Summations Only

God could make the sky and grass any colour he wants to. Science can't explain why he chose blue and green, respectively.

The whole story is, Gould clearly saw the evidence for creation, but as a committed atheist, he tried to explain it away with his stupid PE theory. Predictably, many other atheists accepted PE as sound "science" ... any tin-pot idea will do, as long as it isn't creationism!... Which reminds me of another committed atheist, Salvador Dali, who said, "I know from my study of science that there is a God ... but I don't believe it." Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Except Dredge is not YEC.

So when Satan communicated his will to Judas Iscariot, do you imagine he did so in an audible voice that everyone could hear, or was the communication achieved silently? If silently, how does that work?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Not only was Gould's "science" the result of an atheism-inspired, a priori commitment to evolution, his pathetic PE was just a re-hash of spontaneous generation - superstition, in other words.

The trouble is, not all paleontologists share Gould's view that "transitional forms ... are abundant between larger groups":"Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendant pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups ... Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time ... We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and little has changed ... and the basic situation is not much changed ... We actuallty have fewer examples of smooth tranistions than we had in Darwin's time, because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid ...
If Darwin were writing today he would still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links or transitional forms between the major groups of organisms." - David Raup, from an essay in Godfrey's Scientists Confront Creationism.S. J. Gould: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."
This begs the question: Why is it "a trade secret"? Does keeping things "secret" sound like what goes on in honest science?Niles Eldredge: "We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports [gradual change], all the while really knowing that it does not."
Translation: Evolutionary scientists tell lies. Golly gosh, doesn't that come as a surprise!S. J. Gould: "We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life (ie, the fossil record) is more a story of multifarious variations about a set of basis designs than than a saga of accumulating excellence."
This is the same man who said "transitional forms ... are abundant between larger groups." Make up your mind! Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

You've missed my point. Explaining "how" is not explaining "why".

I don't know that he does - I'm saying it's entirely possible that he does. What is the difference between Porsche making a 'family' of sports cars and a nested hierarchy?

Angry? Actually Gould and Eldrige (sic*) seem to be more honest than most about what the fossil record reveals.* The correct spelling is Eldredge (think of El Dredge, which is what my many fans in Mexico call me).-----------------------------------------------------While Gould admits that the fossil record is characterised by "sudden appearance" and "stasis', is seems that it never occurred to him that this is the exact opposite of what Darwinian theory predicts. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

John 13:27: "As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. So Jesus told him, "What you are about to do, do quickly.""
How did Judas know what to do? Satan told him, of course, but there is no evidence in the Gospel account of anyone else in the room hearing what Satan said to him, except Jesus.Furthermore, if you study accounts of demonic possession, the demon can only make itself heard in a physical, audible sense through the mouth of the human victim; otherwise it is silent.Interestingly, there are no accounts in the Bible of a demon ever appearing in the form of a human being (unlike accounts of the "good" angels who do take the form of humans). It seems demons need to possess humans or other creatures in order to manifest themselves in any physical sense.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I wish to recant my statement that Stephen Jay Gould was an atheist. As far as I can ascertain, he was agnostic.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

It would be more accurate to say evolution = atheist theology.Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (National Post, May 13, 2000, pp. B1,B3,B7):"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religiona full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."

For the sake of brevity, I didn't quote Raup word-for-word, but used only what was necessary to get the point across, without distorting its meaning. You have supplied the full wording of the quote in question, thinking that by doing so you have proven that my abbreviated version is misleading and dishonest. Sorry, no cigar. Anyone (of sound mind, that is) who compares both texts will see that what I left out is irrelevant and what I left in is faithful to the original meaning.You then supplied Raup's excuses for why there is a lack of transitionals between larger groups of organisms - which I didn't bother mentioning because
a) they're so lame and unconvincing - two of them are just laughable ... the fossil record is incomplete and PE,
and
b) they're irrelevant to the point I was trying to make - that Gould claimed he could point to an abundance of transitionals between the larger groups, but Raup can't.As for the rest of your bloated post ... er, why did you bother?So to sum up, your attempt to malign me failed miserably. You got all excited and frothy-at-the-mouth for nothing. Try again some other time. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Evolutionary biology - real biology's wacko little brother - is notorious for it pseudo-scientific ideas. Relying on evolutionary biology to explain the fossil record is like relying on Jehovah's Witnesses to explain the Bible. Yeah, right - if you figure in huge doses of wishful thinking and a very vivid imagination. Take Archaeopteryx, for example:
"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. Alan FeducciaEdited by Dredge, : No reason given.

So why do you imagine "Satan entered Judas?" Was it to merely play around in his intestines, or maybe to tickle his ribs from the inside? Probably not. I suggest Satan entered Judas to mess with his mind; to "speak" to Judas in order to make him do his will ... which was to betray Jesus.