Religions > Atheism > TOBS: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"jabriol" |
| Date: |
17 Aug 2003 09:59:12 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are
called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in
all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind
of living thing evolving into another kind. But the
Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History
commented: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always
been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and
probably most people assume that fossils provide a
very important part of the general argument that is
made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the
history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly
true.”
Why not? 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.”
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
.
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
17 Aug 2003 05:57:03 PM |
|
|
"J.R." <hey-joe@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:54de13e7.0308170827.7b9af807@posting.google.com...
jabriol <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:<20030817145912.50369.qmail@web10806.mail.yahoo.com>...
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are
called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in
all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind
of living thing evolving into another kind. But the
Bulletin of Chicago?s Field Museum of Natural History
commented: ?Darwin?s theory of [evolution] has always
been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and
probably most people assume that fossils provide a
very important part of the general argument that is
made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the
history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly
true.?
Why not? 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.?
Nothing is ever only one way in nature. There IS slow evolution.
There are also the changing conditions that cause leaps in evolution.
neither that can be duplicated in a lab.
There are also mass extinctions (five of them), which makes it
possible for those who have developed claws for digging, can now use
them for climbing trees.
And so on.
speculation.. not proven, nor can it be falsified.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: ".. * | * .." |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
18 Aug 2003 12:31:28 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f40085c$0$243$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
: > Nothing is ever only one way in nature. There IS slow evolution.
: > There are also the changing conditions that cause leaps in evolution.
: >
:
:
: neither that can be duplicated in a lab.
* Nor can CREATION or seeding of planet earth be duplicated in a lab.
:
: > There are also mass extinctions (five of them), which makes it
: > possible for those who have developed claws for digging, can now use
: > them for climbing trees.
: > And so on.
: speculation.. not proven, nor can it be falsified.
* Speculation, never proven... that some spirit out of nowhere created
everything from nothing.... including cancer, plants, parasites, trees,
AIDS, arthritis, ferns, genetic defects, flies.....
--
Justin Kace......
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal ~ (1623-1662)
==========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "davers_dfd" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
18 Aug 2003 12:27:18 AM |
|
|
The mistress of insanity wrote:
~~:-(
~~:-(* Speculation, never proven... that some spirit out of nowhere created
~~:-(everything from nothing.... including cancer, plants, parasites, trees,
~~:-(AIDS, arthritis, ferns, genetic defects, flies.....
And proof that he has a sense of humor...;0)
You.
davers
--
INSANITY: It is difficult to comprehend how insane some people can be.
Especially when you are insane!
http://www.despair.com/demotivators/insanity.html
.
|
|
|
| User: ".. * | * .." |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
18 Aug 2003 03:12:00 AM |
|
|
"davers_dfd" , who turned to drink when he realized what his god
did<davers_dfd@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.19aa11a14d4fc15989725@news.west.cox.net...
:
: ~~:-(* Speculation, never proven... that some spirit out of nowhere
created
: ~~:-(everything from nothing.... including cancer, plants, parasites,
trees,
: ~~:-(AIDS, arthritis, ferns, genetic defects, flies.....
:
: The master of alcoholism wrote:
: And proof that he has a sense of humor...;0)
--------------------------------------------
** So your god finds HUMOR in disease, suffering and death???? No wonder
you drank yourself into a stupor. :o)
--
Justin Kace......
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal ~ (1623-1662)
==========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "davers_dfd" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
18 Aug 2003 01:32:33 AM |
|
|
In article <WUZ%a.1484$7b2.916@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com>, no-door-
knockers@THIS.edu says...
~~:-(
~~:-("davers_dfd" , who turned to drink when he realized what his god
~~:-(did<davers_dfd@netzero.net> wrote in message
~~:-(news:MPG.19aa11a14d4fc15989725@news.west.cox.net...
~~:-(:
~~:-(: ~~:-(* Speculation, never proven... that some spirit out of nowhere
~~:-(created
~~:-(: ~~:-(everything from nothing.... including cancer, plants, parasites,
~~:-(trees,
~~:-(: ~~:-(AIDS, arthritis, ferns, genetic defects, flies.....
~~:-(:
~~:-(: The master of alcoholism wrote:
~~:-(: And proof that he has a sense of humor...;0)
~~:-(--------------------------------------------
~~:-(** So your god finds HUMOR in disease, suffering and death???? No wonder
~~:-(you drank yourself into a stupor. :o)
~~:-(--
No my pudgy lil fiend, I drank myself into a stupor because I did not
want to face the consequences of my choice to violate Jehovah's laws. I
stopped drinking, due to recognizing that that action further alienated
me from Jehovah. I may be slow, but I am thorough...;0)
davers
--
If Jehovah, His organization, or myself take exception
to some aspect of my life or personality...
I have a personal challenge.
If you take exception to some aspect of my life or
personality...
You have a personal problem.
Dave M Worthey with appreciation to JG.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
18 Aug 2003 07:43:55 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are
called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in
all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind
of living thing evolving into another kind.
You mean, we'd have something like "millions of bones
and other evidence of past life" as evidence?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
18 Aug 2003 11:01:37 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 08:43:55 -0400, JTEM wrote:
"jabriol" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are called fossils. If
evolution were a fact, surely in all of this there should be ample
evidence of one kind of living thing evolving into another kind.
You mean, we'd have something like "millions of bones and other evidence
of past life" as evidence?
Yeah, something like that instead of millions of bones and other evidence
of past life!
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
18 Aug 2003 11:25:38 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:24:54 -0400, JTEM wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote
JTEM wrote:
"jabriol" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are called fossils. If
evolution were a fact, surely in all of this there should be ample
evidence of one kind of living thing evolving into another kind.
You mean, we'd have something like "millions of bones and other
evidence of past life" as evidence?
Yeah, something like that instead of millions of bones and other
evidence of past life!
Well, maybe if we stopped wasting out time with the millions of bones and
other evidence of past life, we could search for millions of bones and
other evidence of past life.
Yeah but then all we'd have are millions of bones and other evidence of
past life...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
17 Aug 2003 10:12:51 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:20030817145912.50369.qmail@web10806.mail.yahoo.com...
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are
called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in
all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind
of living thing evolving into another kind. But the
Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History
commented: "Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always
been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and
probably most people assume that fossils provide a
very important part of the general argument that is
made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the
history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly
true."
Why not? 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."
That is a quote out-of-context by David Raup. You are misrepresenting his
views, by making it seem as if he doesn't accept biological evolution.
Please retract your misrepresentation or provide additional content showing
that you are properly representing his views.
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]."
That is a quote out-of-context. You are misrepresenting Stanley's views, by
making it seem as if he doesn't accept biological evolution. Please retract
your misrepresentation or provide additional content showing that you are
properly representing his views.
Niles
Eldredge also admitted: "The pattern that we were told
to find for the last 120 years does not exist."
That is a quote out-of-context. You are misrepresenting Eldredge's views, by
making it seem as if he doesn't accept biological evolution. Please retract
your misrepresentation or provide additional content showing that you are
properly representing his views.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
17 Aug 2003 11:10:39 AM |
|
|
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:dYM%a.5540$nI2.2217686116@twister2.starband.net...
"jabriol" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:20030817145912.50369.qmail@web10806.mail.yahoo.com...
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are
called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in
all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind
of living thing evolving into another kind. But the
Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History
commented: "Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always
been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and
probably most people assume that fossils provide a
very important part of the general argument that is
made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the
history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly
true."
Why not? 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."
That is a quote out-of-context by David Raup. You are misrepresenting his
views, by making it seem as if he doesn't accept biological evolution.
Please retract your misrepresentation or provide additional content
showing
that you are properly representing his views.
no, that is your intepretation, not my intent.
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]."
That is a quote out-of-context. You are misrepresenting Stanley's views,
by
making it seem as if he doesn't accept biological evolution. Please
retract
your misrepresentation or provide additional content showing that you are
properly representing his views.
Nope, that is not my intent, that is your interpretation.. and the
commentary coming from the source mentioned wher many have read it before
usenet.
Niles
Eldredge also admitted: "The pattern that we were told
to find for the last 120 years does not exist."
That is a quote out-of-context. You are misrepresenting Eldredge's views,
by
making it seem as if he doesn't accept biological evolution. Please
retract
your misrepresentation or provide additional content showing that you are
properly representing his views.
Not at all, you are giving your own interpretation of what you are reading.
and by the by I will post more material.
the bottom line is that these guys gave their well educated opinion on what
they are viewing, in no way shape or form are they claiming to disallow the
theory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
18 Aug 2003 07:45:22 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote
That is a quote out-of-context by David Raup. You are
misrepresenting his views, by making it seem as if he
doesn't accept biological evolution. Please retract your
misrepresentation or provide additional content showing
that you are properly representing his views.
no, that is your intepretation, not my intent.
"I don't mean to keep lying. It's an accident."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
28 Aug 2003 05:43:25 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote
Who cares what he lied about this time?
And before you blather more lies, ***** and assininity on this
topic, you need to catch up on your previous moronic displays first.
Define and detail what the "colossal holes" are in the Theory of
Evolution. I have been waiting some consdierable time to see you list
them. Can you or can you not? If you can, then do so. If you
cannot, then admit that you are doing nothing but spreading lies with
your clueless posts.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
17 Aug 2003 04:15:46 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3f3fa913$0$8955$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:dYM%a.5540$nI2.2217686116@twister2.starband.net...
"jabriol" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:20030817145912.50369.qmail@web10806.mail.yahoo.com...
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are
called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in
all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind
of living thing evolving into another kind. But the
Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History
commented: "Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always
been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and
probably most people assume that fossils provide a
very important part of the general argument that is
made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the
history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly
true."
Why not? 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."
That is a quote out-of-context by David Raup. You are misrepresenting
his views, by making it seem as if he doesn't accept biological
evolution. Please retract your misrepresentation or provide
additional content
showing
that you are properly representing his views.
no, that is your intepretation, not my intent.
We realize that it was not your intent to properly represent his views.
In fact, it was your intent to sin. And since this intent apparently
remains intact, you are an unrepentant sinner. The sin in question,
false witness, is a very deadly one and God has appointed a final place
for people who retain this intent and who will not repent of it:
Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and
murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death.
But then, given your record, this is probably your goal in life...
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
17 Aug 2003 04:48:17 PM |
|
|
<hmm. I don't see jabriol's reply, except as quoted here>
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns93DAB9D6F3FD5doldridgsprintca@142.77.1.194...
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3f3fa913$0$8955$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:dYM%a.5540$nI2.2217686116@twister2.starband.net...
"jabriol" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:20030817145912.50369.qmail@web10806.mail.yahoo.com...
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are
called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in
all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind
of living thing evolving into another kind. But the
Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History
commented: "Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always
been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and
probably most people assume that fossils provide a
very important part of the general argument that is
made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the
history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly
true."
Why not? 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."
That is a quote out-of-context by David Raup. You are misrepresenting
his views, by making it seem as if he doesn't accept biological
evolution. Please retract your misrepresentation or provide
additional content
showing
that you are properly representing his views.
no, that is your intepretation, not my intent.
I certainly can't read your mind. However, their views are misrepresented.
Each of these scientists fully accepts the Theory of Evolution.
We realize that it was not your intent to properly represent his views.
In fact, it was your intent to sin. And since this intent apparently
remains intact, you are an unrepentant sinner. The sin in question,
false witness, is a very deadly one and God has appointed a final place
for people who retain this intent and who will not repent of it:
Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and
murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death.
But then, given your record, this is probably your goal in life...
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
17 Aug 2003 06:10:10 PM |
|
|
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:XKS%a.5586$CP4.2225317001@twister2.starband.net...
<hmm. I don't see jabriol's reply, except as quoted here>
Snip Oldridge lapse into senility...
no, that is your intepretation, not my intent.
I certainly can't read your mind. However, their views are misrepresented.
Each of these scientists fully accepts the Theory of Evolution.
I never said that they have abandoned the theory...
think of it as two surgeons whom may disagree on a procedure....
they do not stop practicing medicine... at this point they might employ a
third surgeon
to settle the disagreement or try another better procedure they can agree on
We realize that it was not your intent to properly represent his views.
In fact, it was your intent to sin. And since this intent apparently
remains intact, you are an unrepentant sinner. The sin in question,
false witness, is a very deadly one and God has appointed a final place
for people who retain this intent and who will not repent of it:
Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and
murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all
liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death.
But then, given your record, this is probably your goal in life...
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
I have no clue of what oldridge is talking about..
.
|
|
|
| User: ".. * | * .." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
18 Aug 2003 12:27:34 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f400b6e$0$262$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
: I never said that they have abandoned the theory.
: : think of it as two surgeons whom may disagree on a procedure....
: they do not stop practicing medicine... at this point they might employ a
: third surgeon
: to settle the disagreement or try another better procedure they can agree
on
==============
Such as planet earth being "seeded" from a galaxy far, far away......
--
Justin Kace......
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal ~ (1623-1662)
==========================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
18 Aug 2003 11:01:03 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:17:23 +0000, Dave Oldridge wrote:
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3f400b6e$0$262$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com:
I have no clue of what oldridge is talking about..
Stop dissembling. You know exactly what I'm talking about.
You're only fooling yourself. Anyway, lying in God's name is the LEAST of
your sins and most of them remain unrepented. Do you think to fool God?
Harrassed any rape victims lately? Urged anyone to suicide?
God knows who and what you are. So do we. Your soul is beginning to look
VERY flammable!
If hell exists, gawd's gonna christen it with Jabbers...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
23 Aug 2003 10:24:24 PM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000308070801080906030407
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3f3fa913$0$8955$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:dYM%a.5540$nI2.2217686116@twister2.starband.net...
"jabriol" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:20030817145912.50369.qmail@web10806.mail.yahoo.com...
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are
called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in
all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind
of living thing evolving into another kind. But the
Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History
commented: "Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always
been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and
probably most people assume that fossils provide a
very important part of the general argument that is
made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the
history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly
true."
Why not? 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."
That is a quote out-of-context by David Raup. You are misrepresenting
his views, by making it seem as if he doesn't accept biological
evolution. Please retract your misrepresentation or provide
additional content
showing
that you are properly representing his views.
no, that is your intepretation, not my intent.
We realize that it was not your intent to properly represent his views.
In fact, it was your intent to sin.
Oh, here we go again. Dave knows a sinner when he sees one, boy. No
doubt 'bout that. Never mind the point his target was trying to make,
legit or not; just pin him for the sinner he is. Always great fun for
the whole family.
And since this intent apparently
remains intact, you are an unrepentant sinner.
Yeah, hit 'em again, Davey. You got him on the run.
The sin in question,
false witness, is a very deadly one and God has appointed a final place
for people who retain this intent and who will not repent of it:
Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and
murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death.
But then, given your record, this is probably your goal in life...
And who better to approve the sentence than our own Dave Oldridge,
sinner-sniffer extrodinaire!
Pride? Naah. Not our boy, Davey! He's God's right hand man, shooting
down them there sinners so's to make God's job easier.
Put 'er there, Davey! God's got special place for His dep-u-ties, too.
Jack
--------------000308070801080906030407
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
Dave Oldridge wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midXns93DAB9D6F3FD5doldridgsprintca@142.77.1.194">
<pre wrap="">"jabriol" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jabriol@hotmail.com"><jabriol@hotmail.com></a> wrote in
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="news:3f3fa913$0$8955$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com:">news:3f3fa913$0$8955$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com:</a>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">"Zachriel" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:angel@zachriel.com"><angel@zachriel.com></a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="news:dYM%a.5540$nI2.2217686116@twister2.starband.net">news:dYM%a.5540$nI2.2217686116@twister2.starband.net</a>...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">"jabriol" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]"><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]></a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="news:20030817145912.50369.qmail@web10806.mail.yahoo.com">news:20030817145912.50369.qmail@web10806.mail.yahoo.com</a>...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are
called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in
all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind
of living thing evolving into another kind. But the
Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History
commented: "Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always
been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and
probably most people assume that fossils provide a
very important part of the general argument that is
made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the
history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly
true."
Why not? 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."
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">That is a quote out-of-context by David Raup. You are misrepresenting
his views, by making it seem as if he doesn't accept biological
evolution. Please retract your misrepresentation or provide
additional content
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">showing
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">that you are properly representing his views.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">no, that is your intepretation, not my intent.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
We realize that it was not your intent to properly represent his views.
In fact, it was your intent to sin.</pre>
</blockquote>
Oh, here we go again. Dave knows a sinner when he sees one, boy. No
doubt 'bout that. Never mind the point his target was trying to make,
legit or not; just pin him for the sinner he is. Always great fun for
the whole family.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midXns93DAB9D6F3FD5doldridgsprintca@142.77.1.194">
<pre wrap=""> And since this intent apparently
remains intact, you are an unrepentant sinner.</pre>
</blockquote>
Yeah, hit 'em again, Davey. You got him on the run.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midXns93DAB9D6F3FD5doldridgsprintca@142.77.1.194">
<pre wrap=""> The sin in question,
false witness, is a very deadly one and God has appointed a final place
for people who retain this intent and who will not repent of it:
Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and
murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death.
But then, given your record, this is probably your goal in life...</pre>
</blockquote>
And who better to approve the sentence than our own Dave Oldridge,
sinner-sniffer extrodinaire! <br>
Pride? Naah. Not our boy, Davey! He's God's right hand man,
shooting down them there sinners so's to make God's job easier.<br>
Put 'er there, Davey! God's got special place for His dep-u-ties, too.<br>
<br>
Jack<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------000308070801080906030407--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
24 Aug 2003 08:44:16 AM |
|
|
Jack <macjazz@bigfoot.com> wrote in news:3F482FE8.50001@bigfoot.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3f3fa913$0$8955$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:dYM%a.5540$nI2.2217686116@twister2.starband.net...
"jabriol" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:20030817145912.50369.qmail@web10806.mail.yahoo.com...
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are
called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in
all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind
of living thing evolving into another kind. But the
Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History
commented: "Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always
been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and
probably most people assume that fossils provide a
very important part of the general argument that is
made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the
history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly
true."
Why not? 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."
That is a quote out-of-context by David Raup. You are
misrepresenting his views, by making it seem as if he doesn't accept
biological evolution. Please retract your misrepresentation or
provide additional content
showing
that you are properly representing his views.
no, that is your intepretation, not my intent.
We realize that it was not your intent to properly represent his
views. In fact, it was your intent to sin.
Oh, here we go again. Dave knows a sinner when he sees one, boy. No
doubt 'bout that. Never mind the point his target was trying to make,
legit or not; just pin him for the sinner he is. Always great fun for
the whole family.
Look, if you want to follow Jabbie as your spiritual leader, then do so.
But don't come caterwauling to the rest of us when his grunge rubs off on
you, OK?
And since this intent apparently
remains intact, you are an unrepentant sinner.
Yeah, hit 'em again, Davey. You got him on the run.
Naw, he's already circling the pit. Jabby works for the devil, don'tcha
know.
The sin in question,
false witness, is a very deadly one and God has appointed a final
place for people who retain this intent and who will not repent of it:
Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and
murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all
liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and
brimstone: which is the second death.
But then, given your record, this is probably your goal in life...
And who better to approve the sentence than our own Dave Oldridge,
sinner-sniffer extrodinaire!
Hey, I just point out the error.
Pride? Naah. Not our boy, Davey! He's God's right hand man,
shooting
down them there sinners so's to make God's job easier.
Put 'er there, Davey! God's got special place for His dep-u-ties,
too.
Only doing my job. If you don't like it, take it up with the Boss.
Apparently YOU don't like it. Now why would that be?
--
Rev. Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
25 Aug 2003 05:02:27 AM |
|
|
Could I ask you swizzle-sticks what the hell this is doing in
Sci. Anthro. Paleo? You wanna argue about crackpots,
do it on your own time.
"Jack" <macjazz@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:3F4984BA.3060504@bigfoot.com...
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Jack <macjazz@bigfoot.com> wrote in news:3F482FE8.50001@bigfoot.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
<SNIP>
We realize that it was not your intent to properly represent his
views. In fact, it was your intent to sin.
Oh, here we go again. Dave knows a sinner when he sees one, boy. No
doubt 'bout that. Never mind the point his target was trying to make,
legit or not; just pin him for the sinner he is. Always great fun for
the whole family.
Look, if you want to follow Jabbie as your spiritual leader, then do so.
But don't come caterwauling to the rest of us when his grunge rubs off on
you, OK?
I don't want you to disapprove of me (horrors!), so I'll stay clean,
Davey. Just put down that spray paint, hear? Nobody wants no trouble
in this here town...
And since this intent apparently
remains intact, you are an unrepentant sinner.
Yeah, hit 'em again, Davey. You got him on the run.
Naw, he's already circling the pit. Jabby works for the devil, don'tcha
know.
I'm glad YOU know it. Somebody's gotta make the call, and I guess
you're Our Man.
The sin in question,
false witness, is a very deadly one and God has appointed a final
place for people who retain this intent and who will not repent of it:
Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and
murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all
liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and
brimstone: which is the second death.
But then, given your record, this is probably your goal in life...
And who better to approve the sentence than our own Dave Oldridge,
sinner-sniffer extrodinaire!
Hey, I just point out the error.
So "error" = "false witness"? If I come to believe that D-Day was June
5, am I "bearing false witness" when I make that claim? Or do I just
need educating? Seems "false witness" requires malicious motive,
something a bit harder to ascribe. After all, a lie isn't just
erroneous information; it's intentionally misleading. As much as I may
disagree with the point of view of any number of participants here, I
can't believe a single one of them has nefarious motives.
If someone makes a claim you believe to be false, and call him a "false
witness", then later find he was correct after all, were you then the
"false witness"--or just mistaken?
Pride? Naah. Not our boy, Davey! He's God's right hand man,
shooting
down them there sinners so's to make God's job easier.
Put 'er there, Davey! God's got special place for His dep-u-ties,
too.
Only doing my job. If you don't like it, take it up with the Boss.
Apparently YOU don't like it. Now why would that be?
Your job? Who died and left you the job of assigning evil motives to
people? I can't even say what your motives are, unless you state
them...which I don't think you have.
And no, I don't particularly like it. But then, pleasing me is not your
job, either. Peace, brother.
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
01 Sep 2003 09:16:02 AM |
|
|
Jack <macjazz@bigfoot.com> wrote in news:3F4984BA.3060504@bigfoot.com:
Hey, I just point out the error.
So "error" = "false witness"? If I come to believe that D-Day was
No, but false witness is an egregious spiritual error. The thing is,
people like Jabby don't "believe" that t.o is censored, they just lie
about it. If you KNOW that most history professors and all of the
surviving participants disagree with for date for D-day. Moreover, the
moral equivalent here would be claiming that D-Day never took place at
all but was "faked." And saying you "know" such a thing would definitely
be to lie (or be so deluded as to be unable to distinguish truth from
falsehood at even an elementary level).
June 5, am I "bearing false witness" when I make that claim? Or do I
just need educating? Seems "false witness" requires malicious motive,
something a bit harder to ascribe. After all, a lie isn't just
erroneous information; it's intentionally misleading. As much as I
may disagree with the point of view of any number of participants
here, I can't believe a single one of them has nefarious motives.
If someone makes a claim you believe to be false, and call him a
"false witness", then later find he was correct after all, were you
then the "false witness"--or just mistaken?
That's why I'm fairly careful about throwing around the accusation. But
some people DO merit it. When you correct someone with evidence and
logic and they just brush you off and repeat their false claims, then
it's time to call a lie a lie.
[snip]
Your job? Who died and left you the job of assigning evil motives to
people? I can't even say what your motives are, unless you state
them...which I don't think you have.
Jesus died for sinners. But He requires that they repent first.
Believe me, I didn't volunteer for this. I got drafted.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how accurate? |
17 Aug 2003 02:38:58 PM |
|
|
jabriol <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message news:<20030817145912.50369.qmail@web10806.mail.yahoo.com>...
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are
called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in
all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind
of living thing evolving into another kind. But the
Bulletin of Chicago?s Field Museum of Natural History
commented: ?Darwin?s theory of [evolution] has always
been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and
probably most people assume that fossils provide a
very important part of the general argument that is
made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the
history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly
true.?
There are two points to be noted here.
First of all, merely because fossils ar closely linked to evolution in
the public mind, that does not mean that fossils are the best evidence
for common descent. Rather, the best evidence for common descent is
the nested hierarchy of life -- its arrangement in groups linked by
many shared traits, nested uniquely in groups linked by only some of
these shared traits, and so down the tree of life -- and in the
pattern of "similar structures for dissimilar functions (including
vestigial structures), and dissimilar structures for similar functions
(contrary to the creationist explanation of homology as 'common
design')." Biogeography -- e.g. the domination of Australia's fauna
by marsupials, which are rare or extinct elsewhere, or the similarity
of the unique Galapagoes fauna to that of nearby South America rather
than to the geologically similar Cape Verde Islands off Africa -- also
supports evolution.
Secondly, note that the Bulletin speaks of "darwinian interpretations"
of the history of life, not the question of whether life has an
(evolutionary) history at all. Although Darwin himself allowed that
evolution might operate at different speeds, his steadfast abhorrence
of "saltational" changes (one species giving rise in one generation to
another) led to "Darwinism" being associated with the idea of slow,
constant change over time. Periods of rapid evolution followed by
periods of stasis ("punctuated equilibrium") are often seen as
nonDarwinian, even though Darwin's theory allows for them.
Why not? 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.?
Again, neither Stanley nor Eldredge is denying the existence of
transitional fossils, or other evidence for evolution. Eldrege
accepts the famous horse series, and other fossil series, as important
evidence for evolution. What he denies is that they show either a
straight line of progress from primitive to modern forms (rather, they
fall into a complex tree of different forms, each adapted to its
contemporary environment rather than simply making a living as a
transition towards something "better"), nor a slow, steady pace of
constant change (rather, species persist with little or no change, and
are suddenly (in geological time, in which thousands of years can
vanish into the cracks of geological history) being replaced by a very
similar (in the same "kind") species. In other words, the fossils
that are most conspicuously missing are those that show the sort of
change (within "kinds") that creationists and IDers are most likely to
accept.
-- Steven J.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
