Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The fossil record shows there never was evolution.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by chair View Post
    ...and I suppose you have some conspiracy theory to explain why the vast majority of biologists think Evolution makes sense.
    Bs"d

    That's probably because they are not palaeontologists.

    But here is what a biologist says about "evolutionary biology":

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne

    Jerry Allen Coyne (born 1949) is an American professor of biology, known for his commentary on the intelligent design debate.

    "Of Vice and Men, A Case Study of Evolutionary Psychology" By Jerry Allan Coyne

    "In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology (schedelmeting) than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.

    The latest dead weight dragging us closer to phrenology is "evolutionary psychology," or the science formerly known as sociobiology, which studies the evolutionary roots of human behavior. There is nothing inherently wrong with this enterprise, and it has proposed some intriguing theories, particularly about the evolution of language. The problem is that evolutionary psychology suffers from the scientific equivalent of megalomania. Most of its adherents are convinced that virtually every human action or feeling, including depression, homosexuality, religion, and consciousness, was put directly into our brains by natural selection. In this view, evolution becomes the key--the only key--that can unlock our humanity.
    Unfortunately, evolutionary psychologists routinely confuse theory and speculation. Unlike bones, behavior does not fossilize, and understanding its evolution often involves concocting stories that sound plausible but are hard to test. Depression, for example, is seen as a trait favored by natural selection to enable us to solve our problems by withdrawing, reflecting, and hence enhancing our future reproduction. Plausible? Maybe. Scientifically testable? Absolutely not. If evolutionary biology is a soft science, then evolutionary psychology is its flabby underbelly."

    The bottom line is that the creatures that inhabited the Earth ages ago were different than what inhabits the Earth today. The fossil record is not complete, but there are plenty of examples of how species developed.
    That's what you say. And now what somebody who actually knows what he is talking about says about that:

    "The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change."

    Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163



    "The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form."

    Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40

    As I said- you are an embarrassment.
    The usual pattern; when people don't have arguments any more, they start name-calling.
    Please be advised that everywhere in your translation of your OT when it is written "the LORD" with all capitals, then in the original Hebrew it says the four lettered name of God: Y-H-W-H. That name appears almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Bible.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
      So the question becomes whether you persist in this quote mining out of stupidity or dishonesty.
      Bs"d

      One way ticket to my ignore list.

      Have a nice life.
      Please be advised that everywhere in your translation of your OT when it is written "the LORD" with all capitals, then in the original Hebrew it says the four lettered name of God: Y-H-W-H. That name appears almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Bible.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Elia View Post
        Bs"d

        One way ticket to my ignore list.

        Have a nice life.
        "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Crucible View Post
          Whether evolutionists want to accept it or not, the fossil record is a problem. What is also a problem is how, incidentally, the Deluge just happens to be a mighty explanation for a myriad of things, right down to the fossils and fuels themselves.

          Evolutionists don't want to admit that they talked too much, having become arrogant, and giving evolution a lot more praise and solidarity then is actually warranted.
          Interesting, coming from a person who's never studied the fossil record.
          "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

          Comment


          • #80
            So how about we approach this issue of the existence vs. non-existence of transitional fossils this way....

            Can any creationist here define the term "transitional fossil"?
            "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

            Comment


            • #81
              A new transitional fossil creates the need to find two more.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Elia View Post
                Bs"d

                That's probably because they are not palaeontologists.

                But here is what a biologist says about "evolutionary biology":...
                Whatever. You're just another fundamentalist who can't deal with science when it interferes with your notions of what the Bible is and what it says.

                As they say in Hebrew- I'm not playing.

                Have a nice day.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by JoseFly
                  Originally posted by 6days


                  Perhaps every Christian geologist had compromised at that time not realizing the effect their compromise had on the gospel..... and not realizing how this compromise lead future generations to believe the Bible was inaccurate, and not very relevant.
                  You can actually read the writings of many of them. Some of them describe how painful it was to have to ditch their previous beliefs about the flood and such, and they knew full well what that meant for their theology. But being good scientists, they also knew they had to follow the data wherever it led.
                  Thats essentially what I said....they compromised on scripture. Too bad they didn't trust scripture and notice how it is supported by geological evidence , as some modern geologists note.


                  Re. .your comment about ' painful to ditch beliefs'...Dr Emil Silvestru, PhD geology with 48 peer reviewed articles and former head scientist of the worlds first Speleological Institute. He speaks of how painful it was for him to realize the evidence did not fit with his belief in millions of years that he had always taught and believed in
                  Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by 6days View Post
                    Thats essentially what I said....they compromised on scripture. Too bad they didn't trust scripture and notice how it is supported by geological evidence , as some modern geologists note.
                    So they should have violated the principle that you agreed constituted good science, i.e., following the evidence wherever it leads. IOW, they should have confined their range of potential conclusions to "only those things that conform to the Bible".

                    Re. .your comment about ' painful to ditch beliefs'...Dr Emil Silvestru, PhD geology with 48 peer reviewed articles and former head scientist of the worlds first Speleological Institute. He speaks of how painful it was for him to realize the evidence did not fit with his belief in millions of years that he had always taught and believed in
                    So? What's your point?
                    "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by JoseFly
                      Originally posted by 6days
                      Thats essentially what I said....they compromised on scripture. Too bad they didn't trust scripture and notice how it is supported by geological evidence , as some modern geologists note.
                      So they should have violated the principle that you agreed constituted good science, i.e., following the evidence wherever it leads. IOW, they should have confined their range of potential conclusions to "only those things that conform to the Bible".
                      They should have started with the absolute truth of God's Word rather than falling prey to the religion of naturalism. Fortunately today, there are scientists who are willing to follow the evidence wherever even when it leads to the Creator God of the Bible.

                      Originally posted by JoseFly
                      Originally posted by 6days
                      Re. .your comment about ' painful to ditch beliefs'...Dr Emil Silvestru, PhD geology with 48 peer reviewed articles and former head scientist of the worlds first Speleological Institute. He speaks of how painful it was for him to realize the evidence did not fit with his belief in millions of years that he had always taught and believed in
                      So? What's your point?
                      uh..... it was YOU who made the point about it being painful to ditch your beliefs. I provided an example.

                      If interested there are other examples of scientists who were atheists, admitting how painful it was realizing the evidence did not support their belief system.
                      Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by alwight
                        A new transitional fossil creates the need to find two more.
                        You first need to find one.
                        Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by alwight View Post
                          A new transitional fossil creates the need to find two more.
                          Bs"d

                          If evolution was a fact, than the fossil record should show a myriad of species slowly changing into another.

                          And the fact of the matter is that there is not even one of those:

                          "The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change."
                          Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163


                          "Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species."
                          Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.
                          Schwartz, Jeffrey H is professor anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh and also evolutionist, writer of boek about evolution: “Sudden Origins”, a provocative new theory on how evolution works by sudden leaps and bounds:
                          http://www.post-gazette.com/books/reviews/19991212review395.asp


                          "Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."
                          Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95, speaking about the Bighorn basin in Wyoming USA.
                          S.M. Stanley is an evolutionist and professor at the John Hopkins university in Baltimore.
                          He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
                          One of his articles is “Paleontology and earth system history in the new millennium” which has been published in “Geological Society of America”

                          For more info about prof Stanley look here: http://www.jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stan....html#research


                          "The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form."
                          Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40


                          "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."
                          Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360


                          "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
                          Czarnecki Mark is an evolutionist and a paleontologist.



                          "But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
                          Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
                          Please be advised that everywhere in your translation of your OT when it is written "the LORD" with all capitals, then in the original Hebrew it says the four lettered name of God: Y-H-W-H. That name appears almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Bible.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by chair View Post
                            Whatever. You're just another fundamentalist who can't deal with science when it interferes with your notions of what the Bible is and what it says.

                            As they say in Hebrew- I'm not playing.

                            Have a nice day.
                            Bs"d

                            There is science, and pseudo-science. Science is empirically testable. Everything that is not empirically testable, like evolution, is pseudo-science.

                            Just like the man said.

                            You have a nice day too.
                            Please be advised that everywhere in your translation of your OT when it is written "the LORD" with all capitals, then in the original Hebrew it says the four lettered name of God: Y-H-W-H. That name appears almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Bible.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by 6days View Post
                              The creation days were 24 hour periods of time. Although the word 'yom' / day can mean shorter or longer periods of time, the meaning is always understood by the context. There are several markers / indicators that do not allow for anything other than 24 hour creation days.

                              Perhaps every Christian geologist had compromised at that time not realizing the effect their compromise had on the gospel..... and not realizing how this compromise lead future generations to believe the Bible was inaccurate, and not very relevant.
                              Okay, but what is your response to the claim that the rock layers do not evidence a single catastrophic flood.

                              I'm not averring the flood did not happen - I'm just enquiring.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Sonnet View Post
                                Okay, but what is your response to the claim that the rock layers do not evidence a single catastrophic flood.

                                I'm not averring the flood did not happen - I'm just enquiring.
                                Imho, plate tectonics ensure all bets are off. Pangea, no matter when it happened, ensures a global flood is likely. I was talking to an astronomer several days ago and he said the earth has been through several ice ages and concurrent global warmings that fairly necessitate a global impact by floods. Another TOLer speculated that 'whole world' meant 'whole known world' by Moses. Because we are dealing with speculation, both scientific and theological upon our understandings of given data, I try to read my Bible more and I hope science, as well, is not stagnant, but looking over its data. I do think as humans, we often follow crowds. I don't know what it is in us, but we certainly are a social people. -Lon
                                My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                                Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                                Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                                Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                                No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                                Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                                ? Yep

                                Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                                ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                                Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X