The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

kiffer wrote: »

J C . Would you mind showing your work on those odds?
You've repeated them a few times but I seem to have missed how you established them.

...I'll do even better ... and give you a peer-reviewed Science Paper which mathematically invalidates Darwinian Genetic Evolution:-
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Using-Numerical-Simulation-to-Test-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf

J C

...it is not only Creation Scientists who are saying that Materialistic Evolution is invalid ... leading Evolutionists also know that the Theory is 'on its last legs'!!!
....look at the following quotes from leading Evolutionists, if you doubt me:-
...and although many the quotes are over 20 years old, they still remain valid and the reason that newer quotes generally aren't available is because of the danger of severe job discrimination up to and including dismissal, if working
evolutionists were to express these reservations about evolution today!!!


"It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms." (Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230)



"Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)



"There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life. There is no question about that. That's a real phenomenon." (Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Book Publishers, Santee, California, 1988, p. 45)



"Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing." (Quoted in W. R. Bird, _The Origin of Species Revisited_ [Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1:62-63)



"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms." (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)



"It should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position." (Cracraft, J., "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism," 1983, p. 180)



"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors." (Eldredge, N., 1989, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22)



"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)



"Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. ...In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny." (Fortey, P. L., "Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stores," 1982, p. 120-121)



"Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations." (Gould, Stephen J. and Eldredge, Niles, "Species Selection: Its Range and Power," 1988, p. 19)



"The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 million years ago. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then." ("Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376)



"Many 'trends' singled out by evolutionary biologists are ex post facto rendering of phylogenetic history: biologists may simply pick out species at different points in geological time that seem to fit on some line of directional modification through time. Many trends, in other words, may exist more in the minds of the analysts than in phylogenetic history. This is particularly so in situations, especially common prior to about 1970, in which analysis of the phylogenetic relationships among species was incompletely or poorly done." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 134)



"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground." (Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59)



"Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even historical theories." (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, p. 353-354)

J C

...more quotes on the invalidity of evolution ... from evolutionists for evolutionists!!!

...the reason these eminent evolutionists are perplexed by the evidence before their eyes is because they assume that the 'fossil record' is a record of evolution over millions of years ... when it actually is a record of catastrophic burial over less than one year during Noah's Flood,

...could I ask you to please do the following 'thought experiment' ... read the following quotes and, for the sake of argument, just assume that the fossil record is a record of catastrophic burial over one year ... and see if the 'problems' identified in these quotes suddenly disappear???

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)



"Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. ...If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants." (Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766)



"Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years." (Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24)



"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239)



"The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82)



"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors." (Eldredge, (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)



"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." (Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)



"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt." (Wesson, R., Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, p. 45)



"All through the fossil record, groups - both large and small - abruptly appear and disappear. ...The earliest phase of rapid change usually is undiscovered, and must be inferred by comparison with its probable relatives." (Newell, N. D., Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality, 1984, p. 10)



"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism...and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record." (Mayr, E., Our Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138)



"The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type." (Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187)



"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23)



"A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." (Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56)



"Eldredge and Gould, by contrast, decided to take the record at face value. On this view, there is little evidence of modification within species, or of forms intermediate between species because neither generally occurred. A species forms and evolves almost instantaneously (on the geological timescale) and then remains virtually unchanged until it disappears, yielding its habitat to a new species." (Smith, Peter J., "Evolution's Most Worrisome Questions," Review of Life Pulse by Niles Eldredge, New Scientist, 1987, p. 59)



"The principle problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Williamson, Peter G., "Morphological Stasis and Developmental Constraint: Real Problems for Neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p. 214)



"It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their duration..." (Eldredge, Niles, The Pattern of Evolution, 1998, p. 157)



"But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." (Woodroff, D.S., Science, vol. 208, 1980, p. 716)



"We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology," Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7)



"Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, 1986, p. 55)



"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong.' A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it? ...As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the 'punctuated equilibrium' pattern of Eldredge and Gould." (Kemp, Tom S., "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, p. 66-67)



"The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence. Most changes are random rather than systematic modifications, until species drop out. There is no sign of directed order here. Trends do occur in many lines, but they are not the rule." (Newell, N. D., "Systematics and Evolution," 1984, p. 10)



"Well-represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range, or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone), that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happens to most species." (Gould Stephen J., "Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness," Natural History, 1988, p. 14)



"Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution)." (Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15)



"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ...That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46)

J C

...apparently 'Gap Theory' has moved from the realm of liberal theolgy into the realm of Evolution!!!!!

....again, just try the 'thought experiment' of viewing the fossil record as a record of the catastrophic burial of contemporary organisms over a period of less than one year ... and watch the 'gaps' disappear in the following quotes...
... intermediate forms between Created Kinds have never existed ... and the so-called 'gaps' in the fossil record are actually the 'gaps' between different Created Kinds that were drowned and buried in sediment that set into sedimentary rock during the Flood!!!!

"We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multi-cellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning... A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists are Wrong, Prometheus Books, 1984, p. 95)



"There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65)



"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)



"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189)



"One of the most surprising negative results of paleontological research in the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some justification to the incompleteness of the paleontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms." (Brouwer, A., "General Paleontology," [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh & London, 1967, p. 162-163)



"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (Neville, George, T., "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, p. 1-3)



"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history not the artifact of a poor fossil record...The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, 1982, p. 59, 163)



"Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)



"The fossil record is much less incomplete than is generally accepted." (Paul, C.R.C, "The Adequacy of the Fossil Record," 1982, p. 75)



"Links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many 'links' will continue to be missing." (Jepsen, L. Glenn; Mayr, Ernst; Simpson George Gaylord. Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, New York, Athenaeum, 1963, p. 114)



"For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record. Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology..." (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984)



"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)



"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places." (Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong, Penguin Books, 1982, p.19)



"If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)



"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89)



"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)



"A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163)

J C

...and here are more thought-provoking quotes from a mixture of Creationists and Evolutionists that may shorten the 'acute denial' phase (of the validity of Creation / ID) for some of the Evolutionists on this thread ... thereby greatly reducing the pain and embarassment of it all!!!!
...and possibly saving their eternal lives as well.

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did." (Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4)


"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138)



"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition." (E.J.H. Corner "Evolution" in A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley, eds., Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books, 1961, at 95, 97 from Bird, I, p. 234)



"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion." (More, Louis T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160)



"At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth." (Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164)



"One of its (evolutions) weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged." (Sir John Eccles, "A Divine Design: Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)



"I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe." (Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)



"The origin of life is still a mystery. As long as it has not been demonstrated by experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any physical or chemical condition [allowing evolution]...I cannot be satisfied by the idea that fortuitous mutation...can explain the complex and rational organization of the brain, but also of lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles. How is it possible to escape the idea of some intelligent and organizing force?" (d'Aubigne, Merle, "How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and Organizing Force?" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 158)



"Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance." (Rubin, Harry, "Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by Chance" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)



"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law. They ask themselves, "How did life arise out of inanimate matter? And what is the probability of that happening?" And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened, and furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening. Perhaps the chance is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of miraculously low probability. Perhaps life on the earth is unique in this Universe. No scientific evidence precludes that possibility." (Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe, 1981, p. 19)



"...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not." (Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44)



"With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny." (Paul, C. R. C., 1989, "Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates", Allen, K. C. and Briggs, D. E. G. (editors), Evolution and the Fossil Record, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., 1989, p. 105)



"The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery." (Darwin, Charles R., letter to J.D. Hooker, July 22nd 1879, in Darwin F. & Seward A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Papers," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. II, p. 20-21)

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...I diagnose a serious case of acute Denial ... that can only be treated with a strong 'poultice' of logic and fact!!!!

...................

...anybody ready to 'give up your oul sins' ... and be Saved yet????

Quote mining JC, is the lowest form of argument and you've done this several times. No one with any sense should answer an argument like that, it doesn't deserve it and what you just did would automatically have you kicked out of any academic debate.

Just because you can't grasp simple maths & probability, don't think that everyone else is so limited.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Quote mining JC, is the lowest form of argument and you've done this several times. No one with any sense should answer an argument like that, it doesn't deserve it and what you just did would automatically have you kicked out of any academic debate.

...what I have just done would have me kicked out of a science job with some academic institutions allright!!!
... because I have 'let the side down' by pointing to the invalidity of Evolution in a public forum!!!
...but there is something very wrong when academic freedom is restricted in this way ... and I would have thought the most decent Evolutionists should be equally appalled that such discrimination exists ... instead of justifying it!!!

...and BTW using quotations IS very much an accepted debating practice ... what planet are you guys from??!!!

...could I point out that the main business of the Boards.ie is quoting other posters or third parties and then responding to the quotes!!!!

...please point out where I am wrong in anything specific that I have said...and stop whinging!!!

monosharp wrote: »

Just because you can't grasp simple maths & probability, don't think that everyone else is so limited

...I am a qualified mathematician and statistician... so go 'pull the other one' on this issue!!!:D

Morbert

JC everything you have said is wrong.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118543768/toc?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Wolfsbane you are also wrong, for reasons mentioned many times before.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...I'll do even better ... and give you a peer-reviewed Science Paper which mathematically invalidates Darwinian Genetic Evolution:-
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Using-Numerical-Simulation-to-Test-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf

That was not peer reviewed by the scientific community of population geneticists. The first line of the abstract, and hence the entire article, is incorrect.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...I am a qualified mathematician and statistician... so go 'pull the other one' on this issue!!!:D

No you are not.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...an even worse dose of acute Denial, than I thought ... and it hasn't responded a strong 'poultice' of logic and fact ... so what are we to do now???
... I think it is in the hands of God at this stage!!!


...lads, if you're not going to bury Evolution you will have to provide some evidence that it isn't 'brain dead' already ... by trying to answer some/all of the issues that I have raised in relation to 'The Dead Watchmaker'!!:eek::D:)

The issues you have raised are not issues for evolution.

http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0014-3820

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

You guys are in the most painful stage of denial - where reality is beginning to break through and you are kicking against the goads.

You assert there is no science in Creationism. When we produce it, you dismiss it as just columns and graphs. When your own scientists expose the frailty - indeed, foolishness - of the theory of evolution, you dismiss them too. Deep down you know it is not the reality.

Please remember - we are not trying to win any arguments, so you don't need to admit defeat. We seek only to bring you to the light, just as we once were. There is no shame in forsaking error for truth.

Speculation about denial is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you are wrong.

http://www.bentham.org/open/toevolj/index.htm

J C

Morbert wrote: »

JC everything you have said is wrong.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118543768/toc?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Wolfsbane you are also wrong, for reasons mentioned many times before.

...blah ...blah... blah ...
....stop 'hand-waving' and 'hand wringing' ... and let's have some specifics if you have any!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...I'll do even better ... and give you a peer-reviewed Science Paper which mathematically invalidates Darwinian Genetic Evolution:-
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/U...ian-Theory.pdf

Morbert
That was not peer reviewed by the scientific community of population geneticists. The first line of the abstract, and hence the entire article, is incorrect.

...it was peer reviewed by conventionally qualified geneticists ... and the fact that they don't believe themselves to be 'monkeys cousins' doesn't in any way invalidate their abilities to review the paper!!!!

...and the first line of the paper is correct ... the issue of apparent genetic entropy is a nagging problem that is acknowledged by many geneticists and this paper provides the mathematical proof that it EXISTS!!!
...this is a breakthrough of a significance that should earn a Nobel Prize for the author ... but I'm not holding my breath on this one ... due to the risk of acute anoxia!!!!:eek:

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...I am a qualified mathematician and statistician... so go 'pull the other one' on this issue!!!

Morbert
No you are not.

...so do you know me better than I know myself? ...
...the fact that Materialism provides no basis for morality (including lying) doesn't apply to me as a Christian ... and when I say I am conventionally qualified in Maths and Statistics ... you can safely take it that I am!!!

...and if you don't accept that I am (on the spurious basis that all Creationists should be stripped of their conventional qualifications) I quite fankly don't care about your opinions!!!:eek::(

wrote:

Morbert

Speculation about denial is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you are wrong.


The issues you have raised are not issues for evolution

...more 'hand waving', denial and whinging!!!

.......and the fact still remains that you have an even worse case of acute Denial, than I thought ... and it hasn't responded to the strong dose of logic and fact which I gave you!!!!
...and if you're not going to give a decent burial to the corpse of Evolution you will have to provide some evidence that it isn't 'brain dead' already ... by trying to answer some/all of the issues that I have raised in relation to 'The Dead Watchmaker' ... which, last time I checked, claimed to be a book about evolution!!:D

wolfsbane

kiffer wrote: »

Wolfsbane, would you mind responding to the first part of post 17971?

Sure.

They hand wave the heat problem with out any attempt to address it.
Can you give me one problem with standard geology that is in any way close to the problems with the creationists' rapid decay idea?

I'm not qualified to assess exactly how problematic these examples are, but I gather they are substantial. These from one site I've just encountered- I'll search through the usual ones later, DV.

5 BASIC PROBLEMS WITH THE STRATA
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/12fos04.htm

J C

...so we have NO evidence for Spontaneous Evolution ... and the top evolutionists must KNOW this!!
...yet they are grimly holding on to this defunt theory in the hope that some alternative MATERIALIST explantion (any explantion) can be concocted in time to save the Materialist Cause ... and they are doing so simply BECAUSE THEY CAN!!!!!

...they come on talk shows and they talk to everyone other than QUALIFIED CREATION SCIENTISTS ... who would demolish their arguments INSTANTLY!!!!

....the same is going on on this thread ...
... SHOW ME THE MONEY ...and stop embarassing yourselves by saying things that amount to little more than "trust me I'm an Evolutionist ...and don't listen to him because he is a Creationist ... even if he has demolished Evolution COMPLETELY"!!!:eek::(

....and I have just looked at Prof Dawkins waxing lyrical about his FAITH in Darwinism on Channel 4 this evening ... and his final act was to lift a fistful of clay to illustrate how insignificant he believes humans to be, by saying that the bacteria in the clay were four times the number of people in the world ... while apparently blisfully unaware of the irony of his deep personal commitment in time and energy to promoting the idea of this insignificancy!!!!:eek:
...he has to be the most commited person to a self-confessed insignificancy that I have ever seen!!!!

...when he was challenged by a feisty American lady to provide evidence for intermediate structures between major groups of animals he cited the movement of bones 'that had to occur' from the jaw bones of a reptile to the ear bones of mammals while gleefully ignoring the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for such a movement in bones and all 'intermediate' creatures would have BOTH non-functional mouths and/or ears!!!!

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...but there is something very wrong when academic freedom is restricted in this way ... and I would have thought the most decent Evolutionists should be equally appalled that such discrimination exists ... instead of justifying it!!!

Taking an honest mans writings and taking small nitbits of it and then placing it out of context is what you have done and continue to do on this thread.

Anyone who would do such a thing in any academic field would immediately no longer have any credibility.

...and BTW using quotations IS very much an accepted debating practice ... what planet are you guys from??!!!

quote mining is not.

...I am a qualified mathematician and statistician... so go 'pull the other one' on this issue!!!:D

And I certainly am not a qualified mathematician or statistician but I know enough to know you certainly aren't either.

Won't your God punish you for lying ? Or is it OK if its all in 'his' cause ?

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...so we have NO evidence for Spontaneous Evolution ... and the top evolutionists must KNOW this!!

JC use proper scientific terminology, not your self defined rubbish or at least define what it is.

Please define what Spontaneous Evolution is.

You have still not submitted any evidence whatsoever for creationism, the only 'evidence' that you have tried to present has been against evolution, which has all being debunked easily.

Are you going to show us some scientific evidence for creation or not ?

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Taking an honest mans writings and taking small nitbits of it and then placing it out of context is what you have done and continue to do on this thread.

Anyone who would do such a thing in any academic field would immediately no longer have any credibility.



quote mining is not.



And I certainly am not a qualified mathematician or statistician but I know enough to know you certainly aren't either.

Won't your God punish you for lying ? Or is it OK if its all in 'his' cause ?

I have told nothing but the truth ... and it is you that is the liar ... about me!!!

...it's time for evolutionists like you to 'put up' or 'shut up' ... and everyone can see through your transparent little ad hominem charades!!!!!

monosharp

J C wrote: »

I have told nothing but the truth ... and it is you that is the liar ... about me!!!

...it's time for evolutionists like you to 'put up' or 'shut up' ... and everyone can see through your transparent little ad hominem charades!!!!!

Well why don't you actually give us some evidence for creation ?
Why don't you give us some evidence for a young Earth ?
Why don't you give us some evidence for the flood ?

You have given NO evidence for creation, you have at least tried to give some against evolution/geology/physics yes but you have given no evidence FOR creation.

You have given no real evidence against evolution. In your conversations with me you still haven't even defined what it is you mean when you say evolution.

Abiogenesis and Evolution are not the same thing. Please choose one and try to write at least an intelligent sounding post on the subject.

Give me some evidence why you think Abiogenesis (OR Evolution) is wrong, give specifics not random and wild generalisations and don't cross paths between the two unless the evidence and/or argument you are presenting is against both.

i.e > Disproving abiogenesis has no effect on the fact and theory of evolution.

You have made hundreds of posts of nonsense JC. Howabout giving us one that at least sounds like it is coming from someone who knows what they are talking about.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Well why don't you actually give us some evidence for creation ?
Why don't you give us some evidence for a young Earth ?
Why don't you give us some evidence for the flood ?

You have given NO evidence for creation, you have at least tried to give some against evolution/geology/physics yes but you have given no evidence FOR creation.

You have given no real evidence against evolution. In your conversations with me you still haven't even defined what it is you mean when you say evolution.

Abiogenesis and Evolution are not the same thing. Please choose one and try to write at least an intelligent sounding post on the subject.

Give me some evidence why you think Abiogenesis (OR Evolution) is wrong, give specifics not random and wild generalisations and don't cross paths between the two unless the evidence and/or argument you are presenting is against both.

i.e > Disproving abiogenesis has no effect on the fact and theory of evolution.

You have made hundreds of posts of nonsense JC. Howabout giving us one that at least sounds like it is coming from someone who knows what they are talking about.

...I have written thousands of posts giving BOTH evidence for Creation AND evidence against Materialistic Evolution / Abiogenesis (which is sometimes ALSO evidence for Creation)!!!!

...and the only reply from you guys is 'hand-waving', unfounded generalisations and personal sarcasim ... or silence and diversion until it 'blows over' ... and you then come out with your usual mantra asking for evidence that has been REPEATEDLY given to you ... and which you have NEVER successfully challenged!!!

...this thread has gone on long enough ... and it's now time for you guys to 'put up or shut up' ... and you can start by answering the following question....
WHICH EXACT QUOTE have I 'twisted' out of context over the previous two pages?

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...this thread has gone on long enough ... and it's now time for you guys to 'put up or shut up' ... and you can start by answering the following question....
WHICH EXACT QUOTE have I 'twisted' out of context over the previous two pages?

No JC.

I have been asking you for over a week for a definition of spontaneous evolution. Please provide it.

Present some evidence against either A) Abiogenesis Evolution or C) Age of the Earth.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...blah ...blah... blah ...
....stop 'hand-waving' and 'hand wringing' ... and let's have some specifics if you have any!!!

...it was peer reviewed by conventionally qualified geneticists ... and the fact that they don't believe themselves to be 'monkeys cousins' doesn't in any way invalidate their abilities to review the paper!!!!

...and the first line of the paper is correct ... the issue of apparent genetic entropy is a nagging problem that is acknowledged by many geneticists and this paper provides the mathematical proof that it EXISTS!!!
...this is a breakthrough of a significance that should earn a Nobel Prize for the author ... but I'm not holding my breath on this one ... due to the risk of acute anoxia!!!!:eek:

To anyone who might be lurking, the above is not true. JC is saying incorrect things with no evidence or research to back them up.

As a contrast, here is a relevant paper on molecular information. It is this information that is relevant to evolution.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WMD-45FS9KD-W&_user=77869&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1044213320&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000006258&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=77869&md5=8e69bbbbf5454fd0c8c55272089d65cf

...so do you know me better than I know myself? ...
...the fact that Materialism provides no basis for morality (including lying) doesn't apply to me as a Christian ... and when I say I am conventionally qualified in Maths and Statistics ... you can safely take it that I am!!!

...and if you don't accept that I am (on the spurious basis that all Creationists should be stripped of their conventional qualifications) I quite fankly don't care about your opinions!!!:eek::(


...more 'hand waving', denial and whinging!!!

.......and the fact still remains that you have an even worse case of acute Denial, than I thought ... and it hasn't responded to the strong dose of logic and fact which I gave you!!!!
...and if you're not going to give a decent burial to the corpse of Evolution you will have to provide some evidence that it isn't 'brain dead' already ... by trying to answer some/all of the issues that I have raised in relation to 'The Dead Watchmaker' ... which, last time I checked, claimed to be a book about evolution!!:D

There has been no handwaving. I have given you specific links to scientific journals documenting the evidence and consequences of evolution.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

I have been asking you for over a week for a definition of spontaneous evolution. Please provide it.

I have repeatedly defined Spontaneous Evolution for you already!!!
It is Materialistic Evolution i.e. the scientifically defunct idea that Complex Specified Genetic Information arose spontaneously via Materialistic Processes i.e without an intelligent input.

monosharp wrote: »

Present some evidence against either A) Abiogenesis Evolution or C) Age of the Earth.

...I have presented the evidence all over this thread - and here are my latest postings on these subjects:-

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62487354&postcount=18060

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62477391&postcount=18051

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62487573&postcount=18063

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62487638&postcount=18064

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62487681&postcount=18065

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62487757&postcount=18066

monosharp

J C wrote: »

I have repeatedly defined Spontaneous Evolution for you already!!!
It is Materialistic Evolution i.e. the scientifically defunct idea that Complex Specified Genetic Information arose spontaneously via Materialistic Processes i.e without an intelligent input.

Right so. Abiogenesis then ? Why can't you use the scientific terminology ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62487354&postcount=18060
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62477391&postcount=18051
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62487573&postcount=18063
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62487638&postcount=18064
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62487681&postcount=18065
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62487757&postcount=18066

The first link you gave is a list of rubbish which is NOT peer-reviewed. You might as well write an essay yourself about how Jesus rode a dinosaur around the middle east and present it as evidence after Wolfsbane 'peer-reviews' it for you.

I asked for evidence, specific evidence.

e.g > Show me in your words, with links to evidence that the Earth is younger then 10,000 years.

The rest of the links are your quote mined rubbish which is not evidence and is frankly pathetic.

monosharp

You know what JC.

I am going to answer one of your quote mines just to show anyone else reading how pathetic they are.

On your own signature.

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Evolutionist and Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University

You left out the very next sentence after that quote.

Prof Gould wrote:

Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question.

I'll let Prof Gould defend himself.

Prof Stephen Jay Gould wrote:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.

Is that too complicated for you to understand ?

You are taking Prof Gould out of context and quote mining his papers for one small sentence to twist and use for your own purposes.

I am sure I could quote mine your posts here to come up with you saying you don't believe in God or you reject Creationism but I have more decency then that.

What you are doing is plain foolish lying, misquoting a great academic to suit your own twisted little view.

Please remove that quote from your signature, if you have any decency in you at all.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Right so. Abiogenesis then ? Why can't you use the scientific terminology ?



The first link you gave is a list of rubbish which is NOT peer-reviewed. You might as well write an essay yourself about how Jesus rode a dinosaur around the middle east and present it as evidence after Wolfsbane 'peer-reviews' it for you.

...like I have said the CS Papers were peer reviewed by eminent conventionally qualified SCIENTISTS ... and just because you believe yourself to be a 'monkey's cousin' doesn't give you a monopoly on 'peer-review' or anything else in relation to scientific endeavour!!!!:(:eek:

monosharp wrote: »

I asked for evidence, specific evidence.

... and I gave it to you 'with bells on' ... but I guess there is none so blind as those who will not see!!!!

monosharp wrote: »

The rest of the links are your quote mined rubbish which is not evidence and is frankly pathetic.

...I thought that because you wouldn't believe me that Evolution was defunct, you might believe your fellow Evolutionists ... but obviously your DENIAL knows no bounds!!!!

...obviously when an Evolutionist quotes somebody it is a 'quote' ... but when a Creationist quotes somebody it is a 'quote mine' ...whatever that means!!!

...at one level you are correct that the quotes ARE from a bottomless 'mine' of equally devastating quotes from Evolutionists on the invalidity of Evolution ... and they certainly have the power of an exploding 'mine' when it comes to scuttling the 'sinking ship' that is Materialistic Evolution!!!!:eek::)

J C

monosharp wrote: »

You know what JC.

I am going to answer one of your quote mines just to show anyone else reading how pathetic they are.

On your own signature.

Quote:
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Evolutionist and Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University


You left out the very next sentence after that quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof Gould
Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question.

...OK so Professor Gould admits that there is no evidence for evolution either in the real world or even in our imagination ... and then goes into denial by rejecting the evidence that he has just cited against Evolution!!!

...the quote in my signature is still valid and devastating for Evolution ... and Prof Gould's next sentence is just 'hand waving' and denial!!!!!

monosharp wrote: »

I'll let Prof Gould defend himself.
Originally Posted by Prof Stephen Jay Gould
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.


Is that too complicated for you to understand ?

... somebody in denial WOULD say that, wouldn't they?
...because the alternative (which would be to accept the evidence cited by himself) would mean that he would cease to be an Evolutionist ... like many other Evolutionists before him, including yours truly!!!!!

...and to maintain this logically untenable position Prof Gould 'invents' the idea of 'Punctuated Equilibrium' ... which very conveniently supposedly happened so fast that there is no physical evidence for it's existence ... and it is therefore an un-scientific or faith-based idea!!!!!

monosharp wrote: »

You are taking Prof Gould out of context and quote mining his papers for one small sentence to twist and use for your own purposes.

...it is very much in context ... and it is indeed TOTALLY TRUE that “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” ... and everything else is just hand-waving and denial!!!!

monosharp wrote: »

I am sure I could quote mine your posts here to come up with you saying you don't believe in God or you reject Creationism but I have more decency then that.

... please feel free to do ... the wisdom of Creation Science is indeed a bottomless 'mine' of valuable information!!!:D

monosharp wrote: »

What you are doing is plain foolish lying, misquoting a great academic to suit your own twisted little view.

Please remove that quote from your signature, if you have any decency in you at all.

...I am truthfully quoting a great Evolutionist academic about an issue that unfortunately he is in denial of ... the invalidity of Materialistic Evolution ... in ALL of it's supposed manifestation!!!!

MrPudding

monosharp wrote: »

What you are doing is plain foolish lying, misquoting a great academic to suit your own twisted little view.

Please remove that quote from your signature, if you have any decency in you at all.

This has been pointed out several times before. It is plain to see that his signature is a best an intentional misrepresentation and at worst an outright lie. I would not expect any action to be taken by him, or anyone else in correcting it. My signature, on the other hand, is unlikely to make it to lunchtime unedited.

MrP

Morbert

J C wrote: »

I have repeatedly defined Spontaneous Evolution for you already!!!
It is Materialistic Evolution i.e. the scientifically defunct idea that Complex Specified Genetic Information arose spontaneously via Materialistic Processes i.e without an intelligent input.

Nobody believes this. We are discussing Darwinian evolution.

Also, none of your links reveal any evidence.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...like I have said the CS Papers were peer reviewed by eminent conventionally qualified SCIENTISTS ... and just because you believe yourself to be a 'monkey's cousin' doesn't give you a monopoly on 'peer-review' or anything else in relation to scientific endeavour!!!!:(:eek:

THe CS papers were not peer reviewed by eminent conventionally qualified scientists.

...I thought that because you wouldn't believe me that Evolution was defunct, you might believe your fellow Evolutionists ... but obviously your DENIAL knows no bounds!!!!

...obviously when an Evolutionist quotes somebody it is a 'quote' ... but when a Creationist quotes somebody it is a 'quote mine' ...whatever that means!!!

...at one level you are correct that the quotes ARE from a bottomless 'mine' of equally devastating quotes from Evolutionists on the invalidity of Evolution ... and they certainly have the power of an exploding 'mine' when it comes to scuttling the 'sinking ship' that is Materialistic Evolution!!!!:eek::)

This is useless rhetoric and it would be better if you didn't post such stifling nonsense.