A simple question for creationists.

[johnhanks]

That you do not see the blatant dishonesty of your quote mine says a lot about the mind set of many Creationists.

I'd suggest it goes further than that - it's necessary to the creationist mind set.

Face it, if you're a creationist you're up against the entire world of science. For you to be right, not just one or two scientific ideas have to be wrong - pretty well the entire edifice has to come down. If you're going to dispute the fossil evidence, not just palaeontology has to be flawed, so too has the entire science of geology, not to mention theories of radioisotope decay. And once you think you've fought these off, you have to start all over facing up to the fields of comparative anatomy, embryology, genetics, molecular biology...

Small wonder creationists are inclined to duck out of the challenge of actually refuting all this evidence, and choose instead to declare that the scientists don't really believe it either. Now isn't that neat? You've brought the opposition to its knees with a single stroke, without having to bother with all that laborious business of refuting them point by point. And all you have to do to prove you're right is find that elusive quote where some eminent scientist carelessly confesses to the whole scam...

And that, bless him, is the task poor old rusra has set himself.

 

[Matthew78]

What you did was to take a quote out of context. What I quoted Sagan as saying was not taken out of context. Your attempt to say the two are the same is both bogus and sad. Seems like a desperate try at deflecting from what Sagan said about the fossil record. Still, his words remain....the much ballyhooed fossil "evidence" for the ToE isn't quite so "evident".

Rusra,

Stop it! You got caught red-handed with taking a quote out of context and the way you're trying to spin out of it is, frankly, dishonest. Just admit that you got taken to the cleaners on this one. Stop pretending that Sagan is admitting very damaging information. Stop pretending that evolution has been discredited and we have no alternative but to adopt your creepy creationist beliefs . Stop pretending that you have the better of the argument. I have never seen you construct a cogent argument and now your credibility has been completely shot!

 

[outhouse]

I have never seen you construct a cogent argument and now your credibility has been completely shot!

does this not apply for all creationist???

 

[Photonic]

Rusra,

Stop it! You got caught red-handed with taking a quote out of context and the way you're trying to spin out of it is, frankly, dishonest. Just admit that you got taken to the cleaners on this one. Stop pretending that Sagan is admitting very damaging information. Stop pretending that evolution has been discredited and we have no alternative but to adopt your creepy creationist beliefs . Stop pretending that you have the better of the argument. I have never seen you construct a cogent argument and now your credibility has been completely shot!

Credi-wha?

 

[brightsurprise]

I apologize if I skip over some posts, I had some catching up and reading to do to be up to date on the thread. The original post was concerning how a creationist, I am a creationist, explains fossils. I can only speak for myself and I will do the best that I can. If PennyKay is asking about fossils literally, there really isn't any debate on how fossils are formed. Obviously there are different kinds involving everything from amber to carbon to premineralization and although the first reply concerning this was short, that would be how a creationist, myself included, explain fossils. From what I have read, the original post evolved (bad pun, wasn't intended but it just turned out that way) into a discussion on what fossils are proof of and their implications. So I am going to continue in that line as the original post.
There is no problem with fossils from a creationist stand point. What I as a creationist have a problem with is interpretation of fossils. I am no scientist. I don't pretend to be the smartest or near knowing everything there is to know. I am willing to research and come to my own conclusions. I, unfortunately, am running out of time before I have to head out to completely respond to everything I wanted to on this post, I will come back to it after I get home, but I would ask a question to pennykay and anyone else that would like to discuss this issue.
On what scientific evidence do you base that any fossil is undeniable proof of evolution?
A quick run down on what I believe. There are proven variations within species. There are proven circumstances that will cause mutations, but I sill haven't found proof, fossil or otherwise, that doesn't require some sort of interpretation and guessing to come to the conclusion that evolution is more than a theory. I will check the thread when I get home tonight and look forward to discussing with everyone!
Side note: for tumbleweed41
I have a link to a small list of text books that have used the drawings in question. Because I have not posted 15 times yet I can not put the link in this post. If you, or anyone is interested in the link please pm me.
Just a quick google search. It lists a few books from 1998 to 2003 that were using the drawings in question.

 

[johnhanks]

On what scientific evidence do you base that any fossil is undeniable proof of evolution?

Some well-worn territory to tread here. Science does not deal in 'undeniable proofs': that's for mathematics. The best that any scientific theory can aim for is to be consistent with the available evidence, as yet unfalsified, and elegantly explanatory. This is as true of the theories of gravitation or relativity as it is of evolution.

... I sill haven't found proof, fossil or otherwise, that doesn't require some sort of interpretation and guessing to come to the conclusion that evolution is more than a theory.

Of course it isn't more than a theory: a theory is as good as it gets in science. See above.

Interpretation and guessing? Assemble all the known fossil hominids in order of date, or fossil proto-cetaceans, and it doesn't take much guessing to see evolution recorded in the rocks. What other evidence have you examined and found wanting?

 

[outhouse]

what scientific evidence do you base that any fossil is undeniable proof of evolution?

very clear picture of speciation over millions of years

Every single fossil out of millions found all fit in the evolutionary tree perfectly.

Not one fossil is out of place with its common ancestor in the whole tree.



Fossils are the weak link for proof for what we know, BUT they serve as enough evidence by themselves

 

[painted wolf]

I apologize if I skip over some posts, I had some catching up and reading to do to be up to date on the thread. The original post was concerning how a creationist, I am a creationist, explains fossils. I can only speak for myself and I will do the best that I can. If PennyKay is asking about fossils literally, there really isn't any debate on how fossils are formed. Obviously there are different kinds involving everything from amber to carbon to premineralization and although the first reply concerning this was short, that would be how a creationist, myself included, explain fossils. From what I have read, the original post evolved (bad pun, wasn't intended but it just turned out that way) into a discussion on what fossils are proof of and their implications. So I am going to continue in that line as the original post.
There is no problem with fossils from a creationist stand point. What I as a creationist have a problem with is interpretation of fossils. I am no scientist. I don't pretend to be the smartest or near knowing everything there is to know. I am willing to research and come to my own conclusions. I, unfortunately, am running out of time before I have to head out to completely respond to everything I wanted to on this post, I will come back to it after I get home, but I would ask a question to pennykay and anyone else that would like to discuss this issue.
On what scientific evidence do you base that any fossil is undeniable proof of evolution?
A quick run down on what I believe. There are proven variations within species. There are proven circumstances that will cause mutations, but I sill haven't found proof, fossil or otherwise, that doesn't require some sort of interpretation and guessing to come to the conclusion that evolution is more than a theory. I will check the thread when I get home tonight and look forward to discussing with everyone!
Side note: for tumbleweed41
I have a link to a small list of text books that have used the drawings in question. Because I have not posted 15 times yet I can not put the link in this post. If you, or anyone is interested in the link please pm me.
Just a quick google search. It lists a few books from 1998 to 2003 that were using the drawings in question.

I highly suggest you check out a book by Donald Prothero:
Amazon.com: Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters (9780231139625): Donald R. Prothero, Carl Buell: Books

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

Side note: for tumbleweed41
I have a link to a small list of text books that have used the drawings in question. Because I have not posted 15 times yet I can not put the link in this post. If you, or anyone is interested in the link please pm me.

Feel free to PM me the link. I look forward to it.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm also curious about this list of books....

I wonder if people are confusing the new illustrations done with photographs of modern embryos for those of Heckle. Heckle really wasn't that far off in his images, which makes one wonder why he bothered to "embellish" them in the first place.

wa:do

 

[Copernicus]

A quick run down on what I believe. There are proven variations within species. There are proven circumstances that will cause mutations, but I sill haven't found proof, fossil or otherwise, that doesn't require some sort of interpretation and guessing to come to the conclusion that evolution is more than a theory...

Brightsurprise, if you have no objection to reading things written by Richard Dawkins, I would suggest that you look at The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. It is not one of his anti-religion polemics, and it was written specifically to answer the objection that you just raised--that evolution is "just a theory". He starts out by explaining why it is not "just a theory" in the sense of the word in that expression, but he does go through a lot of detail on the very different kinds of evidence that corroborate evolution. The fossil record is only one type of evidence that you ought to consider.

 

[tumbleweed41]

..to the conclusion that evolution is more than a theory...

You are confusing the colloquial use of the word "theory" with the more appropriate "Scientific Theory".
Scientific Theories include...
Circuit Theory
Atomic Theory
The Theory of Gravity
The Theory of Relativity
and of course, the Theory of Evolution.

All are explanations of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.
Scientific Theory v. Hypothesis v. Scientific Law - The Scientific Method

 

[rusra02]

That you do not see the blatant dishonesty of your quote mine says a lot about the mind set of many Creationists.

Methinks the ToE faithful protest too much...quote from Sagan too damaging to your world view? Your outrage over the quote does not change what he said. Sagan admitted the fossil evidence could be consistent with creation. Personal attacks will not change that, but personal attacks are a prime weapon used by propagandists.

 

[rusra02]

Rusra,

Stop it! You got caught red-handed with taking a quote out of context and the way you're trying to spin out of it is, frankly, dishonest. Just admit that you got taken to the cleaners on this one. Stop pretending that Sagan is admitting very damaging information. Stop pretending that evolution has been discredited and we have no alternative but to adopt your creepy creationist beliefs . Stop pretending that you have the better of the argument. I have never seen you construct a cogent argument and now your credibility has been completely shot!

As I stated, methinks the ToE faithful protest too much. I do agree you guys have to somehow turn attention from what Sagan said about the fossil evidence. Attacking the messenger is often effective, as long as people don't think too hard, or simply read the quote for themselves.

 

[rusra02]

very clear picture of speciation over millions of years

Every single fossil out of millions found all fit in the evolutionary tree perfectly.

Not one fossil is out of place with its common ancestor in the whole tree.


Fossils are the weak link for proof for what we know, BUT they serve as enough evidence by themselves

Really? Really? As much as the ToE apologists object, I really must post a few quotes with underlines added for emphasis:

"the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of
slow and progressive evolution." Bulletin 1/79 vol.50,no.1,pp 22,23

"The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent."
(In Search of Deep Time-Beyond the Fossil Record) 1999,p.23

"There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other." (Biology and Philosophy, p.340)

To sum up, the available evidence, (before the tampering and "interpretation" done by evolutionist adherents) does NOT support evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

Just because God is the creator of evil doesn't mean you should lie for him, no matter how clever and well meaning those lies are.

Isiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Really? Really? As much as the ToE apologists object, I really must post a few quotes with underlines added for emphasis:

"the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of
slow and progressive evolution." Bulletin 1/79 vol.50,no.1,pp 22,23

"The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent."
(In Search of Deep Time-Beyond the Fossil Record) 1999,p.23

Still promoting this quote-mine I see. Here's what he actually said.....

"There were several problems, but the principle one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another"

So there are intermediates????

"There are cases where one can find gradual transition from one species to another."


Why quote the man if he refutes your assertions?

 

[Copernicus]

Rusra is just engaging in the time-honored fallacy of Proof by Assertion:

Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Like I said...

Example of Quote Mining

(Originally Posted by rusra02)
Anyone who doesn't believe in the ToE must be a liar, a knave, and a dolt.

Apparently, Rusra believes that anyone who fails to accept the empirical evidence contained within the Theory of Evolution is a "liar, a knave, and a dolt".

After all, I pulled a direct quote from a past statement made by Rusra! This must be an example of Rusras true feelings on the subject!

 

[Carpenter Rabbi]

(Originally Posted by rusra02)
Anyone who doesn't believe in the ToE must be a liar, a knave, and a dolt.

Wow, he must be a really strong anti-Creationist to say that.