Summations Only

Taq writes: Dredge writes: 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. This is called "putting words in other peoples' mouths". This is as dishonest as it gets.

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.

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.

So you haven't read the Gould and Eldredge paper about Punctuated Equilibrium or any of his books or other papers.

You seem pretty angry about the guy, considering you don't know shit about him.

Edited by Tanypteryx, : spelling

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?

I dunno, quote the relevant passages and let's look at them.

Dredge writes: 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.

"That's just like, your opinion, man"--The Dude

Dredge writes: If silently, how does that work?

Figures of speech are habitually silent.

Pressie writes: Stephen Jay Gould: "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."

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.

ringo writes: Dredge writes: God could make the sky and grass any colour he wants to. Science can't explain why he chose blue and green, respectively. Science can and does explain why the sky IS blue and the grass IS green. You can put any fairy-tale spin on it that you want but that's not as satisfying as knowing.

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

Artificial molecule evolves in the lab , 08 January 2009 by Ewen Callaway

"Joyce’s team created its own molecule from scratch, called R3C. It performed a single function: stitching two shorter RNA molecules together to create a clone of itself."

In other words they started with 3 carefully constructed RNA strings and achieved ligation of the two short strings in a carefully controlled laboratory environment. Nothing like these 3 RNA strands will appear naturally. There are a lot of problems with obtaining RNA by blind undirected chemistry, but it's amazing what can be achieved by an intelligent designer.

Self-replicating? Sort of. But not one that is likely to occur naturally.

Taq writes: Dredge writes: Agree. But the existence of nested hierarchies doesn't rule out the existence of a Common Designer. How do know the Creator doesn't have a penchant for nested hierarchies? How do you know that he does? The burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that life was created.

I don't know that he does - I'm saying it's entirely possible that he does.

Porsches don't fall into a nested hierarchy.

What is the difference between Porsche making a 'family' of sports cars and a nested hierarchy?

Tanypteryx writes: So you haven't read the Gould and Eldrige paper about Punctuated Equilibrium or any of his books or other papers. You seem pretty angry about the guy, considering you don't know shit about him.

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.

What is the difference between Porsche making a 'family' of sports cars and a nested hierarchy?

Or what about a nested of heirachy of vehicles in general? Would that prove that one evolved from another? (Beware Berra's Blunder)

Edited by CRR, : No reason given.

NewCatsEye writes: Dredge writes: 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? I dunno, quote the relevant passages and let's look at them.

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's more important that you retract your statement that evolution=atheism.

Tangle writes: It's more important that you retract your statement that evolution=atheism.

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 religion—a 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."