Creationists

[LOki]

Actually, I think your statement that you aren't claiming there's no god is a lie as well...after all, you refer to those who have faith as superstitious...

I am using the correct term and using it correctly.

... if that is not claiming there's no God I don't know what is.

I appreciate your candid admission that you don't know what "claiming there's no God" is.

From this point on, please do not fling this baseless accusation until you do.

EDIT: 11:50

That was easy.

 

[Montrovant]

Explain how a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears,arms,legs,hands,and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use ?

This question is just ignorant. No one thought anything, how do the clouds know when to rain, how does the wind know when to blow, how does the sun know when to set. This question is on par with that, and also, a little tweaking of your homeobox genes during development would change all that anyway.

Oh boy,calling my question ignorant it's a solid question that you can't explain away let me show you.

How do clouds know when to rain ? How does the wind know when to blow ? You just admitted they are thinking processes that intelligence is behind it.

Unintelligence would not produce whats needed.

If you have a doctor build a car,if you have a carpenter do the work of a doctor,if you have a truck driver fly a plane,what do you think would happen ?

What does intelligence produce ? What would non-intelligence produce ?

YWC, did you notice at the beginning of the sentence he said 'No one thought anything'? I'm pretty confident his point was that clouds dropping rain and wind blowing and the sun setting are things that are not and do not need to be controlled by intelligence. There was no admission of these things being thinking processes. In fact, it appears he specifically picked things that do not require intelligence to make a point which went right by you.

 

[koshergrl]

You still don't get it.

We don't claim that our faith is based upon proof.

But you seem to demand that you have verifiable evidence and valid logic that supports your claim. Your demand is bullshit, of course, yet you (particularly you, koshergrl) make it without bringing said verifiable evidence and valid logic.

You just don't accept the intellectually dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm. While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.

You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.

You do.

Untrue. And this has been explained to you repeatedly. Absolute unqualified certainty is not what we claim about out conclusions, nor is it what we require of competing conclusions. We require verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; NOT "proof." Our conclusions are subject to verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; in contrast to you and your superstitious tribe of intellectually dishonest retards who require that their evidence and logic are subject to their conclusion.

But you have no proof.

And your beliefs are baseless in verifiable evidence and valid logic.[/QUOTE]

I have highlighted the glaring lies and inconsistencies.

Didn't you just post that you hadn't claimed there was evidence that denied the existence of God? Since my belief is that there is a god, you show yourself up as a liar right there.

Not that it's unique or anything...pretty much every word you fling is a lie.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This question is just ignorant. No one thought anything, how do the clouds know when to rain, how does the wind know when to blow, how does the sun know when to set. This question is on par with that, and also, a little tweaking of your homeobox genes during development would change all that anyway.

Oh boy,calling my question ignorant it's a solid question that you can't explain away let me show you.

How do clouds know when to rain ? How does the wind know when to blow ? You just admitted they are thinking processes that intelligence is behind it.

Unintelligence would not produce whats needed.

If you have a doctor build a car,if you have a carpenter do the work of a doctor,if you have a truck driver fly a plane,what do you think would happen ?

What does intelligence produce ? What would non-intelligence produce ?

YWC, did you notice at the beginning of the sentence he said 'No one thought anything'? I'm pretty confident his point was that clouds dropping rain and wind blowing and the sun setting are things that are not and do not need to be controlled by intelligence. There was no admission of these things being thinking processes. In fact, it appears he specifically picked things that do not require intelligence to make a point which went right by you.

A fully self contained planet sounds like intelligence to me.

 

[LOki]

You still don't get it.

We don't claim that our faith is based upon proof.

But you seem to demand that you have verifiable evidence and valid logic that supports your claim. Your demand is bullshit, of course, yet you (particularly you, koshergrl) make it without bringing said verifiable evidence and valid logic.

All right. Allow me to submit the following:

My view of creation is built on faith and rational thought.

You let me know when life can spontaneously generate itself through a natural process.
(Emphasis: LOki)

Surrender hardly, I still feel from the evdence that it is more logical to accept creation over a natural process undirected by intelligence.
(Emphasis: LOki)

Evidence for creation.

--REMAINDER SNIPPED TO CONSERVE SPACE--​

Evidence for creation.

--REMAINDER SNIPPED TO CONSERVE SPACE--​

More evidence.

--REMAINDER SNIPPED TO CONSERVE SPACE--​

Continued-

Evidence from Science

--REMAINDER SNIPPED TO CONSERVE SPACE--​

Evidence for Intelligent Design

--REMAINDER SNIPPED TO CONSERVE SPACE--​

There is all kinds of evidence for intelligent design.

I can provide evdence for my belief but you on the other hand cannot.

He wants to know the evidence for a creator. There is plenty of evidence for intelligent design that allows a rational person to rationalize a designer.

We can point to all things that are created by the mind.
(Emphasis: LOki)

I have been pointing out to you evidence of design. Evidence of design is evidence of God the creator.

Chirality is evidence of intelligent design.

I take God at his word he states he has always been and always will be.

Now present your evidence.

I do not think it should be necessary that I post all the cheerleading you've been posting while YWC was discussing his logic and evidence, nor do I think it should be necessary that I make a special effort to demonstrate that you made no effort to correct YWC on this matter.

In light of this, I hope you can understand how I might have come to the conclusion that you demand that you as well have verifiable evidence and valid logic that support your claims.

If however, you claim that your assertion that this world, and all the life on it was created and designed by a creator is entirely baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, then I'll admit I was wrong to declare you said otherwise. If I have misrepresented you, it was unintentional; and please consider this my sincere and public apology to you. But I won't make such declaration for or apologize to, YWC or anyone else who maintains the validity of his fatuous claims directly or indirectly.

You just don't accept the intellectually dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm. While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.

You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.

I stand by this.

This is all unquestionably true, by your very own admissions:

And yet..you still haven't proven your own claims.

At least we admit our belief begins with faith. The problem with the Christian bashers is they're dishonest from the word go. Since that dishonesty is a biblical truth as well, you actually bolster our faith when you go on and on ridiculing Christians and setting forth a lying, alternate reality.

... we admit that our beliefs are rooted in faith, and have not been DISPROVEN (even if they haven't been proven..and they won't, until the end of time).

I know that I have faith. I don't pretend I have "proof" of the existence of God.

...​

...I admit I just have faith. I know that my belief has not been disproven by science...yet these yahoos insist on hanging around and pretending it has.

IT HASN'T. And none of the theories they have that they (lie) say disproves the existence of God have been proven...nor have those theories ever been proven.

If you've been demonstrating or affirming that your intellectual paradigm is intellectually dishonest, I am failing to see it. If my failure to see that you acknowledge that your intellectual paradigm is intellectually dishonest has led me to misrepresent you again, I assure you it was unintentional, and I would hope you would again accept my sincere and public apology to you. Otherwise, as I said earlier, I will stand by my assertion regarding your failure to accept the intellectual dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm.

In any event, and as before, I am not extending this mea culpa or apology to YWC or anyone else who maintains the validity of his dishonest intellectual paradigm directly or indirectly.

But you have no proof.

And your beliefs are baseless in verifiable evidence and valid logic.

But look at your very own words above ... you candidly admit your beliefs are not based in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. How can you honestly have any problem with my assertion here? How can you claim or suggest I am lying?

I have highlighted the glaring lies and inconsistencies.

With the possible exception of the first line you highlighted, I cannot see how you can honestly claim there are any inconsistencies with fact that I have posted. And in regard to actual lying; just look at the record! Considering YWC's and your own contributions, how can you honestly claim that I have made a deliberate attempt to misinform? You really need to explain that to me.

Didn't you just post that you hadn't claimed there was evidence that denied the existence of God?

I'm not sure, but I will conditionally stipulate to the fact, since there is evidence that God doesn't exist. I'm not saying I can demonstrate proof, but I can identify the evidence.

Since my belief is that there is a god, you show yourself up as a liar right there.

Well, your belief in God is irrelevant to any fact of reality that I am lying in this regard. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between being incorrect about the facts, and lying about the facts.

Not that it's unique or anything...pretty much every word you fling is a lie.

You have yet to demonstrate this unsubstantiated accusation of yours; and your faith that "...pretty much every word *I* fling is a lie" is obviously irrelevant to any determination of such that is validated by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, dingleberry, we do not see stasis during the Cambrian, and, very definately, not the Pre-Cabrian.

Chirality is affect by light, by the chemistry of feldspars, and many other ways. There is no problem of chirality, just as there is no problem with mutation.

There are issues as to which natural processes are or were, the most important.

The creation arguement is dead. It died with the development of genetic mapping. It died in court after the rejection of the Design arguements.

Creationism has now joined the 'Flat Earthers' as far as most are concerned. Dead subject.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, again, modification with descent. How many times do you have to ask?

No,no,and no again. The preferred theory now is Neo,that is positive mutation+natural selection+large spans of time equal macro-evolution.

No no and no again you are wrong. I teach biology at a graduate level, you are making things up.

I don't make things up, and i'm impressed you teach it at the graduate level. My teachers that believed this nonsense then is way out there just like you.

You're are wrong again,.

Definition for neo darwinism:




Web definitions:




a modern Darwinian theory that explains new species in terms of genetic mutations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, dingleberry, we do not see stasis during the Cambrian, and, very definately, not the Pre-Cabrian.

Chirality is affect by light, by the chemistry of feldspars, and many other ways. There is no problem of chirality, just as there is no problem with mutation.

There are issues as to which natural processes are or were, the most important.

The creation arguement is dead. It died with the development of genetic mapping. It died in court after the rejection of the Design arguements.

Creationism has now joined the 'Flat Earthers' as far as most are concerned. Dead subject.

You need to prove otherwise.

The Fossil Record
The Only Direct Evidence.

CARL DUNBAR, Yale, "Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms." HISTORICAL GEOLOGY, p. 47

S. M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins, "It is doubtful whether, in the absence of fossils, the idea of evolution would represent anything more than an outrageous hypothesis. ...The fossil record and only the fossil record provides direct evidence of major sequential changes in the Earth's biota." NEW EVOLUTIONARY TIMETABLE, p.72, 1981

HISTORICAL � NOT EMPIRICAL, JOHN H. HORNER "...paleontology is a historical science, a science based on circumstantial evidence, after the fact. We can never reach hard and fast conclusions in our study of ancient plants and animals... These days it�s easy to go through school for a good many years, sometimes even through college, without ever hearing that some sciences are historical or by nature inconclusive." Dinosaur Lives, 1997, p.19

In Their "Beginning": Sudden; Complex; Diverse; Every Animal Phylum; Assumed History Missing

STEPHEN J. GOULD, HARVARD, "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness... Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682

Preston Cloud & Martin F. Glaessner, "Ever since Darwin, the geologically abrupt appearance and rapid diversification of early animal life have fascinated biologist and students of Earth history alike....This interval, plus Early Cambrian, was the time during which metazoan life diversified into nearly all of the major phyla and most of the invertebrate classes and orders subsequently known." Science, Aug.27, 1982

RICHARD Monastersky, Earth Science Ed., Science News, "The remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. ...This moment, right at the start of the Earth's Cambrian Period...marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth's first complex creatures. ...�This is Genesis material,� gushed one researcher. ...demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today...a menagerie of clam cousins, sponges, segmented worms, and other invertevrates that would seem vaguely familiar to any scuba diver." Discover, p.40, 4/93

Richard Dawkins, Cambridge, "And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation...", The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p229-230

TREES & FISH IN CAMBRIAN, John Repetski, U.S.Geol. Survey, "The oldest land plants now known are from the Early Cambrian... Approximately 60 Cambrian spore-genera are now on record...represent 6 different groups of vascular plants..." Evolution, V.13, 6/'59, p.264. Daniel I. Axelrod, UCLA, "This report of fish material from Upper Cambrian rocks further extends the record of the vertebrates by approximately 40 million years." [WY, OK, WA, NV, ID, AR] Science, Vol.200, 5 May, 1978, p.529

PATCH FAILED, "Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing. But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world. ...just as the peculiar behavior of light forced physicists to conclude that Newton's laws were incomplete, so the Cambrian explosion has caused experts to wonder if the twin Darwinian imperatives of genetic variation and natural selection provide an adequate framework for understanding evolution..." Time, 12/4, 1995, p.67, 74

BLIND FAITH, Douglas Futuyma, "It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrian, for they all appear fully formed, without intermediates connecting one form to another." EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, 1985, p.325

"Trees" Contradicted By Fossils, From Some Similarities, Ignoring Others

SEPARATE LIVING KINDS" Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "Our modern phyla represent designs of great distinctness, yet our diverse world contains nothing in between sponges, corals, insects, snails, sea urchins, and fishes (to choose standard representatives of the most prominent phyla).", Natural History, p.15, Oct. 1990

SEPRATE FOSSIL KINDS" Valentine (U. CA) & Erwin (MI St.), "If we were to expect to find ancestors to or intermediates between higher taxa, it would be the rocks of the late Precambrian to Ordivician times, when the bulk of the world's higher animal taxa evolved. Yet traditional alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing then.", Development As An Evolutionary Process, p.84, 1987.

"TREES" NOT FROM FOSSILS, Steven J. Gould, Harvard, "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 the fossils.", Nat.His., V.86, p.13

STORY TIME, COLIN PATTERSON, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Nat. History, "You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type or organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another.... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. .... I don't think we shall ever have any access to any form of tree which we can call factual." HARPER'S, Feb.1984, p.56

ARBITRARY ARRANGEMENT, R.H.Dott, U.of Wis. & R.L.Batten, Columbia, AMNH, "We have arranged the groups in a traditional way with the 'simplest' forms first, and progressively more complex groups following. This particular arrangement is arbitrary and depends on what definition of 'complexity' you wish to choose. ...things are alike because they are related, and the less they look alike, the further removed they are from their common ancestor." EVOLUTION OF THE EARTH, p.602

Unrelated Look-Alikes, J.Z.Young, Prof. of Anatomy, Oxford, "...similar features repeatedly appear in distinct lines. ...Parallel evolution is so common that it is almost a rule that detailed study of any group produces a confused taxonomy. Investigators are unable to distinguish populations that are parallel new developments from those truly descended from each other." LIFE OF THE VERTEBRATES, p.779

similarity IS NoT genetic, Sir Gavin Debeer, Prof. Embry., U.London, Director BMNH, "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find homologous genes has been given up as hopeless." Oxford Biology Reader, p.16, Homology an Unsolved Problem

Embryonic Recapitulation?

R. H. DOTT, Univ. of WI, R. L BATTEN, Columbia Univ., A.M.N.H., "Much research has been done in embryology since Haeckel's day, and we now know that there are all too many exceptions to this analogy, and that ontogeny does not reflect accurately the course of evolution." EVOLUTION OF THE EARTH, p.86

SIMPSON & BECK, "Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny."Intro.To Biology, 1965,p.273

KEITH S. THOMPSON, Academy of Natural Sciences, "Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry, it was extinct in the twenties." American Scientist, 5/6, 1988, p.273 "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated"

Ashley Montagu, "The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel." Montagu-Gish Prinston Debate, 4/12/1980

"EMBRYONIC FRAUD LIVES ON," "Although Hacckel confessed�and was convicted of fraud at the University of Jena, the drawings persist." New Scientist, p.23, 9/6/97

Significant Change Is Not Observed

BOTHERSOM distresS, STEPHEN J. Gould, Harvard , "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it." Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980.

"DESIGNS," S.J.Gould, Harvard, "We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence. ...I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. ...we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." Natural History, 2/82, p.2

Required Transitional Forms Missing

DARWIN'S BIGGEST PROBLEM, "...innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ...why 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 greatest objection which can be urged against my theory". Origin of the Species.

MORE EMBARRASSING, David M. Raup, U. Chicago; Ch. F. Mus. of N. H., "The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ....ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." F.M.O.N.H.B., Vol.50, p.35

PREDICTION FAILED, Niles Eldridge, Amer. Mus. N. H., "He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search.... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46

Proposed Links "Debunked"

TEXTBOOK DECEIT, GEORGE G. SIMPSON, "The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers never happened in nature." LIFE OF THE PAST, p.119

THE HORSE "STORY", Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History, "There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff." Harper's, p. 60, 1984.

TEXTBOOK HORSES, Bruce MacFadden, FL Museum of Natural History & U. of FL "...over the years fossil horses have been cited as a prime example of orthogenesis ["straight-line evolution"] ...it can no longer be considered a valid theory...we find that once a notion becomes part of accepted scientific knowledge, it is very difficult to modify or reject it" FOSSIL HORSES, 1994, p.27

STORY TIME OVER, Derek Ager, U.at Swansea, Wales, "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been 'debunked.' Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.", PROC. GEOL. ASSO., Vol.87, p.132

"FOSSIL BIRD SHAKES EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESES, "Fossil remains claimed to be of two crow-sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx have been found....a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features. ...tends to confirm what many paleontologists have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds." Nature, Vol.322, 1986 p.677

REPTILE TO BIRD W.E. SWINTON, "The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved." BIOLOGY & COMPARATIVE PHYSIOLOGY OF BIRDS, Vol.1, p.1.

Systematic Gaps

orders, classes, & phyla, George Gaylord Simpson, Harvard, "Gaps among known species are sporatic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large.", EVOLUTION OF LIFE, p.149

GENUINE KNOWLEDGE, D.B. Kitts, U.of OK, "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them... The 'fact that discontinuities are almost always and systematically present at the origin of really big categories' is an item of genuinely historical knowledge.", Evolution, Vol.28, p. 467

NOT ONE! D.S. Woodroff, U.of CA, San Diego, "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." Science, Vol.208, 1980, p.716 STEPHEN M. STANLEY, Johns Hopkins U., "In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." THE NEW EVOLUTIONARY TIMETABLE, 1981, p.95

EVIDENCE-A MATTER OF FAITH, A.C. Seward, Cambridge, "The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize." Plant Life Through the Ages, p.561

"WE KNEW BETTER", Niles Eldredge, Columbia U., American Museum Of Natural History, "And it has been the paleontologist� my own breed�who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: .... We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not.", TIME FRAMES, 1986, p.144

Punctuated Equilibrium

Unobserved imagined scenario to explain missing evidence,based on fossils not found, mechanisms not observed

GOULD & ELDREDGE, "In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has been favorable. We are especially pleased that several paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing; 'all these years of work and I haven't found any evolution'. (R.A. REYMENT Quoted) "The occurrences of long sequences within species are common in boreholes and it is possible to exploit the statistical properties of such sequences in detailed biostratigraphy. It is noteworthy that gradual, directed transitions from one species to another do not seem to exist in borehole samples of microorganisms." (H.J. MACGILLAVRY Quoted) "During my work as an oil paleontologist I had the opportunity to study sections meeting these rigid requirements. As an ardent student of evolution, moreover, I was continually on the watch for evidence of evolutionary change. ...The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all." Paleobiology, Vol.3, p.136

S. M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins "The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much. We seem forced to conclude that most evolution takes place rapidly...a punctuational model of evolution...operated by a natural mechanism whose major effects are wrought exactly where we are least able to study them - in small, localized, transitory populations...The point here is that if the transition was typically rapid and the population small and localized, fossil evidence of the event would never be found." p.77, 110, New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981

Colin Patterson, B.M.N.H. "Well, it seems to me that they have accepted that the fossil record doesn't give them the support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found one. ...When you haven't got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack of evidence." Darwin's EnigmA, p.100

Implication Of The Fossils

PALEONTOLOGY DOES NOT PROVE EVOLUTION, D.B. Kitts, U.of OK, "The claim is made that paleontology provides a direct way to get at the major events of organic history and that, furthermore, it provides a means of testing evolutionary theories. ...the paleontologist can provide knowledge that cannot be provided by biological principles alone. But he cannot provide us with evolution.", Evolution, Vol.28, p.466

DON'T USE THE FOSSILS, Mark Ridley, Oxford, "...a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." New Scientist, June, 1981, p.831

FOSSILS INDICATE CREATION! E.J.H. Cornor, Cambridge "Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the Theory of Evolution from Biology, Biogeography, and Paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." CONTEMPORARY BOTANICAL THOUGHT, p.61

Fossils Do Not Support Evolution. Fossils Are Positive Evidence For Creation!



Valentine (U. CA) & Erwin (MI St.), "We conclude that...neither of the contending theories of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of new body plans." Development As An Evolutionary Process, p.96, 1987.



THE NEW EVOLUTIONARY TIMETABLE, 1981

NO VERTICAL CHANGE, NILES ELDRIDGE, Curator, American Museum Of Natural History, "The classic cases of �living fossils� reveal a more pervasive conservatism: there seems to have been almost no change in any part we can compare between the living organism and its fossilized progenitors of the remote geological past. Living fossils embody the theme of evolutionary stability to an extreme degree. ...Against them we might pit the mutability, the evolutionary changeability, of disease-causing and antibiotic-resistant staphylo-coccus bacteria, malaria pathogens, or the dreaded retroviruses (that cause AIDS and other horrid afflictions): in the short term, at least, evolutionary change in these microbes is extremely rapid. And so we ask: what underlies this great disparity of evolutionary rates?" FOSSILS, 1991, p.100



PERCY E. RAYMOND, Prof. of Paleontology, Harvard , "It is evidence that the oldest Cambrian fauna is diversified and not so simple, perhaps, as the evolutionists would hope to find it. Instead of being composed chiefly of protozoans, it contains no representatives of that phylum but numerous members of seven higher groups are present, a fact which shows that the greater part of the major differentiation of animals had already taken place in those ancient times.", PREHISTORIC LIFE, 1967 p.23



H.S. Ladd, UCLA, "Most paleontologists today give little thought to fossiliferous rocks older than the Cambrian, thus ignoring the most important missing link of all. Indeed the missing Pre-Cambrian record cannot properly be described as a link for it is in reality, about nine-tenths of the chain of life: the first nine-tenths.", Geo. So. of Am. Mem. 1967, Vol.II, p.7



Evidence for Creation: FOSSIL RECORD

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, dingleberry, we do not see stasis during the Cambrian, and, very definately, not the Pre-Cabrian.

Chirality is affect by light, by the chemistry of feldspars, and many other ways. There is no problem of chirality, just as there is no problem with mutation.

There are issues as to which natural processes are or were, the most important.

The creation arguement is dead. It died with the development of genetic mapping. It died in court after the rejection of the Design arguements.

Creationism has now joined the 'Flat Earthers' as far as most are concerned. Dead subject.

Video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URWilfB2RVU]103 - Bones in Stones / Genesis Conflict - Walter Veith - YouTube[/ame]

 

[LOki]

Well, dingleberry, we do not see stasis during the Cambrian, and, very definately, not the Pre-Cabrian.

Chirality is affect by light, by the chemistry of feldspars, and many other ways. There is no problem of chirality, just as there is no problem with mutation.

There are issues as to which natural processes are or were, the most important.

The creation arguement is dead. It died with the development of genetic mapping. It died in court after the rejection of the Design arguements.

Creationism has now joined the 'Flat Earthers' as far as most are concerned. Dead subject.

Video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URWilfB2RVU]103 - Bones in Stones / Genesis Conflict - Walter Veith - YouTube[/ame]

Meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard, posted here by one of his own retarded ideological species.

 

[LOki]

Lee Spetner

"Spetner developed what he called his "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis", which (in common with Christian young earth creationists) accepted microevolution (which he attributed to Lamarckian-like inheritance), but rejected macroevolution."​

Interesting. While adhering to "Lamarckian-like inheritance" this "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis" of his seems to suggest that evolutionary theory proposes that evolution is entirely random--that somehow evolutionary theory entirely discounts the biasing effects of chromosome structure and natural selection.

He seriously cannot be proposing the Lamarckian notion that was discounted in high-school biology: giraffes stretching their necks to get at food, and then passing that stretched neck to their progeny. Were beneficial mutations "magicked" into the population?

HAHA! YES HE DOES!

"Dr. Spetner suggests that these experiments which indicate that adaptive mutations are stimulated by the environment, ..."

...​

"Dr. Spetner wonders how much of the fossil record might be the result of the direct influence of environment on the phenotype without any change in the genotype. (Spetner 1998)"​

LOLsome!

 

[LOki]

Well, dingleberry, we do not see stasis during the Cambrian, and, very definately, not the Pre-Cabrian.

Chirality is affect by light, by the chemistry of feldspars, and many other ways. There is no problem of chirality, just as there is no problem with mutation.

There are issues as to which natural processes are or were, the most important.

The creation arguement is dead. It died with the development of genetic mapping. It died in court after the rejection of the Design arguements.

Creationism has now joined the 'Flat Earthers' as far as most are concerned. Dead subject.

You need to prove otherwise.

The Fossil Record
The Only Direct Evidence.

CARL DUNBAR, Yale, "Although the compa ....

--WALL OF CRAP SNIPPED--​

... ine-tenths.", Geo. So. of Am. Mem. 1967, Vol.II, p.7

Evidence for Creation: FOSSIL RECORD

This is another good a spot to insert this excerpt from an essay I discovered while looking for this single layer of silt found world-wide that was undeniably deposited during Youwerecreated's and Walter Veith's global deluge.

Even if all biologists were in the clutches of evolution’s vile, atheist conspiracy, presumably bribed by their academic paychecks and research grants, there’s no reason for profit-seeking corporations to cripple themselves by sticking with a “fraud” like evolution — not when there’s an allegedly better theory around. The free enterprise system isn’t interested in ideology — only what works. Business executives and their shareholders are results-oriented, and if there’s a legal way to use knowledge to earn profits, they’ll do it. But somehow, despite the incentives to stay ahead of the competition, flood geologists aren’t recruited by the mining or oil industries, creation scientists aren’t hired as researchers for the biotech industry or pharmaceutical firms, and — this is trivial, but true — specialists in Noah’s Ark aren’t in demand by naval architects.

Isn’t it amazing that these industries, which are profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, which employ tens of thousands of scientists in the fields of biology, geology, etc., never specifically recruit creationists and don’t waste their time or their shareholders’ money doing “creation science”? Why don’t they offer big salaries to hire the leading ID scientists away from the Discovery Institute? Why don’t they make tempting offers to all the creationists who claim that universities discriminate against them? Why are they avoiding such a rich source of talent?

If there were any creationists who were actually doing creation “science” in any industry, or if there were any fruits to be derived from the “science” of creationism, the usual websites would be delighted to point it out. They routinely proclaim that evolution is dead, and creationism is the future, yet they are strangely silent about their failure to penetrate results-oriented industries.

Does the “Darwinist” conspiracy control not only academia, but also the hiring and research activities of major corporations? Oil companies too? If so, where are the gutsy little start-ups that have some hot new creationist development to sell? Why don’t venture capitalists bankroll such enterprises? If creation science is such hot stuff, why isn’t there a creationist version of Silicon Valley? Could it be that — gasp! — investments in creationism don’t offer anything of value?
--The Sensuous Curmudgeon, 2009​

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lee Spetner

"Spetner developed what he called his "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis", which (in common with Christian young earth creationists) accepted microevolution (which he attributed to Lamarckian-like inheritance), but rejected macroevolution."​

Interesting. While adhering to "Lamarckian-like inheritance" this "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis" of his seems to suggest that evolutionary theory proposes that evolution is entirely random--that somehow evolutionary theory entirely discounts the biasing effects of chromosome structure and natural selection.

He seriously cannot be proposing the Lamarckian notion that was discounted in high-school biology: giraffes stretching their necks to get at food, and then passing that stretched neck to their progeny. Were beneficial mutations "magicked" into the population?

HAHA! YES HE DOES!

"Dr. Spetner suggests that these experiments which indicate that adaptive mutations are stimulated by the environment, ..."

...​

"Dr. Spetner wonders how much of the fossil record might be the result of the direct influence of environment on the phenotype without any change in the genotype. (Spetner 1998)"​

LOLsome!

Retard,you should read his book he destroys the modern day theory of evolution ,that is neo darwinism. The book is not by chance however I do not agree with him on his form of evolution. I believe in microadaptations which is microevolution. That is what you dummys extrapolate from to try and show macroevolurion.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, dingleberry, we do not see stasis during the Cambrian, and, very definately, not the Pre-Cabrian.

Chirality is affect by light, by the chemistry of feldspars, and many other ways. There is no problem of chirality, just as there is no problem with mutation.

There are issues as to which natural processes are or were, the most important.

The creation arguement is dead. It died with the development of genetic mapping. It died in court after the rejection of the Design arguements.

Creationism has now joined the 'Flat Earthers' as far as most are concerned. Dead subject.

Video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URWilfB2RVU]103 - Bones in Stones / Genesis Conflict - Walter Veith - YouTube[/ame]

Meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard, posted here by one of his own retarded ideological species.

Just watch and learn and tell us what is propaganda and point out where he is wrong. I have seen no one who writes so many meaningless posts,that's amazing.

 

[LOki]

Video.

103 - Bones in Stones / Genesis Conflict - Walter Veith - YouTube

Meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard, posted here by one of his own retarded ideological species.

Just watch and learn and tell us what is propaganda and point out where he is wrong. I have seen no one who writes so many meaningless posts,that's amazing.

I watched it. I actually posted it before you, you idiot.

And it's still meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard.

 

[daws101]

Dream on,nothing complex can be denomstrated to have come into existence on it's own.

odd, the same can be said of complex creation.
thanks for playing

Did i just become dumber from reading your post ?

how could you become any dumber! your pov says it all.

 

[koshergrl]

But you seem to demand that you have verifiable evidence and valid logic that supports your claim. Your demand is bullshit, of course, yet you (particularly you, koshergrl) make it without bringing said verifiable evidence and valid logic.

All right. Allow me to submit the following:


I do not think it should be necessary that I post all the cheerleading you've been posting while YWC was discussing his logic and evidence, nor do I think it should be necessary that I make a special effort to demonstrate that you made no effort to correct YWC on this matter.

In light of this, I hope you can understand how I might have come to the conclusion that you demand that you as well have verifiable evidence and valid logic that support your claims.

If however, you claim that your assertion that this world, and all the life on it was created and designed by a creator is entirely baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, then I'll admit I was wrong to declare you said otherwise. If I have misrepresented you, it was unintentional; and please consider this my sincere and public apology to you. But I won't make such declaration for or apologize to, YWC or anyone else who maintains the validity of his fatuous claims directly or indirectly.


I stand by this.

This is all unquestionably true, by your very own admissions:

If you've been demonstrating or affirming that your intellectual paradigm is intellectually dishonest, I am failing to see it. If my failure to see that you acknowledge that your intellectual paradigm is intellectually dishonest has led me to misrepresent you again, I assure you it was unintentional, and I would hope you would again accept my sincere and public apology to you. Otherwise, as I said earlier, I will stand by my assertion regarding your failure to accept the intellectual dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm.

In any event, and as before, I am not extending this mea culpa or apology to YWC or anyone else who maintains the validity of his dishonest intellectual paradigm directly or indirectly.

But look at your very own words above ... you candidly admit your beliefs are not based in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. How can you honestly have any problem with my assertion here? How can you claim or suggest I am lying?

With the possible exception of the first line you highlighted, I cannot see how you can honestly claim there are any inconsistencies with fact that I have posted. And in regard to actual lying; just look at the record! Considering YWC's and your own contributions, how can you honestly claim that I have made a deliberate attempt to misinform? You really need to explain that to me.

I'm not sure, but I will conditionally stipulate to the fact, since there is evidence that God doesn't exist. I'm not saying I can demonstrate proof, but I can identify the evidence.

Since my belief is that there is a god, you show yourself up as a liar right there.

Well, your belief in God is irrelevant to any fact of reality that I am lying in this regard. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between being incorrect about the facts, and lying about the facts.

Not that it's unique or anything...pretty much every word you fling is a lie.

You have yet to demonstrate this unsubstantiated accusation of yours; and your faith that "...pretty much every word *I* fling is a lie" is obviously irrelevant to any determination of such that is validated by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

I'm sorry, you're a fucking idiot.

I don't even need to say anything. You prove yourself an idiot, as well as a liar, in the very post you use to (supposedly) show that you AREN'T.

I'll just let your idiocy stand as it is, without garnishment. It needs none.

 

[daws101]

You still don't get it.

We don't claim that our faith is based upon proof.

But you seem to demand that you have verifiable evidence and valid logic that supports your claim. Your demand is bullshit, of course, yet you (particularly you, koshergrl) make it without bringing said verifiable evidence and valid logic.

You just don't accept the intellectually dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm. While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.

You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.

Untrue. And this has been explained to you repeatedly. Absolute unqualified certainty is not what we claim about out conclusions, nor is it what we require of competing conclusions. We require verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; NOT "proof." Our conclusions are subject to verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; in contrast to you and your superstitious tribe of intellectually dishonest retards who require that their evidence and logic are subject to their conclusion.

But you have no proof.

And your beliefs are baseless in verifiable evidence and valid logic.

Look, more lies.

How many times have I said we admit there is no solid evidence that God exists and there never will be? So again, you're a liar.

You morons, on the other hand, pretend you have solid evidence that "proves" the bible is full of lies...when you absolutely don't.

Which is why I don't spend time arguing with you. You post silliness and pass it off as some sort of superior argument and post lies and pretend it's evidence. There's no point. You lie, and there's no arguing with liars. All one can do is point out the lies...which is what I do.

And keep asking the same questions..which are never answered and always precipitate a flurry of ad hominem attacks, other logical fallacies, a flurry of deflections, and more lies.

It's like arguing with retards. Well, it is arguing with retards.

http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf

 

[Youwerecreated]

Meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard, posted here by one of his own retarded ideological species.

Just watch and learn and tell us what is propaganda and point out where he is wrong. I have seen no one who writes so many meaningless posts,that's amazing.

I watched it. I actually posted it before you, you idiot.

And it's still meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard.

So,what does he say that is wrong ?

 

[daws101]

The Bible consists of a collection of sixty-six separate books. These books were chosen, after a bit of haggling, by the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.—more than three hundred years after the time of Jesus. This collection is broken into two major sections: The Old Testament, which consists of thirty-nine books, and The New Testament, which consists of twenty-seven books. (Catholic Bibles include additional books known as the Apocrypha.)

The Old Testament is concerned with the Hebrew God, Yahweh, and purports to be a history of the early Israelites. The New Testament is the work of early Christians and reflects their beliefs about Jesus; it purports to be a history of what Jesus taught and did.

The composition of the various books is thought to have begun around 1000 B.C., and to have continued for about 1,100 years. Much oral material was included. This was repeated from father to son, revised over and over again, and then put into written form by various editors. These editors often worked in different locales and in different time periods, and were often unaware of each other. Their work was primarily intended for local use and it is unlikely that any author foresaw that his work would be included in a "Bible."

No original manuscripts exist. There is probably not one book which survives in anything like its original form. There are hundreds of differences between the oldest manuscripts of any one book. These differences indicate that numerous additions and alterations, some accidental and some purposeful, were made to the originals by various authors, editors, and copyists.

Many biblical authors are unknown. When an author has been named that name has sometimes been selected by pious believers rather than given by the author himself. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are examples of books which did not carry the names of their actual authors; the present names were assigned long after these four books were written. And—in spite of what the Gospel authors say—biblical scholars are now almost unanimously agreed that none of the Gospel authors was either an actual disciple of Jesus or even an eyewitness to his ministry.

Although some books of the Bible are traditionally attributed to a single author, many are actually the work of multiple authors. Genesis and John are two examples of books which reflect multiple authorship.

Many biblical books have the earmarks of fiction. For example, private conversations are often related when no reporter was present. Conversations between God and various individuals are recorded. Prehistoric events are given in great detail. When a story is told by more than one author, there are usually significant differences. Many stories—stories which in their original context are considered even by Christians to be fictional—were borrowed by the biblical authors, adapted for their own purposes, given a historical setting, and then declared to be fact.

The Flood story is an example of this kind of adaptation. Its migration from the earliest known occurrence in Sumeria, around 1600 B.C., from place to place and eventually to the Bible, can be traced historically. Each time the story was used again, it was altered to speak of local gods and heroes.

Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems