Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[Zoe Doidge]

And that point is highly PROBLEMATIC to what evolution claims in school text books. There is no fossil evidence for how they say we evolved, i.e. gradual changes.

Fossils are not the main bit of evidence for gradual changes, they're rare enough that they're too far apart in most cases. Fossils give us specific points that we can date, so we know what a particular creature was like at the time. Vestigial structures are found in fossils though.

Genetics and comparative anatomy are the main evidence for common descent. If two species have a common ancestor then they will inevitably have inherited most of that ancestor's DNA.

 

[thau]

You don't seem to understand what Stanley was saying. Once again: Stanley was simply arguing agaisnt a particular model of evolution proposed by Darwin that all morphological changes were slow and gradual or occurred at a steady pace. Stanley simply proposes that the largest morophological changes can occur rapidly as a result of intense envrionmental pressures on particular populations, rather than all mutation through the genome occurring slowly and sequentially. This does not contradict anything that is taught about evolution in schools or elsewhere. We have understood that Darwin's initial model of evolution is inaccurate for a very long time, and the science - as it is understood and taught nowadays - takes account of that. There are no problems whatsoever proposed to evolutionary theory, or the teaching of it, by Stanley's statements on the subject - what he is proposing is simply a specific detail of how evolution occurs.

Sorry, but I completely reject your summation of what is at stake here. Stanley’s quote once again:

"The known fossil record," Steven Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

This is damaging to the theory of evolution, period! Especially when you read on to see how Dawkins, et al. who are proponents of gradual evolution totally reject Gould’s and Stanley’s theory of punctuated equilibrium because they say there is no evidence, or even logic, for that.

It is those moments of grappling with their own consciences and integrity when the sham of the theory of evolution is exposed because the fossil evidence cries out “never happened!”

 

[tumbleweed41]

I wonder if any of our Creationist friends could actually address the issue of biological evolution without resorting to fallacious contextomy, hypostatization and special pleading?

Sorry, but I completely reject your summation of what is at stake here. Stanley’s quote once again:

"The known fossil record," Steven Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

This is damaging to the theory of evolution, period! Especially when you read on to see how Dawkins, et al. who are proponents of gradual evolution totally reject Gould’s and Stanley’s theory of punctuated equilibrium because they say there is no evidence, or even logic, for that.

It is those moments of grappling with their own consciences and integrity when the sham of the theory of evolution is exposed because the fossil evidence cries out “never happened!”

Well, that answers my question.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sorry, but I completely reject your summation of what is at stake here. Stanley’s quote once again:

"The known fossil record," Steven Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

This is damaging to the theory of evolution, period!

Why do I have to keep explaining this over and over?

Stanley is not attacking evolution in general (he is an evolutionary biologist). What he is saying is that the gradual model of evolution (i.e: that ALL CHANGES OCCUR GRADUALLY) is not supported by the fossil record because, as Stanley argues, the fossil record shows that NOT ALL EVOLUTIONARY CHANGES ARE GRADUAL but occur more rapidly in some places than in others due to a range of factors.

Especially when you read on to see how Dawkins, et al. who are proponents of gradual evolution totally reject Gould’s and Stanley’s theory of punctuated equilibrium because they say there is no evidence, or even logic, for that.

They do? Care to provide a quote?

It is those moments of grappling with their own consciences and integrity when the sham of the theory of evolution is exposed because the fossil evidence cries out “never happened!”

Except that's not what Stanley said at all, and I've explained this repeatedly. Stanley simply believes that the fossils we have do not show that all changes are gradual.

Please, stop putting your own biased spin on science you clearly haven't researched.

 

[fishy]

Sorry, but I completely reject your summation of what is at stake here. Stanley’s quote once again:

"The known fossil record," Steven Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

This is damaging to the theory of evolution, period! Especially when you read on to see how Dawkins, et al. who are proponents of gradual evolution totally reject Gould’s and Stanley’s theory of punctuated equilibrium because they say there is no evidence, or even logic, for that.

It is those moments of grappling with their own consciences and integrity when the sham of the theory of evolution is exposed because the fossil evidence cries out “never happened!”

Which never happened? Gradual or punctuated equilibrium? Because those are the types of EVOLUTION being discussed. None of them think godidit.

 

[Father Heathen]

To reject solid scientific findings merely because they conflict with the scratchings of ancient goat herders is willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest.

 

[thau]

Oh, I am spinning? You keep repeating "Stanley simply believes that the fossils we have do not show that all changes are gradual." NO. He is not saying that not all are gradual, he is saying there is no fossil evidence FOR ANY GRADUAL CHANGES!!

Big difference! He is calling the prevailing theory of evolution via gradual changes TOTALLY void of any fossil evidence!! Please do not act like this is a minor difference, it is cataclysmic. It says loud and clear "we believe evolution occurred, but we do not have the fossil evidence to show it."

And, yes, for the 10th time, I KNOW Stanley is a dyed in the wool proponent of evolution --- he is just honest enough to call his fellow scientists on their bogus claims that the fossils show the changes they preach on.



As to your question about me providing a quote where Dawkins or his colleagues reject punctuated equilibria theory espoused by Stanley and Gould, would it make any difference to you if I did produce it? Because if not, then I will not bother. But do you really think many expert evolutionists are not highly skeptical that such a "monster theory" is not highly dubious in its offering? I mean Mr. Lizard has a baby and what do you know?... two wings now appearing on their baby? (close enough for discussion, because the crazy “monsters” would be in the billions and just as hard to swallow as that one)

 

[johnhanks]

... It is clear what he was saying. In a moment of honesty, he stated the fact that evolutionists run from all the time --- i.e., the fossil record says “never happened.”

Gould said nothing of the sort, as you can read for yourself. If you can find a source where Gould says unequivocally "the fossil record shows evolution did not happen" - not, please note, "gradual evolution did not happen" - I will happily eat my words.

Oh, really? You mean they just say “we humans came from apes, no fossil evidence or any other hard evidence, just take our word on it?” “You can also look at these nice series of drawings we put together to show the changes we figure must have happened.”

No fossil evidence of human evolution? However steadfastly you creationists look the other way and tell each other they don't exist, fossil hominins have been accumulating at a quite remarkable rate.

 

[tumbleweed41]

This argument can be likened to the debate over certain concepts of the Christian god. Many say God is triune. Others that God and Son are separate beings.

According to the logic used by creationists concerning the debate over punctuated equilibrium and gradualism in evolutionary biology, debate over certain mechanisms of the whole equals invalidity of the whole. Thus God must not exist at all.

 

[McBell]

It’s a diversion for people to not truly think about their mortality.

Perhaps it is used as excuse by some to avoid thinking about their mortality.
But no more so than those who use other means to avoid thinking about their mortality.

I have read about all I care to at this point. But if you want some night reading you can ponder the 15 questions for evolutionists in this web site below.

One wonders if you will ever be able to understand that i am not the least bit interested in your favourite list of strawmen arguments?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh, I am spinning? You keep repeating "Stanley simply believes that the fossils we have do not show that all changes are gradual." NO. He is not saying that not all are gradual, he is saying there is no fossil evidence FOR ANY GRADUAL CHANGES!!

Read what I have said again, then read what he has said again. That is clearly not what he is saying, and if you understood Stanley's theory (rather than just quoting one thing he said out of context) you would understand that.

Big difference! He is calling the prevailing theory of evolution via gradual changes TOTALLY void of any fossil evidence!! Please do not act like this is a minor difference, it is cataclysmic. It says loud and clear "we believe evolution occurred, but we do not have the fossil evidence to show it."

And, yes, for the 10th time, I KNOW Stanley is a dyed in the wool proponent of evolution --- he is just honest enough to call his fellow scientists on their bogus claims that the fossils show the changes they preach on.

You do not have the faintest clue what Stanley is saying - what on earth makes you think you're qualified to interpret his claims that way?

As to your question about me providing a quote where Dawkins or his colleagues reject punctuated equilibria theory espoused by Stanley and Gould, would it make any difference to you if I did produce it?

Yes, because I'm unaware, at present, of their current opinion on the subject of punctuated equilibrium and am interested to see if what you say is true.

Because if not, then I will not bother. But do you really think many expert evolutionists are not highly skeptical that such a "monster theory" is not highly dubious in its offering?

What do you mean by "dubious"? There's plenty of debate over the specifics of evolution (gradual vs. punctuated equilibrium being a prime example), but there is absolutely no debate about the quantity and quality of the evidence in favour of evolutionary change within the scientific community.

I mean Mr. Lizard has a baby and what do you know?... two wings now appearing on their baby? (close enough for discussion, because the crazy “monsters” would be in the billions and just as hard to swallow as that one)

If that's what you genuinely think evolution claims, you do not understand evolution.

 

[thau]

Perhaps it is used as excuse by some to avoid thinking about their mortality.
But no more so than those who use other means to avoid thinking about their mortality.

Ooo, common ground, you and me?


One wonders if you will ever be able to understand that i am not the least bit interested in your favourite list of strawmen arguments?

Oh, sure, I absolutely take your word on face value here. Please forgive my presumptuousness or overstating my importance.

But also do understand, that arguing about evolution proves nothing about God, don’t you agree? No, I am in the business (stupid or futile as it is) to demonstrate to the atheist, the agnostic, the deist and the heathen that there is empirical evidence for the Christian God, and that it is not based on faith, but facts and reason. I want to help someone (in my agitating way, how silly of me) understand there is a heaven and a hell and a purgatory and that is really all that matters --- i.e. where we will be judged to go and where those dear to us will be judged to go.

Who cares how much fun we have had while alive? At best, it is meaningless. At worst, it is eternally harmful

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Who cares how much fun we have had while alive? At best, it is meaningless. At worst, it is eternally harmful

And with such thoughts as these, is it any wonder that there are so many people who don't want to share your beliefs?

 

[McBell]

No, I am in the business (stupid or futile as it is) to demonstrate to the atheist, the agnostic, the deist and the heathen that there is empirical evidence for the Christian God, and that it is not based on faith, but facts and reason.

How exactly does presenting lie after lie and wanting other to defend said lies presenting empirical evidence for the existence of the Christian God?

I want to help someone (in my agitating way, how silly of me) understand there is a heaven and a hell and a purgatory and that is really all that matters --- i.e. where we will be judged to go and where those dear to us will be judged to go.

Who cares how much fun we have had while alive? At best, it is meaningless. At worst, it is eternally harmful

Perhaps you might want to actually start doing that instead of making a complete arse of your self in your sad attempts at attacking evolution?

 

[tumbleweed41]

But also do understand, that arguing about evolution proves nothing about God, don’t you agree? No, I am in the business (stupid or futile as it is) to demonstrate to the atheist, the agnostic, the deist and the heathen that there is empirical evidence for the Christian God, and that it is not based on faith, but facts and reason.

What does proving the Christian God have to do with the natural process of biological evolution? There are many Christians who accept biological evolution. Are you insinuating that one cannot believe in God and also live in harmony with reality?
You seem to be under the impression that the Theory of Evolution somehow disproves God. While in reality, all it does, much like Germ Theory and Atomic Theory, is to show the natural mechanisms of the universe rather than relying on a literalistic devotion to the 4000 year old supernatural explanations of desert nomads.

It seems to me Creationism is more about Bibliolatry than God.

 

[thau]

How exactly does presenting lie after lie and wanting other to defend said lies presenting empirical evidence for the existence of the Christian God?

I had no idea you were so much wiser than St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and that you had already demonstrated Fatima, Portugal, the Shroud of Turin, et al. were demonstrably false? I guess I should be more anxious to be a witness to your seminars.

Perhaps you might want to actually start doing that instead of making a complete arse of your self in your sad attempts at attacking evolution?

The only reason you so quickly embrace evolution is because it supports your godless ways in other areas. Evolution is such a folly and there are some very bright scientists who have said as much. Sorry, I am not interested in complying with the devil's lies. I can see how it has made the world so arrogant and callous towards God.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The only reason you so quickly embrace evolution is because it supports your godless ways in other areas.

Oh, please do elaborate on this statement.

I'll get some popcorn...

 

[thau]

Who cares how much fun we have had while alive? At best, it is meaningless. At worst, it is eternally harmful

And with such thoughts as these, is it any wonder that there are so many people who don't want to share your beliefs?

No wonder at all, I am fully in agreement with you.

But you know… I am no longer here (on the internet bulletin boards) to be a kind, loving Christian to those who mock God. I fully understand that approach will do nothing for them.

Consequently, I will take chances in being bold and offensive. If they are worth their salt, they will take the challenge and not be so offended that they will refuse to play. If they are offended, what of it? Were they going to change because of my soft, nice approach? No.

I just resent seeing Christianity mocked and lauged at on these boards and in the media --- and I am going to tell you why or anyone who cares to listen. (no further agenda than that)

 

[Debater Slayer]

The only reason you so quickly embrace evolution is because it supports your godless ways in other areas. Evolution is such a folly and there are some very bright scientists who have said as much. Sorry, I am not interested in complying with the devil's lies. I can see how it has made the world so arrogant and callous towards God.

What about theists who accept evolution? I know I do -- does that make me a follower of the devil?

 

[thau]

Oh, please do elaborate on this statement.

I'll get some popcorn...

I actually appreciate people like you, mestomenia?, and others willing to indulge me.

Now I have to do some real work. Sorry for running away. I will gladly come back if you will be willing to listen.