• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The loophole in evolution theories.

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
All of them

We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.

Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.
I'm aware of your propensity to quote mine Dawkins and Gould.

Please just cite an example of what you're talking about, name a species, and we'll see if we can't clear up some confusion for you.
 

Zosimus

Active Member
As a creationist, isn't this phrase exactly what you believe?
I know of no creationists who would agree with that statement. Most believe that an omnipotent being created things through action of faith. This is not comparable to the idea that things magically popped into existence.

Unless, of course, you think that faith has magical properties. That's on you.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
All of them

We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.

Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.
Why are you still going on repeating stuff that has been addressed ad nauseum (and you know it) and found to be erroneous?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
That's interesting, sorry I forgot to credit those quotes by the way:

"We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."

David Raup: renowned Paleontologist & Late curator of the Chicago Field Museum

"Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."


some 'nutter' called Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 229-230);)
You're trotting this out again, why????
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
If all life came from an amoeba ........

If Dinosaurs became extinct during the Ice Age, how did man out survive the dinosaurs?

Humans arose long after the dinosaur extinction.

And if all life became extinct during the Ice Age, how was there a new formation of living creatures?

Obviously all life did not become extinct during the Ice Age, and no one has claimed that it had.

Let me guess...home schooled?
 

Shad

Veteran Member
That's interesting, sorry I forgot to credit those quotes by the way:

"We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."

Context is key but sadly it renders your quote-mining moot.

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection"

David Raup: renowned Paleontologist & Late curator of the Chicago Field Museum

"Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."
some 'nutter' called Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 229-230);)

Which is a disagreement regarding Punctuated Equilibrium. Your overreliance on quote-mining forces you to make erroneous conclusions. You should try to read the books rather than copy/pasting creationist tripe.Both quotes are setup so that people like yourself that are incapable of research beyond googling a creationist website coming to a conclusion that both author's either reject evolution or undermine it in your creationist favour. Again read the books as you obviously never have.

https://cbs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/PDFS/Dawkins Puncturing Punctuationsim.pdf
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
This, and the thing about Hoyle, are literally the only tricks that his pony can do.
Seriously. I went back and counted at least 12 different threads where he has used the "It is as though they were just planted there..." quote, 6 threads where he used the "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions..." quote, and 21 threads where he used the inadequacy of classical physics as an analogy for evolution. Being a critic of evolution is one thing, even using the same evidence repeatedly isn't all that bad, but wording his arguments the same way again and again in nearly quote-like fashion gets old.
 
Last edited:

Kuzcotopia

If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
I know of no creationists who would agree with that statement. Most believe that an omnipotent being created things through action of faith. This is not comparable to the idea that things magically popped into existence.

Unless, of course, you think that faith has magical properties. That's on you.

Not sure why you mean by action of faith. Can you elaborate?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I know of no creationists who would agree with that statement.
You meant, question didn't you? Kuzcotopia didn't make a statement, but asked a question: "As a creationist, isn't this phrase exactly what you believe?"

Most believe that an omnipotent being created things through action of faith.
Or to rephrase, "Most have faith that an omnipotent being created things," which certainly doesn't preclude the use of magic. OR, do you mean that god somehow employed faith (the trust in belief) to create things? Which, of course, raises the question of just how such a thing works. To me, it's as peculiar as saying god used bananas to create things. In any case, exactly how is it you know god worked in this particular manner?


.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
This, and the thing about Hoyle, are literally the only tricks that his pony can do.
New material is desperately needed. For everyone's sake.

Seriously. I went back and counted at least 12 different threads where he has used the "It is as though they were just planted there..." quote, 6 threads where he used the "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions..." quote, and 21 threads where he used the inadequacy of classical physics as an analogy for evolution. Being a critic of evolution is one thing, even using the same evidence repeatedly isn't all that bad, but wording his arguments the same way again and again in nearly quote-like fashion gets old.

I thought about counting them too, actually. :D

Agreed. And it's the quote mining that gets me too. Especially when its the same ones over and over and we all know they've been pointed out endless times.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Why are you still going on repeating stuff


Likewise!

I realize that some of these quoted opinions touch a nerve with some, but that is not the intent. When someone, hopefully, makes their responses substantive, relevant, and non-personal, we can sometimes get a far more interesting debate going on these particular problems with the theory.

I don't really have the time or inclination to go counting all the rest, but if I had a nickel...!
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Likewise!

I realize that some of these quoted opinions touch a nerve with some, but that is not the intent. When someone, hopefully, makes their responses substantive, relevant, and non-personal, we can sometimes get a far more interesting debate going on these particular problems with the theory.

I don't really have the time or inclination to go counting all the rest, but if I had a nickel...!

When you distort the quotes there is no real debate to be had within context. The only debates to be had is regarding if you are victim of quote-mining via your copy/pasting or distort the quotes yourself. If the former the debate can be move forward to your ability to research anything beyond what you want to read.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I know of no creationists who would agree with that statement. Most believe that an omnipotent being created things through action of faith. This is not comparable to the idea that things magically popped into existence.

Unless, of course, you think that faith has magical properties. That's on you.

I have to ask, how exactly does that work?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.

The Ice Age was a period of time around 2.5 million years ago to just recently.

All life did not become exctinct during the Ice Age, much less the dinosaurs, who were already extinct.

Watching a cartoon of a Wooly Mammoth interacting with a T-Rex is fiction, and didn't actually happen, despite how convincing the animation.

I am not disagreeing with you, Kuzcotopia, that the ice ages did begin 2.5 million years ago, lasting till about 11,000 years ago. But I must point out a number of facts here:

(A) This glacial period - Ice Age - is only the most recent one, is known as the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation. There have been more than one. The others were called -
  1. Huronian glaciation (about 2.4 to 2.1 billion years ago),
  2. Cryogenian glaciation (850 to 630 million years ago),
  3. Andean-Saharan glaciation (460 to 420 million years ago),
  4. Karoo Ice Age (360 to 260 million years ago).
(B) The Ice Age is also marked by periods of cold (Glacial period) and warm periods (Interglacial period).
(C) The ice sheets in Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation didn't cover as much as the other glaciations, hence it wasn't as severe as the earlier glaciations.
(D) The Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation or Ice Age (possibly) hasn't ended yet. It is more than likely that this last 11,000 years is a moment of our "interglacial" period. There is no way to know when the interglacial period comes to an end.
Skwim has a great little diagram, that also marked the glaciations at the bottom.
 
Last edited:
Top