority (albeit a kinda backwards one) - which is a logical fallacy.
Even if I was, it would be said that because i'm a creationist, my arguments would not be valid,
I can't speak for everyone here, but I would judge your arguments based on their own merit, not on what your personal beliefs are. I would like to think that others here would too.
More likely the problem is you really don't understand the arguments, you are simply parroting them. Squaaaaawwwkk!
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 36 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 6:59 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 342 (717958)
02-03-2014 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Theodoric
02-03-2014 9:52 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively proves evolution
Your sources are lying to you.
Indeed.
Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"
quote:
Quote 26
"A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." (Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56)
Is [the quote-miner] Canadian? This quote is from a Canadian newsmagazine, and would be relatively obscure outside of Canada. The quote has clipped off part of the last sentence, and some of the punctuation has changed:
A major problem in proving the theory has been the "fossil record," the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead, species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God as described in the Bible.
Once again, this seems to be a glossing over of the controversy surrounding Punctuated Equilibrium. Given that many in the news media seem to have a superficial understanding of science, I'm not inclined to take the technical aspects of a news article about the evolution-creation controversy seriously, especially when I see a gem like this:
Essentially, Darwin stated that a species evolved by the random mutation of genes, which then produced variants of the original species.
The claim that Darwin knew about genes and mutation is news to me, as I'm sure it is to a lot of people. But Czarnecki does raise an interesting point. Discussing how some people view the difference between fact and theory, he writes:
Such a pedagogical approach, though initiated with the best of intentions, strips the corpus of scientific knowledge down to certain facts that can be perceived by the five senses with the aid of technology; everything else is factually suspect because it cannot be directly "observed" - so much for paleontology (fossil study) and all of nuclear physics.
And a few sentences later:
What about history? Past events cannot be observed, records of them are just fallible memories, words - just like the Bible, in fact.
- Jon (Augray) Barber
MacLeans is not a peer reviewed scientific journal last time I checked ... and we know that Mr Czarnecki is no real scientist because he talks about "proving the theory" ...
Something we can also tell by reading The Other Darwin, Walrus Magazine, September 2008 because of the poor understanding of evolution exhibited in that article, but one (sadly) that is typical of journalists and other scientifically under-literate people.
AND: one of the ways that we can tell that intellectually dishonest people like I-lie-to-you is that they quote the version shown above which is from a creationist source rather than the actual version from the actual article.
Edited by RAZD, : lies that liars tell
Edited by RAZD, : +

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 49 by Theodoric, posted 02-03-2014 9:52 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 54 of 342 (717962)
02-03-2014 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Eliyahu
02-03-2014 7:41 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Eliyahu writes:
The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.
The fossil record is a series of snapshots. There is no way it could show that evolution didn't happen because it doesn't show what happened between the snapshots.
I take a snapshot of myself in New York City. I take a snapshot of myself in Memphis. I take a snapshot of myself on Malibu Beach. You're concluding from those snapshots that I was never anywhere in between. Impossible. Illogical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 7:41 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 55 of 342 (717964)
02-03-2014 11:32 AM


The silver bullet
I think what we have here is another creationist who thought he had found the "silver bullet" that would disprove evolution once and for all.
Like most creationists, this one included a mix of ignorance, arrogance, and a certainty he was right no matter what the evidence shows.
Those character traits don't make for a very good debate.

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

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


(2)
Message 56 of 342 (717966)
02-03-2014 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Eliyahu
02-03-2014 7:41 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
The simple facts are: The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.
The fossil record shows that life has not changed over time? Interesting. So you can show that humans show up throughout the fossil record? That rabbits lived at the same time as Isoxys? That lifeforms prior to the K-T boundary are identical to those after?
Because that's not a simple fact, is it?
It shows the opposite of evolution, namely sudden appearance of new species without any linkage to supposed predecessors, and then during their whole stay in the fossil record STASIS, non-change.
No, that would not be the opposite of evolution. Evolution states that life has changed over time. New species appearing and existing species going extinct is a change in life on earth over time.
After science lied to the public for about 150 years, Gould and Eldredge had the courage to risk it all by pointing that out to the world, and they made up the PE theory, so that people could keep on hanging on to the evolution theory.
And Gould and Eldredge, far from angering the scientific world for exposing their lies, were regarded highly for the rest of their lives and beyond. The worst critic of theirs (such as Dawkins) was more or less saying that they didn't propose anything all that revolutionary from biologist's perspective.
How do you explain the fossil record then? Does god change life over time by occasionally magicking/moulding them into existence? Could you give a detailed account of how this happens that is in accordance with established knowledge of the universe? Because Gould and Eldredge managed to disprove gradualism as the normal mode of evolution using reason and evidence. I know you've confused gradualism and evolution, but nothing in evolutionary theory necessitates phyletic gradualism for it to work no matter what you say.
But of course, it still is an enormous blamage for both science and the evolution theory, so evo's can't handle it very well when you show them the facts.
That's a nice narrative you've constructed. I'm sure it confirms what you believed all along and everything, right?
How have we handled it poorly? Should we have taken a look at facts we have been aware of for years and suddenly bow to your superior copy-paste skills? It's not like you've provided much in the way of argument here is it? Your opening post was a series of quotes and a declaration of victory. Since then you've simply been repeating the position that the quotes give you victory without addressing any of the evidence of the fossil record itself, what mode evolution must take based on using reason applied to the modern theory and so on. You've done no decent work in proving your claims of conclusively disproving evolution by reference to the fossil record, as you've not actually referenced the fossil record. Just quotes. Quotes don't disprove theories.
When you show them the exact statements of high profile evolutionists, they say that you are a liar by just repeating their statements.
You didn't just repeat their statements, you said untrue things based on them. For instance 'the fossil record conclusively disproves evolution' which is not what the 'high profile' evolutionists said at all.
It shows the opposite of evolution, namely sudden appearance of new species without any linkage to supposed predecessors, and then during their whole stay in the fossil record STASIS, non-change.
What would count as 'linkage' that was sufficient for you to conclude that evolution occurred by means of descent with modification?
Is this sufficient? Is the fact that the ear structure of pakicetus is unique to extant whales/dolphins sufficient linkage?
How about this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 7:41 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 57 of 342 (717967)
02-03-2014 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Eliyahu
02-03-2014 1:38 AM


Re: You missed the point
With that you implicate that the big evolutionists from whom these quotes are coming are lying.
No she is saying that your use is a misrepresentation that portrays their meaning in a false way -- that your usage is a lie.
... you implicate that the big evolutionists from whom these quotes ...
One hopes you realize that no one person personifies the science of evolution and that using quotes is making the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority. And that when you obfuscate and ignore their true meaning that your usage of such authority is invalid.
It seems you are incapable of making any argument but quote-mining misrepresentations -- why is that? Lack of real evidence? or just too lazy.

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 30 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 1:38 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 12:58 PM RAZD has replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(1)
Message 58 of 342 (717969)
02-03-2014 12:24 PM


Evolution IS a blind watchmaker
Here is a simple computer simulation of the evolutionary process in action. I wonder why it works if it is modeling a process that isn't real. What's interesting about it in the context of this thread is the ages of the differing kinds of clocks, the long age of pendulums followed by other ages of more advanced clocks, the long periods of stasis between moments of rapid change. So we have punctuated equilibrium demonstrated by a computer simulation of evolution. Hmmmm.

It is inconceivable that parents in this day and age still shackle their children with the YEC world view. This kind of disability and impairment to their learning and education is abuse. Polygamists with their abuse of the physical and YECs with their abuse of the mental are both child abusers.
But doesn't the existence of YECism in our population disprove evolution as a general principal moving the population toward improvement? We haven't finished the selection process yet. In the competitive marketplace of ideas who will come out on top? Who will be left in poverty and misery? Which group will constitute the masses consigned to starvation as overpopulation bumps up against the rails of the finite resources of planet Earth? Stay tuned as the rapture turns into the rupture of society - this disaster brought to you by arrogance and ignorance, a very dangerous combination of mental laxatives.

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by frako, posted 02-03-2014 12:32 PM shalamabobbi has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 59 of 342 (717971)
02-03-2014 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by shalamabobbi
02-03-2014 12:24 PM


Re: Evolution IS a blind watchmaker
But doesn't the existence of YECism in our population disprove evolution as a general principal moving the population toward improvement?
Saddly it seams the uneducated are being selected for in our evolution. Probably because they either do not know what contraception is or think its evil.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-03-2014 12:24 PM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-03-2014 2:18 PM frako has not replied

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


Message 60 of 342 (717972)
02-03-2014 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by RAZD
02-03-2014 8:14 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
What is your actual source for the quotes -- did you get them off a creationist website\source or did you get them directly from the articles cited?
Bs'd
I got them from here and there and everywhere. Some I checked in the original publications, I think I checked all of 'm in the Talk Origins Archive, and they are all totally correct.
If the former then you don't really know if you are giving exact quotes, and if the later than you are committing the sin of omission.
There is no "sin of omission", because the context does not alter the meaning of the quotes.
If you think different, then prove it; give the context and show that they mean something else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2014 8:14 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2014 12:41 PM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 65 by frako, posted 02-03-2014 12:59 PM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2014 4:50 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024