is that like the apocrypha ? hello =M=. is that right ?
i agree. i spent a while believing carbon dating and archaelogists' ways of dating fossils and rocks or any form of matter. then i saw video discussing the inaccuracy. have you kent hovind ? i think i spelled it right, he is a creationist pastor in florida. very interesting video series on creation in The Bible.
Despite having no scientific credentials or even an accredited degree, he presents himself as someone who understands the science of evolution better than people with advanced science degrees who research in labs and publish peer-reviewed papers. During his presentations, he sounds like an auctioneer or a used car salesman when he is attempting to make a point by getting his audience to buy a video or book from him. Many of his slideshows read like a top 10 list of commonly seen (and refuted) "evidences" for creationism that contain little to no actual data or proof. These arguments are interjected with unfunny "jokes" and anecdotes, which are topped off with a healthy serving of mined quotes. And like any good creationist, he is not above and in fact seems to enjoy spreading the false claim that Darwin caused the Holocaust.
Many of Hovind's claims can be easily refuted by merely reading Hovind's alleged references or doing basic math. For example, in Thunderf00t's Why Do People Laugh at Creationists? series, Hovind is quoted saying:
“One drop of water will cover the world if you spread it real thin."
Yes Barbarian. We need to accept what God says. How can you possibly believe that God created all life without creating the genome?That's contrary to God's word. He says He created the Earth and the Earth brought forth life, as He intended. No programming necessary. He created a universe with rules that produced all the things He wanted in creation.6days said:Random variation? Do you mean variation made possible because of how God programmed the genome?
Why not just accept it His way?
i agree. i spent a while believing carbon dating and archaelogists' ways of dating fossils and rocks or any form of matter. then i saw video discussing the inaccuracy. have you kent hovind ? i think i spelled it right, he is a creationist pastor in florida. very interesting video series on creation in The Bible.
Sorry, you're wrong. Natural selection is directly observed. And random variation plus natural selection produces order. Would you like to test that fact?
BTW, you were going to tell me about the two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, that don't have a transitional. When do you think you'll be answering that?
What you call a transitional is simply the diversity that already exists in the gene pool.
If my child has blue eyes instead of grey like mine or brown like my wife that is not evolution. The gene for blue eyes was already there in my or her genetic make up, etc.
Evolutionists have diversity upside down in their confused anti theist, anti Biblical minds. Adam and Eve had all the DNA that would make up all the rest of humanity. All genetic characteristics for all kinds, species or families, were put into their DNA by the Creator.
Through time, a dispersion of those characteristics (speciation) takes place as well as a break down as mutations into the diversity we see today and in the fossil record.
Gould summarized the fossil record in these two ways;
Stasis "Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappeared; morphological change is usually limited and directionless."
Sudden appearance "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."
Evolutionists don't what to acknowledge that the Biblical account that God created all the types with limited diversity is consistent with all that is observed.
--Dave
The Quote Mine Project"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
Snipped in the ellipsis is:
"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."
Following this passage is:
"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.
"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.
The Quote Mine Project
"Sudden appearance" in geological terms does not mean instantaneously or miraculously, it simply refers to a relatively rapid response to an environmental requirement or change. By human life spans it still happens imperceptibly slowly and gradually, even if it's not actually "gradualism". A well adapted organism to an environment has no need to adapt unless the environment changes.
Dave, the evidence of gradual evolution is and always has been more than just the incomplete fossil record. But to accept that would be to falsify all your best accusations, wouldn't it?
We see diversity of species and diversity within species in the fossil record, we do not see gradual evolution.
Today we see diversity of species and diversity within species, we do not see gradual evolution.
Belief in evolution is clearly not science.
--Dave
Neither Gould nor Eldredge had any doubts about Darwinian evolution in general.Any quote from evolutionists that undermines evolution is the "sin of quote mining" according to evolutionists.
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism, I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks." --Gould
The needed gradualism has to be taken by "faith" in contradiction to what we do see, that would make it an "irrational faith".
"The way in which it (speciation) occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." --Gould
And that method occurs to fast to be seen in the fossil record and to slow to be observed by any one during recorded human history. What a joke!
--Dave :darwinsm:
Neither Gould nor Eldredge had any doubts about Darwinian evolution in general.
That evolution typically is rather quicker than most geological changes is one hardly surprising fact, while that it is also another step change to human life spans would be another.
Sudden appearance means no evidence of evolution but maintaining beliefs in it anywayalwight said:"Sudden appearan ce" in geological terms does not mean instantaneously or miraculously, it simply refers to a relatively rapid response to an environmental requirement or change. By human life spans it still happens imperceptibly slowly and gradually, even if it's not actually "gradualism". A well adapted organism to an environment has no need to adapt unless the environment changes.
You are confusing science with evolutionism.Tell that to the scientists. You have it wrong. You are welcome to disbelieve the science, but you seem to value the persuasive power of science and so need to pretend it is different from the reality.
The "sudden" appearance in many different layers of geology is evidence that evolution has occurred over billions of years and that even a "sudden" appearance in geology is still gradual in human terms.Sudden appearance means no evidence of evolution but maintaining beliefs in it anyway