| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fritz Wuehler" |
| Date: |
25 Jan 2006 07:14:38 AM |
| Object: |
Darwin thoughts on Geology |
However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test
of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over
a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was “wrong” with
the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the
transitional links required to support his theory. This
situation caused him to say: “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 the theory.”
.
|
|
| User: "Elmer" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
25 Jan 2006 07:29:30 AM |
|
|
Fritz Wuehler wrote:
However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test
of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over
a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was “wrong” with
the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the
transitional links required to support his theory. This
situation caused him to say: “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 the theory.”
Why is it that his next line almost is never quoted?
"The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the
geological record."
And what's amazing to me in this quotating of Darwin is that it
implicitly ignores the nearly 150 years of biological research on
evolution since it was written.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
26 Jan 2006 12:21:53 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:29:30 GMT, Elmer <nylicens@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <_2LBf.1745$wk5.352@news02.roc.ny>
Fritz Wuehler wrote:
However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test
of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over
a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was “wrong” with
the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the
transitional links required to support his theory. This
situation caused him to say: “Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated
organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and
serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”
Why is it that his next line almost is never quoted?
Because it would harm the Creationists' criminal con game.
"The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the
geological record."
And what's amazing to me in this quotating of Darwin is that it
implicitly ignores the nearly 150 years of biological research on
evolution since it was written.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
25 Jan 2006 08:22:30 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:29:30 GMT, in alt.talk.creationism
Elmer <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in
<_2LBf.1745$wk5.352@news02.roc.ny>:
Fritz Wuehler wrote:
However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test
of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over
a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was “wrong” with
the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the
transitional links required to support his theory. This
situation caused him to say: “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 the theory.”
Why is it that his next line almost is never quoted?
Because it wouldn't be a dishonest quote that can be claimed to 'prove'
that Darwin didn't accept his own work.
"The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the
geological record."
And what's amazing to me in this quotating of Darwin is that it
implicitly ignores the nearly 150 years of biological research on
evolution since it was written.
The opponents of science belong to a school of thought that claims that
nothing in knowledge has changed for nearly 2000 years. Don't bother
offering them evidence that the religion they teach has been modified
over the centuries or that many of the current doctrines are barely a
century old.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
26 Jan 2006 02:06:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:14:38 +0100, Fritz Wuehler
<fritz@spamexpire-200601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote in
alt.atheism
However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test
of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support?
Objective supporting evidence the universe was manufactured?
Hint: Evolution is commonly seen daily. Please get at least a
rudimentary education.
[]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin thoughts on Geology |
25 Jan 2006 07:30:09 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:14:38 +0100, in alt.talk.creationism
Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-200601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
wrote in <dac95540e66e6ab72e4379a8904aabe6@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>:
However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test
of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over
a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was “wrong” with
the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the
transitional links required to support his theory. This
situation caused him to say: “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 the theory.”
I'm sure you read the rest of this and notice that the question is a
rhetorical question that he manages to answer and that science manages
to answer even better after this, but for those who don't know the
context of the question, we can point out that this question could be
very misleading if taken out of context:
"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, 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.
"In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of
intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed. I have
found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing
to myself forms DIRECTLY intermediate between them. But this is a wholly
false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each
species and a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will
generally have differed in some respects from all its modified
descendants. To give a simple illustration: the fantail and pouter
pigeons are both descended from the rock-pigeon; if we possessed all the
intermediate varieties which have ever existed, we should have an
extremely close series between both and the rock-pigeon; but we should
have no varieties directly intermediate between the fantail and pouter;
none, for instance, combining a tail somewhat expanded with a crop
somewhat enlarged, the characteristic features of these two breeds.
These two breeds, moreover, have become so much modified, that, if we
had no historical or indirect evidence regarding their origin, it would
not have been possible to have determined from a mere comparison of
their structure with that of the rock-pigeon, C. livia, whether they had
descended from this species or from some other allied species, such as
C. oenas.
"So with natural species, if we look to forms very distinct, for
instance to the horse and tapir, we have no reason to suppose that links
directly intermediate between them ever existed, but between each and an
unknown common parent. The common parent will have had in its whole
organisation much general resemblance to the tapir and to the horse; but
in some points of structure may have differed considerably from both,
even perhaps more than they differ from each other. Hence, in all such
cases, we should be unable to recognise the parent-form of any two or
more species, even if we closely compared the structure of the parent
with that of its modified descendants, unless at the same time we had a
nearly perfect chain of the intermediate links."
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote75>
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
