| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ZilentNoise" |
| Date: |
13 Jun 2007 08:51:26 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
When a special centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species was
to be published, W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth
Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write
its introduction. In it he said: “As we know, there is a great
divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of
evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain
conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of
the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.
.
|
|
| User: "Phil MacDouglass" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
14 Jun 2007 01:41:47 AM |
|
|
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:5JZbi.6928$xg4.4034@trnddc08...
t1gercat wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Pt. Lurk wrote:
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:yDSbi.4296$O15.3712@trnddc03...
When a special centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species was
to
be published,
-- i.e. in *1959*. Nearly half a century ago. Jeeeezus, you people
really
like *antiques*, don't you...?!? *LOL*!!!
W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of
Biological
Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction.
-- i.e. in *1959*.
In it he said: "As we know, there is
-- i.e. as of *1959*.
a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the
causes
of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
-- i.e. in *1959*.
because the evidence
-- available in 1959...
is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is
therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific
public to the disagreements about evolution.
You people really are *pathetic*...
Thought evolving
THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual occurrence,"
a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the word "fact." But
is it?
Yes. A demostrable fact.
The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way: “Evolution
. . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also
being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists,
scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the
prevailing view of Darwinism.” Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and
author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: “For all its
acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of
biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising
amount of trouble.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: “The doubt
that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.” He spoke
of the “lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,” and added,
“things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it seems as
though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there
are individual biologists.
that's a deliberate misquote from the WTBTS "creation" book. it mentions
not that evolution is being debated, but the speed at which things might
evolve.
and hitching's a braindead creationist k00k! iirc, he's not really an
evolutionist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 02:17:37 PM |
|
|
"Phil MacDouglass" <mary_s@weyland-yutani.com> wrote in message
news:Jq5ci.1108$vi5.869@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
that's a deliberate misquote from the WTBTS "creation" book. it mentions
not that evolution is being debated, but the speed at which things might
evolve.
The lying troll from hell claims he's not a JW creationist then quotes
constantly from that book and other JW material. He never gives credits
either. He probably thinks he's fooling people into believing he wrote it
all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 04:54:57 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 2:17 pm, "Kathy" <Kathy9...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Phil MacDouglass" <mar...@weyland-yutani.com> wrote in message
news:Jq5ci.1108$vi5.869@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
that's a deliberate misquote from the WTBTS "creation" book. it mentions
not that evolution is being debated, but the speed at which things might
evolve.
The lying troll from hell claims he's not a JW creationist then quotes
constantly from that book and other JW material. He never gives credits
either. He probably thinks he's fooling people into believing he wrote it
all.
Kathy,
You still are not getting the gist of the conversation. What is
under dispute is not evolution per sae, it is human evolution that is
causing all the trouble. Note the May 8th report by Cambridge
University that acknowledges finally, after 10 tedious years of DNA
work that we are all descended, all living humans today, from
aproximiately 10,000 adults out of Northern African about 60,000 years
ago. We are no kin to any of the so called "ancients". I spok with
the assistant to the director of the research team. Her words were,
"One of the reaseachers said, "We are back to square one. We don't
know who we are, or where we came from." That is what the fight is
centering around. Again, we simply don't know and there will be much
more research to be done. Remember the 120,000 years old "modern
humans"? They aren't us. We keep searching. K.W.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 08:48:55 PM |
|
|
<khogantwo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181944497.639934.32040@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Kathy,
You still are not getting the gist of the conversation.
I was not referring to the conversation. I'm talking about where the troll
is cutting and pasting his messages from. He's plagiarizing the Watchtower
material. MORE below. :-)
What is
under dispute is not evolution per sae, it is human evolution that is
causing all the trouble. Note the May 8th report by Cambridge
University that acknowledges finally, after 10 tedious years of DNA
work that we are all descended, all living humans today, from
aproximiately 10,000 adults out of Northern African about 60,000 years
ago. We are no kin to any of the so called "ancients".
Ancients? Are you saying that around 60,000 years ago about 10,000 humans
suddenly appeared here on earth? If that is the case then this planet was
seeded from somewhere else, some other planet. I see no reason to think a
magical "creation" suddenly occurred. And how is it we're so closely
related to the apes if we're from another planet and they're from HERE?
I spok with
the assistant to the director of the research team. Her words were,
"One of the reaseachers said, "We are back to square one. We don't
know who we are, or where we came from." That is what the fight is
centering around. Again, we simply don't know and there will be much
more research to be done. Remember the 120,000 years old "modern
humans"? They aren't us. We keep searching. K.W.
Then who were they and where did they go? When did they find usable DNA
from people 120,000 years old to make that statement?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
16 Jun 2007 04:33:53 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 8:48 pm, "Kathy" <Kathy9...@gmail.com> wrote:
<khogan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181944497.639934.32040@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Kathy,
You still are not getting the gist of the conversation.
I was not referring to the conversation. I'm talking about where the troll
is cutting and pasting his messages from. He's plagiarizing the Watchtower
material. MORE below. :-)
What is
under dispute is not evolution per sae, it is human evolution that is
causing all the trouble. Note the May 8th report by Cambridge
University that acknowledges finally, after 10 tedious years of DNA
work that we are all descended, all living humans today, from
aproximiately 10,000 adults out of Northern African about 60,000 years
ago. We are no kin to any of the so called "ancients".
Ancients? Are you saying that around 60,000 years ago about 10,000 humans
suddenly appeared here on earth? If that is the case then this planet was
seeded from somewhere else, some other planet. I see no reason to think a
magical "creation" suddenly occurred. And how is it we're so closely
related to the apes if we're from another planet and they're from HERE?
I spok with
the assistant to the director of the research team. Her words were,
"One of the reaseachers said, "We are back to square one. We don't
know who we are, or where we came from." That is what the fight is
centering around. Again, we simply don't know and there will be much
more research to be done. Remember the 120,000 years old "modern
humans"? They aren't us. We keep searching. K.W.
Then who were they and where did they go? When did they find usable DNA
from people 120,000 years old to make that statement?
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No, it seems to have been common knowledge as far back as 1997, what
had to be confirmed with that the Australian and New Guiniea DNA
matched. They had a problem as it differed from others until they
understood that both were landlocked and then seperated by rising sea
water about 8,000 years ago. Go to Cambridge Uninversity News, hit
archive, go to Australians go on African walkabout, it will give you
all the details. As for the usable DNA from people 120,000 years ago
to make that statement, they can't. Look at the bone structure, they
are much closer to Neanderthal than modern human. Their tools never
changed as well. We changed tools like we change clothing styles.
K.W.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Fact or Theory |
16 Jun 2007 04:41:50 PM |
|
|
Summarizing some of the unsolved problems confronting evolution,
Francis Hitching observed: “In three crucial areas where [the modern
evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record
reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change.
Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to
prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the
molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.
Then Hitching concluded by making this observation: “To put it at its
mildest, one may question an evolutionary theory so beset by doubts
among even those who teach it. If Darwinism is truly the great unifying
principle of biology, it encompasses extraordinarily large areas of
ignorance. It fails to explain some of the most basic questions of all:
how lifeless chemicals came alive, what rules of grammar lie behind the
genetic code, how genes shape the form of living things.” In fact,
Hitching stated that he considered the modern theory of evolution “so
inadequate that it deserves to be treated as a matter of faith.”
However, many advocates of evolution feel that they do have
sufficient reason to insist that evolution is a fact. They explain that
they are just arguing over details. But if any other theory had such
enormous remaining difficulties, and such major contradictions among
those who advocate it, would it so readily be pronounced a fact? Merely
repeating that something is a fact does not make it a fact. As John R.
Durant, a biologist, wrote in The Guardian of London: “Many scientists
succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the
question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were
finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the
tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of
science.”
On the other hand, what about creation as an explanation for how life
got here? Does it offer a framework for the evidence that is any more
sound than the assertions that often underpin evolution? And, as the
best-known creation account, does Genesis shed any credible light on how
the earth and living things got here?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact or Theory |
17 Jun 2007 06:14:59 AM |
|
|
On Jun 16, 4:41 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Summarizing some of the unsolved problems confronting evolution,
Francis Hitching observed:
Yet more unsupported assertion! LoL! Where is your positive
scientific evidence supporting your creation claims?
If your;e looking for proven facts, then the *fact* is that Francis
Hitching has no academic qualifications whatsoever to pontificate upon
the topic of Evolution. He's entitled to an opinion, but his opinion
is totally irrelevant since he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Instead of quoting ancient quotes and comments from people who know
nothing about the topic, why don't you present positive scientific
evidence supporting your case? *That's* the scientific method.
But if any other theory had such
enormous remaining difficulties, and such major contradictions among
those who advocate it, would it so readily be pronounced a fact?
The *Theory* has not been pronounced a fact. But evolution itself
*is* a fact. Learn to tell the difference. The Theory of Evolution
is the *only* scientific theory which explains the *fact* of
evolution. The Theory of Evolution is one of the best, if not the
best, scientifically support theories there is. It has almost 150
years of solid science behind it, science that is not "opinion", but
is factual observation, experimentation, and expert testimony
published in refereed science journals the world over by people of all
faiths.
Merely
repeating that something is a fact does not make it a fact.
Neither does repeating ancient quotes and comments from people who
know nothing about the topic. However, repeating it with scientific
evidence makes a far more solid fact than irrelevant, out-of-date, and/
or out-of-context commentary in news groups! LoL! Especially when
that commentary comes from someone like Francis Hitching, who believes
in the thoroughly discredited practice of dowsing!
As John R.
Durant, a biologist, wrote
Unother unsupported claim. Why are you too afraid to post an actual
reference to go with these purported quotes?
On the other hand, what about creation as an explanation for how life
got here?
Show us the science. Until and unless you do, all you have is sour
grapes whining. The Theory of Evolution is backed by 150 years of
solid science. Where's YOURS?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?RORyRmzka2Vu?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact or Theory |
17 Jun 2007 07:46:05 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1182078899.602673.306070@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 16, 4:41 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
On the other hand, what about creation as an explanation for how life
got here?
See what a habitual liar Jabber is? He claims he doesn't believe in a
magical creation and then he asks something like this. If he didn't believe
in a supernatural creation he wouldn't have C&Ped such a thing from the
Watchtower literature.
OTOH Budikka.... look at all the attention he gets by posting the old WTS
crap to all these NGs. The attention is what he craves and you can be sure
he gets credit on his WTS time card for posting it here.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreementsamong scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 04:59:47 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Jun 15, 2:17 pm, "Kathy" <Kathy9...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kathy,
Her real name is Carolyn Gulley
You still are not getting the gist of the conversation. What is
under dispute is not evolution per sae, it is human evolution that is
causing all the trouble. Note the May 8th report by Cambridge
University that acknowledges finally, after 10 tedious years of DNA
work that we are all descended, all living humans today, from
aproximiately 10,000 adults out of Northern African about 60,000 years
ago.
Ohhhhhhhhhh boy, now she going to accuse you of posting watchtower material.
We are no kin to any of the so called "ancients". I spok with
the assistant to the director of the research team. Her words were,
"One of the reaseachers said, "We are back to square one. We don't
know who we are, or where we came from." That is what the fight is
centering around. Again, we simply don't know and there will be much
more research to be done. Remember the 120,000 years old "modern
humans"? They aren't us. We keep searching. K.W.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ips-Switch" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 08:50:20 PM |
|
|
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:nZDci.421$Zh6.197@trnddc04...
khogantwo@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 15, 2:17 pm, "Kathy" <Kathy9...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kathy,
Her real name is Carolyn Gulley
Uh, no jabbers. Her real name is Norma I. Santana.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 05:08:31 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 4:59 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
khogan...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 15, 2:17 pm, "Kathy" <Kathy9...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kathy,
Her real name is Carolyn Gulley
You still are not getting the gist of the conversation. What is
under dispute is not evolution per sae, it is human evolution that is
causing all the trouble. Note the May 8th report by Cambridge
University that acknowledges finally, after 10 tedious years of DNA
work that we are all descended, all living humans today, from
aproximiately 10,000 adults out of Northern African about 60,000 years
ago.
Ohhhhhhhhhh boy, now she going to accuse you of posting watchtower material.
We are no kin to any of the so called "ancients". I spok with
the assistant to the director of the research team. Her words were,
"One of the reaseachers said, "We are back to square one. We don't
know who we are, or where we came from." That is what the fight is
centering around. Again, we simply don't know and there will be much
more research to be done. Remember the 120,000 years old "modern
humans"? They aren't us. We keep searching. K.W.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks for the warning, but I am an agnostic, and could give a ----
less where we are from or where we are going if anywhere. So she
won't get much satisfaction there. I just want to know the truth
whatever that might be, good or bad. I have no axe to grind other
than I don't take insults well and return them in kind. Thanks for
the warning. K.W.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lieken" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 05:13:22 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 5:54 pm, wrote:
On Jun 15, 2:17 pm, "Kathy" <Kathy9...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Phil MacDouglass" <mar...@weyland-yutani.com> wrote in message
news:Jq5ci.1108$vi5.869@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
that's a deliberate misquote from the WTBTS "creation" book. it mentions
not that evolution is being debated, but the speed at which things might
evolve.
The lying troll from hell claims he's not a JW creationist then quotes
constantly from that book and other JW material. He never gives credits
either. He probably thinks he's fooling people into believing he wrote it
all.
Kathy,
You still are not getting the gist of the conversation.
Carol never did, All she want you to do is to throw JW in mud. To do
this sje will post with various NYM's in the same thread. Such as
Ips-switch
Kathy
Apostate
When you ignore her she will rotate with other nyms from different
free servers. She is easy to spot. She attacks Jabriol, JW's and or
the watchtower in every post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?RORyRmzka2Vu?=" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 08:54:19 PM |
|
|
"Lieken" JABRIOL aka Antonio Santana<darth.gantz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181945602.791226.232700@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
When you ignore her she will rotate with other nyms from different
free servers. She is easy to spot. She attacks Jabriol, JW's and or
the watchtower in every post.
Uh, YOU are jabriol. Have another seazure Antonio? Forget who you are? Why
are you trying to trick him?
Carol aka Norma I. Santana attacks JW? Why not call the police and have her
arrested for assault and battery?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 05:27:16 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 5:13 pm, Lieken <darth.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 15, 5:54 pm, wrote:
On Jun 15, 2:17 pm, "Kathy" <Kathy9...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Phil MacDouglass" <mar...@weyland-yutani.com> wrote in message
news:Jq5ci.1108$vi5.869@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
that's a deliberate misquote from the WTBTS "creation" book. it mentions
not that evolution is being debated, but the speed at which things might
evolve.
The lying troll from hell claims he's not a JW creationist then quotes
constantly from that book and other JW material. He never gives credits
either. He probably thinks he's fooling people into believing he wrote it
all.
Kathy,
You still are not getting the gist of the conversation.
Carol never did, All she want you to do is to throw JW in mud. To do
this sje will post with various NYM's in the same thread. Such as
Ips-switch
Kathy
Apostate
When you ignore her she will rotate with other nyms from different
free servers. She is easy to spot. She attacks Jabriol, JW's and or
the watchtower in every post.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Pardon my french, but what the hell is "The Watchtower"? It sounds
ominious. It's not like the religions that come to your door or
anything is it? That is what a S & M 460 Mag is for with a red dot
sight scope. Eight and a half inch ported barrel, 260 grain bullets,
2300 ft a second. Scares the hell out of them. Is that what you were
talking about? K.W. P.S. I live in Oklahoma, so you can imagine!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 08:57:34 PM |
|
|
<khogantwo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181946436.181379.6050@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Pardon my french, but what the hell is "The Watchtower"? It sounds
ominious.
The Watchtower Society followers are better known as Jehovah's Witnesses.
The person you're having a conversation with is better known as Jabriol, a
JW who uses many nyms to bypass people's killfiles.
It's not like the religions that come to your door or
anything is it?
Yes, they usually show up on Saturday mornings, looking for converts.
That is what a S & M 460 Mag is for with a red dot
sight scope. Eight and a half inch ported barrel, 260 grain bullets,
2300 ft a second. Scares the hell out of them. Is that what you were
talking about? K.W. P.S. I live in Oklahoma, so you can imagine!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
13 Jun 2007 07:04:05 PM |
|
|
In article <5JZbi.6928$xg4.4034@trnddc08> ZilentNoise <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> writes:
t1gercat wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Pt. Lurk wrote:
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:yDSbi.4296$O15.3712@trnddc03...
When a special centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species was to
be published,
-- i.e. in *1959*. Nearly half a century ago. Jeeeezus, you people really
like *antiques*, don't you...?!? *LOL*!!!
W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological
Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction.
-- i.e. in *1959*.
In it he said: "As we know, there is
-- i.e. as of *1959*.
a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes
of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
-- i.e. in *1959*.
because the evidence
-- available in 1959...
is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is
therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific
public to the disagreements about evolution.
You people really are *pathetic*...
Thought evolving
THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual occurrence,"
a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the word "fact." But
is it?
Yes. A demostrable fact.
The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way:
“Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.” Francis
Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the
Giraffe, stated: “For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the
great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: “The
doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.” He
spoke of the “lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,”
and added, “things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it
seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary]
theme as there are individual biologists.
I'm curious: do you understand the difference between the phenomenon
of evolution -- as opposed to the theories proposed to explain the
mechanisms of speciation?
Anyone familiar with Elridge's work would no more think that
Elridge doubts the basic phenomenon of evolution than an atheist,
seeing the differences in doctrine between Billy Graham and
the Pope, should conclude that one of them no longer believes
in God.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
14 Jun 2007 12:29:54 PM |
|
|
"Atheist are Stooges" <Atheist.Stooges@Yahoo.com>
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f4q0ll$9m1$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <5JZbi.6928$xg4.4034@trnddc08> ZilentNoise
<ZilentNoise@malinator.com> writes:
t1gercat wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Pt. Lurk wrote:
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:yDSbi.4296$O15.3712@trnddc03...
When a special centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species
was to
be published,
-- i.e. in *1959*. Nearly half a century ago. Jeeeezus, you people
really
like *antiques*, don't you...?!? *LOL*!!!
W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of
Biological
Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction.
-- i.e. in *1959*.
In it he said: "As we know, there is
-- i.e. as of *1959*.
a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the
causes
of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence
exists
-- i.e. in *1959*.
because the evidence
-- available in 1959...
is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is
therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the
non-scientific
public to the disagreements about evolution.
You people really are *pathetic*...
Thought evolving
THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual
occurrence,"
a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the word "fact." But
is it?
Yes. A demostrable fact.
The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way:
"Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism." Francis
Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the
Giraffe, stated: "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the
great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: "The
doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions." He
spoke of the "lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,"
and added, "things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it
seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary]
theme as there are individual biologists.
I'm curious: do you understand the difference between the phenomenon
of evolution -- as opposed to the theories proposed to explain the
mechanisms of speciation?
Anyone familiar with Elridge's work would no more think that
Elridge doubts the basic phenomenon of evolution than an atheist,
seeing the differences in doctrine between Billy Graham and
the Pope, should conclude that one of them no longer believes
in God.
-- cary
What are the reasons for a skeptic to defend their position on the issue of
God?
You mean my position? My position is the same as my position regarding
the existence of life of Europa -- nothing I have come across of leads me
to believe that there is any there there.
And as with the case of Europa, if evidence for suspecting that
there is in fact a there there were to emerge, I am perfectly open
to accepting its reality.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
14 Jun 2007 02:11:55 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:29:54 +0000, Cary Kittrell wrote:
"Atheist are Stooges" <Atheist.Stooges@Yahoo.com>
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f4q0ll$9m1$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <5JZbi.6928$xg4.4034@trnddc08> ZilentNoise
<ZilentNoise@malinator.com> writes:
t1gercat wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Pt. Lurk wrote:
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:yDSbi.4296$O15.3712@trnddc03...
When a special centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species
was to
be published,
-- i.e. in *1959*. Nearly half a century ago. Jeeeezus, you people
really
like *antiques*, don't you...?!? *LOL*!!!
W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of
Biological
Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction.
-- i.e. in *1959*.
In it he said: "As we know, there is
-- i.e. as of *1959*.
a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the
causes
of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence
exists
-- i.e. in *1959*.
because the evidence
-- available in 1959...
is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is
therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the
non-scientific
public to the disagreements about evolution.
You people really are *pathetic*...
Thought evolving
THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual
occurrence,"
a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the word "fact." But
is it?
Yes. A demostrable fact.
The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way:
"Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism." Francis
Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the
Giraffe, stated: "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the
great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: "The
doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions." He
spoke of the "lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,"
and added, "things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it
seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary]
theme as there are individual biologists.
I'm curious: do you understand the difference between the phenomenon
of evolution -- as opposed to the theories proposed to explain the
mechanisms of speciation?
Anyone familiar with Elridge's work would no more think that
Elridge doubts the basic phenomenon of evolution than an atheist,
seeing the differences in doctrine between Billy Graham and
the Pope, should conclude that one of them no longer believes
in God.
-- cary
What are the reasons for a skeptic to defend their position on the issue of
God?
You mean my position? My position is the same as my position regarding
the existence of life of Europa -- nothing I have come across of leads me
to believe that there is any there there.
And as with the case of Europa, if evidence for suspecting that
there is in fact a there there were to emerge, I am perfectly open
to accepting its reality.
-- cary
See, you atheists are SO wishy-washy. Changing your minds just because
new information becomes available. You should be like the theists: latch
on to something that was believed thousands of years ago, and don't change
your mind no matter what!
I remember something that Colbert said at the White House correspondents
dinner: George Bush believes on Thursday the same thing that he believed
on Tuesday. Regardless of what happened on Wednesday!
--
MarkA
(Still trying to come up with a clever sig line)
.
|
|
|
| User: "~saba gracile~" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 10:19:32 AM |
|
|
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> skrev i melding news:pan.2007.06.14.19.11.53.812891@nowhere.com...
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:29:54 +0000, Cary Kittrell wrote:
"Atheist are Stooges" <Atheist.Stooges@Yahoo.com>
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f4q0ll$9m1$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <5JZbi.6928$xg4.4034@trnddc08> ZilentNoise
<ZilentNoise@malinator.com> writes:
t1gercat wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Pt. Lurk wrote:
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:yDSbi.4296$O15.3712@trnddc03...
When a special centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species
was to
be published,
-- i.e. in *1959*. Nearly half a century ago. Jeeeezus, you people
really
like *antiques*, don't you...?!? *LOL*!!!
W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of
Biological
Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction.
-- i.e. in *1959*.
In it he said: "As we know, there is
-- i.e. as of *1959*.
a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the
causes
of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence
exists
-- i.e. in *1959*.
because the evidence
-- available in 1959...
is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is
therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the
non-scientific
public to the disagreements about evolution.
You people really are *pathetic*...
Thought evolving
THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual
occurrence,"
a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the word "fact." But
is it?
Yes. A demostrable fact.
The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way:
"Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism." Francis
Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the
Giraffe, stated: "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the
great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: "The
doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions." He
spoke of the "lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,"
and added, "things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it
seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary]
theme as there are individual biologists.
I'm curious: do you understand the difference between the phenomenon
of evolution -- as opposed to the theories proposed to explain the
mechanisms of speciation?
Anyone familiar with Elridge's work would no more think that
Elridge doubts the basic phenomenon of evolution than an atheist,
seeing the differences in doctrine between Billy Graham and
the Pope, should conclude that one of them no longer believes
in God.
-- cary
What are the reasons for a skeptic to defend their position on the issue of
God?
You mean my position? My position is the same as my position regarding
the existence of life of Europa -- nothing I have come across of leads me
to believe that there is any there there.
And as with the case of Europa, if evidence for suspecting that
there is in fact a there there were to emerge, I am perfectly open
to accepting its reality.
-- cary
See, you atheists are SO wishy-washy. Changing your minds just because
new information becomes available. You should be like the theists: latch
on to something that was believed thousands of years ago, and don't change
your mind no matter what!
I remember something that Colbert said at the White House correspondents
dinner: George Bush believes on Thursday the same thing that he believed
on Tuesday. Regardless of what happened on Wednesday!
And doesn't it speak volumes that there isn't ONE single question of doubt
against their baby theory that can be rightfully asked? It does to me.
Saba
--
MarkA
(Still trying to come up with a clever sig line)
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
18 Jun 2007 08:51:41 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:19:32 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> skrev i melding news:pan.2007.06.14.19.11.53.812891@nowhere.com...
See, you atheists are SO wishy-washy. Changing your minds just because
new information becomes available. You should be like the theists: latch
on to something that was believed thousands of years ago, and don't change
your mind no matter what!
I remember something that Colbert said at the White House correspondents
dinner: George Bush believes on Thursday the same thing that he believed
on Tuesday. Regardless of what happened on Wednesday!
And doesn't it speak volumes that there isn't ONE single question of doubt
against their baby theory that can be rightfully asked? It does to me.
Saba
When I first read this, I assumed that the "baby theory" you were
referring to was the Creationist one! After reading some of your other
posts, now I am not so sure.
In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic when calling atheists
"wishy-washy". It is pretty obvious that if you are modifying your
theories as new information becomes available, that you are, in fact,
"asking questions." And looking for answers.
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Atheist are Stooges" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
13 Jun 2007 09:36:01 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f4q0ll$9m1$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <5JZbi.6928$xg4.4034@trnddc08> ZilentNoise
<ZilentNoise@malinator.com> writes:
t1gercat wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Pt. Lurk wrote:
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:yDSbi.4296$O15.3712@trnddc03...
When a special centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species
was to
be published,
-- i.e. in *1959*. Nearly half a century ago. Jeeeezus, you people
really
like *antiques*, don't you...?!? *LOL*!!!
W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of
Biological
Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction.
-- i.e. in *1959*.
In it he said: "As we know, there is
-- i.e. as of *1959*.
a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the
causes
of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence
exists
-- i.e. in *1959*.
because the evidence
-- available in 1959...
is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is
therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the
non-scientific
public to the disagreements about evolution.
You people really are *pathetic*...
Thought evolving
THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual
occurrence,"
a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the word "fact." But
is it?
Yes. A demostrable fact.
The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way:
"Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism." Francis
Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the
Giraffe, stated: "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the
great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: "The
doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions." He
spoke of the "lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,"
and added, "things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it
seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary]
theme as there are individual biologists.
I'm curious: do you understand the difference between the phenomenon
of evolution -- as opposed to the theories proposed to explain the
mechanisms of speciation?
Anyone familiar with Elridge's work would no more think that
Elridge doubts the basic phenomenon of evolution than an atheist,
seeing the differences in doctrine between Billy Graham and
the Pope, should conclude that one of them no longer believes
in God.
-- cary
What are the reasons for a skeptic to defend their position on the issue of
God?
Do they believe that he will get a reward in the after life? I would venture
a no.
Are they motivated by an obedience to a higher power? Again no
Do they believe that it helps their chance that he will go to heaven? No
probably not.
Do they do it to shore up his belief system? Hmmm...
You see the reason that Kitrell finds that motivation in others is because
it's the most likely motivation for debating about God that she has. For
what other reason is there for her to waste her time with issue? Do realize
she will likely come up with some snappy reason now. But it's her first knee
jerk reaction I find the most telling. However any snappy reason she comes
up with is probably be a knee slapper for she is loaded with sharp wit.
<snickers>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy W" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
13 Jun 2007 06:35:35 PM |
|
|
On 13 Jun, 22:55, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
<trim>
The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way:
"Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."
Excellent... I was waiting for this.
The Creation book from which you keep copying and pasting is widely
regarded as appallingly, shockingly dishonest. One of the reasons for
this is "quote mining" such as this. Here's the full passage, in
context:
"Charles Darwin's brilliant theory of evolution, published in 1859,
had a stunning impact on scientific and religious thought and forever
changed man's perception of himself. Now that hallowed theory is not
only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being
questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists
who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the
prevailing view of Darwinism. . . .
Most of the debate will centre on one key question: Does the three
billion-year-old process of evolution creep at a steady pace, or is it
marked by long periods of inactivity punctuated by short bursts of
rapid change? Is Evolution a Tortoise or a hare? Darwin's widely
accepted view - that evolution proceeds steadily, at a crawl - favours
the tortoise. But two paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American
Museum of Natural History and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, are
putting their bets on the hare."
- James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?", Discover, October 1980, p
88
The Creation book makes it sound as though eminent biologists question
whether evolution even happens. The full quote clearly shows that only
the mechanisms are under discussion, but there is agreement that
evolution occurs. This is a deliberate attempt at deception.
Francis
Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the
Giraffe, stated: "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the
great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
Quote mined again:
"Yet, for all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great
unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But
they don't. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a
fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two
centuries from geology, paleontology (the study of fossils), molecular
biology and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many
believers in Divine creation who dispute this (including about half
the adult population of the United States, according to some opinion
polls), the probability that evolution has occurred approaches
certainty in scientific terms."
- Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe", 1982, p 12
Hitching also has no credentials as a scientist and is into dowsing
and pyramid power among other things.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: "The
doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions." He
spoke of the "lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,"
and added, "things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it
seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary]
theme as there are individual biologists.
Again, he's talking of mechanisms here not whether evolution happens.
The whole book is packed with this sort of thing. Over and over again
it makes statements that are, on closer investigation, found to be
wrong in ways that can only be deliberate. Every JW should read this
book, and then read the numerous criticisms of it around the web, and
ask themselves how a group which claims to be God's organisation on
Earth could have produced such a dishonest, deceitful work. Who is a
liar and the father of the lie?
Andy
.
|
|
|
| User: "~saba gracile~" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 09:42:47 AM |
|
|
"Andy W" <vorath@mailinator.com> skrev i melding
news:1181777735.926162.78330@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On 13 Jun, 22:55, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
<trim>
The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way:
"Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."
Excellent... I was waiting for this.
The Creation book from which you keep copying and pasting is widely
regarded as appallingly, shockingly dishonest. One of the reasons for
this is "quote mining" such as this. Here's the full passage, in
context:
"Charles Darwin's brilliant theory of evolution, published in 1859,
had a stunning impact on scientific and religious thought and forever
changed man's perception of himself. Now that hallowed theory is not
only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being
questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists
who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the
prevailing view of Darwinism. . . .
Most of the debate will centre on one key question: Does the three
billion-year-old process of evolution creep at a steady pace, or is it
marked by long periods of inactivity punctuated by short bursts of
rapid change? Is Evolution a Tortoise or a hare? Darwin's widely
accepted view - that evolution proceeds steadily, at a crawl - favours
the tortoise. But two paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American
Museum of Natural History and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, are
putting their bets on the hare."
- James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?", Discover, October 1980, p
88
The Creation book makes it sound as though eminent biologists question
whether evolution even happens. The full quote clearly shows that only
the mechanisms are under discussion, but there is agreement that
evolution occurs. This is a deliberate attempt at deception.
Francis
Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the
Giraffe, stated: "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the
great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
Quote mined again:
"Yet, for all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great
unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But
they don't. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a
fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two
centuries from geology, paleontology (the study of fossils), molecular
biology and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many
believers in Divine creation who dispute this (including about half
the adult population of the United States, according to some opinion
polls), the probability that evolution has occurred approaches
certainty in scientific terms."
- Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe", 1982, p 12
Hitching also has no credentials as a scientist and is into dowsing
and pyramid power among other things.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: "The
doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions." He
spoke of the "lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,"
and added, "things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it
seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary]
theme as there are individual biologists.
Again, he's talking of mechanisms here not whether evolution happens.
The whole book is packed with this sort of thing. Over and over again
it makes statements that are, on closer investigation, found to be
wrong in ways that can only be deliberate. Every JW should read this
book, and then read the numerous criticisms of it around the web, and
ask themselves how a group which claims to be God's organisation on
Earth could have produced such a dishonest, deceitful work. Who is a
liar and the father of the lie?
Andy
So how do the evolutionists imagine a lion will look like in a million years?
Surely a theory that's so grounded and nailed to the wall with evidence will
be able to predict what happens to organisms in the future? Or does that too
have to be wildly imagined? I thought so. I've never heard anyone try to
predict what a lion will be, what a giraffe would be etc.. hm. Perhaps because
it's embarrassing to the mighty scientists to do that? but why? because that
would be_imagining_ things.. lol.. just like they do with the animals evolusion,
but hey! that's facts!
Saba
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy W" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 06:34:14 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jun, 15:42, JW Creationist "~saba gracile~"
<veron...@frisurf.no> wrote:
<trim for brevity>
Again, he's talking of mechanisms here not whether evolution happens.
The whole book is packed with this sort of thing. Over and over again
it makes statements that are, on closer investigation, found to be
wrong in ways that can only be deliberate. Every JW should read this
book, and then read the numerous criticisms of it around the web, and
ask themselves how a group which claims to be God's organisation on
Earth could have produced such a dishonest, deceitful work. Who is a
liar and the father of the lie?
Andy
So how do the evolutionists imagine a lion will look like in a million years?
Surely a theory that's so grounded and nailed to the wall with evidence will
be able to predict what happens to organisms in the future? Or does that too
have to be wildly imagined? I thought so. I've never heard anyone try to
predict what a lion will be, what a giraffe would be etc.. hm. Perhaps because
it's embarrassing to the mighty scientists to do that? but why? because that
would be_imagining_ things.. lol.. just like they do with the animals evolusion,
but hey! that's facts!
Saba
Do you get some sort of kick out of parading your monstrous ignorance
in public? You quite obviously don't know the first thing about
anything you post. Or is being wrong some sort of hobby for you? Try
to get at least a basic understanding of the subject before you go
flailing in like a drunken elephant.
Evolution theory does not say that the future forms of species can be
predicted, and never did, in fact it says pretty much the opposite:
you can never say what a species will develop into in the future. What
you can say is that the species will adapt to whatever environment it
finds itself in, or likely die off, but you can't say how that will
come about.
And if I had told you that in a million years, lions will be purple,
how are you ever going to check?
Andy
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: TOBS Darwin Embarrased by the Fossil record |
15 Jun 2007 06:59:58 PM |
|
|
The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin “was embarrassed by the
fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would . . .
the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely
graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.” In fact now, after
more than a century of collecting fossils, “we have even fewer examples
of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time,” explained the
Bulletin. Why is this the case? Because the more abundant fossil
evidence available today shows that some of the examples that were once
used to support evolution now are seen not to do so at all.
This failure of the fossil evidence to support gradual evolution has
disturbed many evolutionists. In The New Evolutionary Timetable, Steven
Stanley spoke of “the general failure of the record to display gradual
transitions from one major group to another.” He said: “The known fossil
record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution].”
Niles Eldredge also admitted: “The pattern that we were told to find for
the last 120 years does not exist.”
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS Darwin Embarrased by the Fossil record |
15 Jun 2007 08:39:06 PM |
|
|
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:2KFci.432$Zh6.386@trnddc04...
You missed this one jabbers.
"Andy W" <vorath@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1181937901.708481.306710@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On 15 Jun, 02:11, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> aka JW
Creationist Jabriol's lie-a-thon continued:
Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: "To
suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems,
I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." More than a century has
passed since then. Has the problem been solved? No. On the contrary,
since Darwin's time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is
even more complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: "The
eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have
done better.
Oh, no! Darwin admits that the structure of the human eye invalidates
his theory and abandons it!
Once again the Creation book is caught out in a lie. Actual quote in
context:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said
that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense
of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox
populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in
science.
Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and
imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each
grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if
further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is
likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful
to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty
of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural
selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be
considered as subversive of the theory."
- The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, 1859, p 133.
Darwin does not say the eye could not have evolved, he says he can
understand that people might have trouble accepting that it did. The
evidence suggests that eyes evolved several times independently.
Apparently they're easy.
Read it and weep, JW's, this is the Watchtower Society at its finest,
lying as hard as it can. How can this be the One True Religion if it
can't tell the truth?
Andy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy W" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS Darwin Embarrased by the Fossil record |
16 Jun 2007 05:08:10 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jun, 00:59, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> aka JW
creationist Jabriol wrote:
The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin "was embarrassed by the
fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would . . .
the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely
graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." In fact now, after
more than a century of collecting fossils, "we have even fewer examples
of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time," explained the
Bulletin. Why is this the case? Because the more abundant fossil
evidence available today shows that some of the examples that were once
used to support evolution now are seen not to do so at all.
Fewer examples! Not none, just fewer! Even one screws your whole case!
As usual, the whole quote tells a very different story:
"We must distinguish between the fact of evolution - defined as change
in organisms over time - and the explanation of this change. Darwin's
contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest
how the evolutionary change took place. 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 and, as a result, he devoted a long
section of his Origin of Species to an attempt to explain and
rationalize the differences.
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. The
record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, 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 a
result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice
simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears
to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.
So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and
we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly
be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural
selection.
Now let me step back from the problem and very generally discuss
natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say
that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work.
There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much
of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a
biological process works."
- David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Palaeontology," Field
Museum of Natural History Bulletin, pp. 22, 25, Chicago, January
1979.
I just learned that the WTBTS republished this nonsense book last
year! Evidently they are still not ashamed of lying to get what they
want.
This failure of the fossil evidence to support gradual evolution has
disturbed many evolutionists. In The New Evolutionary Timetable, Steven
Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual
transitions from one major group to another." He said: "The known fossil
record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution]."
Niles Eldredge also admitted: "The pattern that we were told to find for
the last 120 years does not exist."
Need I point out this is yet another case where it is the pace of
evolution that is under dicussion, not whether or not it happens.
Also, see that [slow evolution]? That's where the WTS replaced the
word "gradualism". I'm amazed they actually highlighted that they had
changed anything.
Andy
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS Darwin Embarrased by the Fossil record |
17 Jun 2007 02:56:50 AM |
|
|
On Jun 16, 5:08 pm, Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
On 16 Jun, 00:59, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> aka JW
creationist Jabriol wrote:
The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin "was embarrassed by the
fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would . . .
the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely
graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." In fact now, after
more than a century of collecting fossils, "we have even fewer examples
of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time," explained the
Bulletin. Why is this the case? Because the more abundant fossil
evidence available today shows that some of the examples that were once
used to support evolution now are seen not to do so at all.
Fewer examples! Not none, just fewer! Even one screws your whole case!
As usual, the whole quote tells a very different story:
"We must distinguish between the fact of evolution - defined as change
in organisms over time - and the explanation of this change. Darwin's
contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest
how the evolutionary change took place. 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 and, as a result, he devoted a long
section of his Origin of Species to an attempt to explain and
rationalize the differences.
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. The
record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, 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 a
result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice
simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears
to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.
So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and
we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly
be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural
selection.
Now let me step back from the problem and very generally discuss
natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say
that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work.
There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much
of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a
biological process works."
| | | | | | |
