Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
... OK ... so you admit that the large 'gaps' in the fossil record exist ... and you then try to 'square the circle' by claiming that "the fossil record is not needed for the theory of evolution to stand" ... so I guess all those Evolutionist paleontologists are out of a job, if you are correct!!!!
I've never denied there are gaps in the fossil record. As I quoted
Dawkins saying, "We are lucky to have any fossils at all", which means
every extra bit of evidence in favour of the theory is welcomed & is
just further validation of the theory which stands without this evidence.... and I didn't deceitfully quote "a paragraph of his that makes it appear as if he is admitting there is some problem with evolution
because of the fossil record" ... there is a problem with the fossil record ... FACT ... there are great big 'holes' in it ... and this is admitted by Prof Dawkins. Whether you try to explain the gaps away by special pleading, as Prof Dawkins has done or you say that the fossil record isn't needed for Evolution to stand, like you have done ... the gaps persist ... and my quote is valid and not misleading in any respect!!!
Yes there is a problem with the fossil record - it's incomplete, please tell
us who has denied that. In fact quote this person, please...
I am calling you a charlatan because you are claiming that the imperfect
fossil record presents some problem to the theory of evolution & the
way you've quoted Dawkins makes it appear as if he is conceding that
the imperfect fossil record presents difficulties "(from an Evolutionist
point of view)".
Furthermore I call you a charlatan for taking Dawkins words from a
conversation on punctualists/gradualists out of context to claim that
Dawkins was talking "about the difficulties of the fossil record
(from an Evolutionist point of view)" when a) he was talking about
the agreement between punctualists/gradualists that the fossil record
is incomplete (how that is him conceding there are difficulties (from an Evolutionist
point of view) is anyone's guess) & b) we have Dawkin's own words stating that
"We don't need fossils". There are no difficulties (from an Evolutionist
point of view) there are difficulties from a historical point of view in that
a lot of organisms did not fossilize, that does not somehow invalidate the
theory unless you've been miseducated into believing this by religi-shysters.
So I ask you why you would even bother speaking about this topic?
The fact that you focus on this trivial issue illustrates miseducation
which is most likely because of the propaganda you've been swallowing.
I guess you have nothing left to bang on about though, every avenue of
attack on your part has been beaten back. We know you're waiting for
the dust to properly settle (i.e. hope everyone forgets the last time)
before you return for the third/fourth time with your "proof".
I'm not interested in your understanding of the fossil record I'm interested
in why you'd misconstrue someones words to make it appear as if they
are saying something they are not. I repeat the quote "We don't need
fossils".
It's quite simple, Dawkins discusses how punctualists & gradualists both
agree that there are gaps in the fossil record, JC takes quote speaking
about gaps in the fossil record to claim Dawkins is that "the
difficulties of the fossil record (from an Evolutionist point of view)"
presents any difficulties to the theory of evolution, is told that this is
misrepresenting Dawkins views, responds talking about gaps in the fossil
record, is told this is irrelevant to him misrepresenting Dawkins words,
responds talking about gaps in the fossil record, is told this is irrelevant to
him misrepresenting Dawkins words, responds talking about gaps in the
fossil record, is told this is irrelevant to him misrepresenting Dawkins words.
This thread has been on repeat ever since the first time your "proof" was
invalidated & this conversation is the latest incarnation of this recursive
pattern...... does plain english not mean anything to you ... as you squirm and turn and twist ... and lie about honest people like myself by accusing me of lying ... when all I am doing is posting un-bridged, fully referenced quotes from other Evolutionists?
"when all I am doing is posting un-bridged"... Erm... You posted an abridged
quote, that's why we're still talking about this - because you posted only
a partial quote that made it appear as if Dawkins is admitting something
bad about evolutionary theory. When I read your quote I knew there was
dishonesty afoot so I went and researched the quote & found you had,
in fact, taken the quote out of context. When we put the quote back in
context we can clearly see he is not talking "about the difficulties of
the fossil record (from an Evolutionist point of view)" he is talking
about the agreement between punctualists and gradualists that the
fossil record is incomplete. Notice the important words here, "difficulties"
& "(from an Evolutionist point of view)", you told us Dawkins was
admitting that there are "difficulties" "(from an Evolutionist point of
view)" about the fossil record, there aren't. There are difficulties from a
historical point of view - this does not somehow make the theory suspect
unlessyou have been trained to think that this is so.
---
Ugh, it's getting tiring having to repeat my whole point in every
sentence/paragraph in case you pick one sentence that doesn't do
that & focus on it ignoring the rest.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
The fossil record isn't just 'incomplete' from an Evolutionist perspective ... it doesn't show any gradual evolution at all.
This problem was referred to by Darwin thus:-
He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species found in the successive stages of the same great formation?” The Origin of Species (1859) p.342
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The Origin of Species
... so how did Darwin overcome this “obvious and serious objection”? ... He did the same as Prof dawkins ... and claimed that the gaps were due to “the extreme imperfection of the geological record” – i.e. the fossil record does not in fact give a very good record of the past.
One reason proposed for this at the time, was the still very limited knowledge of the global fossil record and Darwin expected that as research continued that intermediate forms would be found.
However, 140 years later, when Prof. Steve Jones of University College London published an updated version of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1999, the fossil record still posed the same problem.
The fossil record - in defiance of Darwin's whole idea of gradual change - often makes great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection many species appear without warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.”
(Almost Like a Whale, p. 252)
... and this problem has also been confirmed by punctuationist Prof Niles Eldredge, Chief Curator at The American Museum Of Natural History
Darwin's prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record. The Myths of Human Evolution (1982) p.45-46
No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting of cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change -- over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution. Reinventing Darwin (1995) p.95
Think about it man.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
that all leading Evolutionists accept that the fossil record is incomplete ... incomplete to the point of being effectvely useless as evidence for Evolution!!!
Look at the first two results Fossil record blah blah0 -
Exactly!!!
... I feel your pain, Robert!!!:eek:
... please have a look again here at these words of Evolutionist wisdom:-The fossil record isn't just 'incomplete' from an Evolutionist perspective ... it doesn't show any gradual evolution at all.
This problem was referred to by Darwin thus:-
He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species found in the successive stages of the same great formation?” The Origin of Species (1859) p.342
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The Origin of Species
... so how did Darwin overcome this “obvious and serious objection”? ... He did the same as Prof dawkins ... and claimed that the gaps were due to “the extreme imperfection of the geological record” – i.e. the fossil record does not in fact give a very good record of the past.
One reason proposed for this at the time, was the still very limited knowledge of the global fossil record and Darwin expected that as research continued that intermediate forms would be found.
However, 140 years later, when Prof. Steve Jones of University College London published an updated version of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1999, the fossil record still posed the same problem.
The fossil record - in defiance of Darwin's whole idea of gradual change - often makes great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection many species appear without warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.”
(Almost Like a Whale, p. 252)
... and this problem has also been confirmed by punctuationist Prof Niles Eldredge, Chief Curator at The American Museum Of Natural History
Darwin's prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record. The Myths of Human Evolution (1982) p.45-46
No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting of cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change -- over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution. Reinventing Darwin (1995) p.950 -
Prof Richard Dawkins, readily admitted in a 2004 PBS interview that evolution hasn’t been observed and the only evidence supporting evolution is circumstantial evidence. Prof Dawkins emphasizes that there are huge quantities of circumstantial evidence.
Here is a complete un-abridged transcript of what professor Dawkins had to say:
BILL MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.
MOYERS: What do you mean It’s been observed?
DAWKINS: The consequences of. It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn’t actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Now, any detective…
MOYERS: Circumstantial evidence.
DAWKINS: Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English Evolution is true. It's as circumstantial as that but its as true as that …
So, there you have it – Professor Richard Dawkins, admits that evolution has never been observed and is supported only by circumstantial evidence.
... and unfortunately for Evolution, the circumstantial evidence, doesn't even support Evolution ... it supports Creation!!!:D
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7h3MXUHpgI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTWpqEbsMQ0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement