What does the fossil record say?

[wilsoncole]

Can you quote an example of anyone here saying that?

I know where I got it from:
When and why was the statement created?
The statement was drafted and circulated by Discovery Institute in 2001 in response to widespread claims that no credible scientists existed who doubted Neo-Darwinism.
(FAQ: Dissent From Darwinism)

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Wilson, it is considered intellectually dishonest to copy and paste reams of text without giving proper citation. Also, it's against forum rules.

I know where I got it from:
When and why was the statement created?
The statement was drafted and circulated by Discovery Institute in 2001 in response to widespread claims that no credible scientists existed who doubted Neo-Darwinism.
(FAQ: Dissent From Darwinism)

What are you talking about? I asked if you could quote an example of anyone here claiming that "there is not a single biologist who disagrees with evolutionary theory".

Not that it's relevant, since you have yet to provide a single example of a credible biologist who disagrees with evolution.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oh - but it is and has!

No it hasn't. You and your creationist camp take issue with the theory as well as Natural Selection. You don't except either of these facts of evolution....and you've presented no biologist that has examined the evidence, published their findings for peer review and had the ToE falsified. It has not been falsified.

Talk about missing the point!
You are so desperate for some kind of victory in this discussion that you have to drag up court cases where you think you are vindicated.

Are you serious...? I was responding to YOUR link to a court docket and simply pointing out that all the evidence was brought forward and settled. It was settled with an agreement that the schools agreed to not denigrate or disclaim Evolution. You brought it up....not me...I was simply responding.


Selman v. Cobb County: The Textbook Disclaimer Case | NCSE

• In November 2004, Jeffrey Selman and 3 other parents brought suit against the school district on constitutional grounds.
• In January 2005, Federal District Court Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that the disclaimers are unconstitutional.
• In April, Cobb County School District filed an Appeals brief with 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
• In June 2005, Selman et al. filed a brief with 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
• In June 2005, NCSE submitted an amicus brief along with 7 others urging the Appeals Court to uphold the District Court ruling.
• In December 2005, a 3-judge panel heard oral argument in the appeal
• In May 2006, the Appeals Court remanded the case to the district court for clarification of the evidentiary record.
• On December 19, 2006, the lawsuit reached a settlement; the Cobb County School District agreed not to disclaim or denigrate evolution either orally or in written form.

Don&#8217;t tell me about court case victories. I don&#8217;t care about the efforts of so-called creationists. It is a waste of time. (See Reply # 100) That should keep you from doing it again.

Then why bring up the link to a court case..?...

I read your list of personal feelings about creationism...And?.....What you say you're against was the exact opposite issued in the court case you linked.

I just read of this case, but everything brought up in this brief is what I have been emphasizing on this thread. I find that remarkable!

Then you're easily impressed. There was no need to continue to read about what people thought or how they felt....considering the case went as far as it could go and was settled by an agreement. It was deemed unconstitutional as to what the one side wanted and was thoroughly dealt with just like every other court case raised by creationist or schools with a creationist agenda.

More.....................

Don't bother. I read it already. The case was dealt with, deemed unconstitutional and now the case is closed.....Why try and belabor your point?...

 

[newhope101]

This is another epic fail.....

Selman v. Cobb County: The Textbook Disclaimer Case | NCSE

• In November 2004, Jeffrey Selman and 3 other parents brought suit against the school district on constitutional grounds.
• In January 2005, Federal District Court Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that the disclaimers are unconstitutional.
• In April, Cobb County School District filed an Appeals brief with 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
• In June 2005, Selman et al. filed a brief with 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
• In June 2005, NCSE submitted an amicus brief along with 7 others urging the Appeals Court to uphold the District Court ruling.
• In December 2005, a 3-judge panel heard oral argument in the appeal
• In May 2006, the Appeals Court remanded the case to the district court for clarification of the evidentiary record.
• On December 19, 2006, the lawsuit reached a settlement; the Cobb County School District agreed not to disclaim or denigrate evolution either orally or in written form.

No one cares about court cases that have been dismissed. This isn't the first of its type nor will it be the last. They all should be thoroughly dismissed as this one and others have. Funny how Behe keeps popping up on a lot of these though.

See, in (ALL) areas of science you're going to have one or more that don't share the same idea but that, once again, is where the (Scientific Method) comes into play. It's one thing to sign petitions and openly disagree with current theories. Who, but people like you, feel as though that is important? No one really, really cares unless those scientist working in the relevant field of science can falsify the current evidence.

To date the ToE has not been deemed false. You and newhope can disagree with the nuances of particular biological research but none of what either you have presented throughout the many threads going on disputes the ToE.

Well of course not, TOE is basically irrefuteable.


A summary of the objections to creation science by scientists follows:

• Creation science is not falsifiable : The act of creation as defined in creation science is not falsifiable because no testable bounds can be imposed on the creator. In creation science, the creator is defined as limitless, with the capacity to create (or not), through fiat alone, infinite universes, not just one, and endow each one with its own unique, unimaginable and incomparable character. It is impossible to disprove a claim when that claim as defined encompasses every conceivable contingency.[60] Neither is TOE. Anything unexpected is just remodelled into fit the status quo, whatever that is at the time eg accelerated evolution to explain the remarkable Y chromo differences and other genomic regions, punctuated evolution to explain the fossil evidence etc Evos have separated out abiogenesis to alleviate the miraculous rise of life so that you do not have to speak to miracles that you purport to have occured
• Creation science violates the principle of parsimony : Parsimony favours those explanations which rely on the fewest assumptions. Scientists prefer explanations which are consistent with known and supported facts and evidence and require the fewest assumptions to fill remaining gaps. Many of the alternative claims made in creation science retreat from simpler scientific explanations and introduce more complications and conjecture into the equation.[61] This is a funny one given the plethora of theories to turn obvious evidence for creation into a mystery. How can anyone see your convoluted theories as parsimonous? A parsinomous explanation for the Y chromo difference in chimps/humans would be to say that they are simply not related rather than requiring a plethora of explanation to resolve why they are so different. Despite the differences that amount to 30% as opposed to the 2% usually cited, chimps and humans will remain related even if the difference was 80%, it would not matter, it would still 'prove' evolution... (Wiki Chimp genome project)!
• Creation science is not, and cannot be, empirically or experimentally tested : Creationism posits supernatural causes which lie outside the realm of methodological naturalism and scientific experiment. Science can only test empirical, natural claims. Neither can Toe hypothesis. The experiments you did with drosophilia over 600 generations did not show the fixing of an allele for accelerated development, and all changes that occured were reverseable, hence no real evolution occured at the germ line level, and still you purport this is what happens in the wild where fixation is even less likely, yet leads to speciation. You give your supernatural causes names such as 'accelerated evolution' and depend on luck in that mutations that are harmfull most of the time were not harful during this accelerated evolution that caused the uptake of deleterious mutations to make us human. Methodological naturalism is some sort of free pass to giving miracles names and saying this is a hypothesis and therefore is scientific..NOT.
• Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive : Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or "absolute truth", the "word of God," which is not open to change. Any evidence that runs contrary to that truth must be discarded. In science, all claims are tentative, they are forever open to challenge, and must be discarded or adjusted when the weight of evidence demands it. So does Toe. In fact the only premise that has remained stable is that all life evolved from some other kind. The dates, whom is decendant from what, the how ..mutation, natural selection, genetic drift(luck), co habitation and socialization, RNA regulation, gene families and expression, epigenetic factors etc...You have guesses and hypothesis that change like the wind yet the central tennant 'all life evolved' is fixed and unchangeable also. Any evidence that runs contrary to the truth of evolution is dismissed or theorised into acceptance.

Wilconsole.. we both know that there are qualified researchers that work for the creation institute. This is a truly ridiculous argument this lot are having with you. I am not sure what they are trying to proove. It is like as if they are trying to put forward the point that anyone with education in an evo science is going to have no doubt that evolution from cells to humans has occcured. This is a stupid and dead end line. The way this lot have strained this point is incredible.

The other thing I see is that if so many fossils or data can be debated it proves one thing for sure. That the field of evolutionary science is not black and white and obvious. One would expect these researchers know what they are on about. They debate so much about so many things that one really has to question if any of them know what they are seeing at all. I do not believe they do. That goes for fossils and for genomics also. It looks at best like straw grabbing.

I think you are doing a fine job here! I see you have made your point here, even though this lot will never concede.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well of course not, TOE is basically irrefuteable.

At this point, that is true. That is what happens when evidence consistently confirms a hypothesis.

 

[LuisDantas]

A summary of the objections to creation science by scientists follows:

• Creation science is not falsifiable : (...) It is impossible to disprove a claim when that claim as defined encompasses every conceivable contingency.[60] Neither is TOE. Anything unexpected is just remodelled into fit the status quo, whatever that is at the time eg accelerated evolution to explain the remarkable Y chromo differences and other genomic regions, punctuated evolution to explain the fossil evidence etc Evos have separated out abiogenesis to alleviate the miraculous rise of life so that you do not have to speak to miracles that you purport to have occured

That is a lie.

Creation science violates the principle of parsimony : Parsimony favours those explanations which rely on the fewest assumptions. Scientists prefer explanations which are consistent with known and supported facts and evidence and require the fewest assumptions to fill remaining gaps. Many of the alternative claims made in creation science retreat from simpler scientific explanations and introduce more complications and conjecture into the equation.[61] This is a funny one given the plethora of theories to turn obvious evidence for creation into a mystery.

Where is that "obvious evidence for creation"?

How can anyone see your convoluted theories as parsimonous? A parsinomous explanation for the Y chromo difference in chimps/humans would be to say that they are simply not related rather than requiring a plethora of explanation to resolve why they are so different. Despite the differences that amount to 30% as opposed to the 2% usually cited, chimps and humans will remain related even if the difference was 80%, it would not matter, it would still 'prove' evolution... (Wiki Chimp genome project)!

You really ought to learn a bit about the matter before making such bold claims about it.

Creation science is not, and cannot be, empirically or experimentally tested : Creationism posits supernatural causes which lie outside the realm of methodological naturalism and scientific experiment. Science can only test empirical, natural claims. Neither can Toe hypothesis. The experiments you did with drosophilia over 600 generations did not show the fixing of an allele for accelerated development, and all changes that occured were reverseable, hence no real evolution occured at the germ line level, and still you purport this is what happens in the wild where fixation is even less likely, yet leads to speciation. You give your supernatural causes names such as 'accelerated evolution' and depend on luck in that mutations that are harmfull most of the time were not harful during this accelerated evolution that caused the uptake of deleterious mutations to make us human. Methodological naturalism is some sort of free pass to giving miracles names and saying this is a hypothesis and therefore is scientific..NOT.

Lying again.

Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive : Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or "absolute truth", the "word of God," which is not open to change. Any evidence that runs contrary to that truth must be discarded. In science, all claims are tentative, they are forever open to challenge, and must be discarded or adjusted when the weight of evidence demands it. So does Toe. In fact the only premise that has remained stable is that all life evolved from some other kind. The dates, whom is decendant from what, the how ..mutation, natural selection, genetic drift(luck), co habitation and socialization, RNA regulation, gene families and expression, epigenetic factors etc...You have guesses and hypothesis that change like the wind yet the central tennant 'all life evolved' is fixed and unchangeable also. Any evidence that runs contrary to the truth of evolution is dismissed or theorised into acceptance.

And again.

Wilconsole.. we both know that there are qualified researchers that work for the creation institute. This is a truly ridiculous argument this lot are having with you. I am not sure what they are trying to prove.

That bald faced lying does not pay off, probably.

It is like as if they are trying to put forward the point that anyone with education in an evo science is going to have no doubt that evolution from cells to humans has occcured. This is a stupid and dead end line. The way this lot have strained this point is incredible.

Having facts on our side emboldens us dramatically, it seems.

The other thing I see is that if so many fossils or data can be debated it proves one thing for sure. That the field of evolutionary science is not black and white and obvious. One would expect these researchers know what they are on about. They debate so much about so many things that one really has to question if any of them know what they are seeing at all. I do not believe they do. That goes for fossils and for genomics also. It looks at best like straw grabbing.

You know, that says a lot of how weird are your expectations of science. You as much as say that you expect it to be dogmatic and find its open-mindedness suspicious and a sign of weakness.

Well, guess what? You are simply wrong on both counts.

I think you are doing a fine job here! I see you have made your point here, even though this lot will never concede.

I suppose that is technically true, if weirdly-put.

 

[Gunfingers]

Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive : Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or "absolute truth", the "word of God," which is not open to change. Any evidence that runs contrary to that truth must be discarded. In science, all claims are tentative, they are forever open to challenge, and must be discarded or adjusted when the weight of evidence demands it. So does Toe. In fact the only premise that has remained stable is that all life evolved from some other kind. The dates, whom is decendant from what, the how ..mutation, natural selection, genetic drift(luck), co habitation and socialization, RNA regulation, gene families and expression, epigenetic factors etc...You have guesses and hypothesis that change like the wind yet the central tennant 'all life evolved' is fixed and unchangeable also. Any evidence that runs contrary to the truth of evolution is dismissed or theorised into acceptance.

I can't actually be bothered to parse through this giant pile of fail, but I wanted to point something out in this bit.

The claim was made that creationism is not a progressive study, in other words the field of research doesn't make efforts to find new information, but rather to justify an existing presupposition. To counter this claim NewHope101 claims the Evolutionary Theory is just as regressive. How does she support this claim? By pointing out how much our knowledge of evolution has changed throughout the years! Bravo, NewHope101, your inability to grasp even the most basic concept is a contant font of humor for me!

 

[painted wolf]

I can't actually be bothered to parse through this giant pile of fail, but I wanted to point something out in this bit.

The claim was made that creationism is not a progressive study, in other words the field of research doesn't make efforts to find new information, but rather to justify an existing presupposition. To counter this claim NewHope101 claims the Evolutionary Theory is just as regressive. How does she support this claim? By pointing out how much our knowledge of evolution has changed throughout the years! Bravo, NewHope101, your inability to grasp even the most basic concept is a contant font of humor for me!

I have to admit that did make me lol... almost as much as when newhope said they work with Chimeras.

wa:do

 

[wilsoncole]

No it hasn't. You and your creationist camp take issue with the theory as well as Natural Selection. You don't except either of these facts of evolution....and you've presented no biologist that has examined the evidence, published their findings for peer review and had the ToE falsified. It has not been falsified.

Are you serious...? I was responding to YOUR link to a court docket and simply pointing out that all the evidence was brought forward and settled. It was settled with an agreement that the schools agreed to not denigrate or disclaim Evolution. You brought it up....not me...I was simply responding.

Then why bring up the link to a court case..?...
I read your list of personal feelings about creationism...And?.....What you say you're against was the exact opposite issued in the court case you linked.

You still don't get it! I don't think you ever will.
I brought up the case to show you that all is not well in the field of science when it comes to evolution. There is a great deal of controversy. The claims of "No dispute in evolution" is as false as it could be.

Don't bother. I read it already.

Are you kidding? Its already posted and I can't take it back. I don't care if you don't read it again. I just wanted the readers to know that the picture is not as rosy as is often brought out.

The case was dealt with, deemed unconstitutional and now the case is closed.....Why try and belabor your point?...

I told you - I don't care about the case! I just used it to prove my point - there's a raging fire in your backyard. How in the world are you going to put it out?

Constitutional? What in the world is that?
NOBODY seems to understand that most confusing document. It is by no means an infallible document, so I don't put much stock in it. Federal judges tear into laws once considered "constitutional," overturning them and frustrating their sponsors.
Lawmakers have proved that they are not wise. They make laws, only to have them repealed by a succeeding government. The don't really know what is good for their country OR themselves.
So - what is or is not "constitutional" now, is of little consequence.

It just might be - tomorrow.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

At this point, that is true. That is what happens when evidence consistently confirms a hypothesis.

Why can't you see that is tongue-in-cheek?



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[LuisDantas]

In all honesty, I have a hard time imagining NewHope posting something that isn't tongue-in-cheek.

 

[wilsoncole]

Newhope:
Anything unexpected is just remodelled into fit the status quo, whatever that is at the time eg accelerated evolution to explain the remarkable Y chromo differences and other genomic regions, punctuated evolution to explain the fossil evidence etc Evos have separated out abiogenesis to alleviate the miraculous rise of life so that you do not have to speak to miracles that you purport to have occured

That is a lie.

It is not! There is a great deal of information that proves it.
ANY object in the way of the ToE is pounded and forged into the mold created for it by wishful thinkers.
But why?
The answer my lie here:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a-priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (Richard Lewontin "Billion And Billions Of Demons," The New York Review, p.31, January 9, 1997)
Now I expect some zealot to tell me that ain't what he said this is what he meant.

"How could the theory of evolution even conceivably be "proved" to the same degree as "the fact that the earth goes around the sun"? The latter is an observable feature of present-day reality, whereas the former deals primarily with non-repeatable events of the very distant past.

The appropriate comparison would be between the theory of evolution and the accepted theory of the origin of the solar system.
If "evolution" referred only to currently observable phenomena like domestic animal breeding or finch-beak variation, then winning the debate should have been no problem for Lewontin and Sagan even with a fundamentalist jury.

The statement "We breed a great variety of dogs," which rests on direct observation, is much easier to prove than the statement that the earth goes around the sun, which requires sophisticated reasoning. Not even the strictest biblical literalists deny the bred varieties of dogs, the variation of finch beaks, and similar instances within types. The more controversial claims of large-scale evolution are what arouse skepticism.

Scientists may think they have good reasons for believing that living organisms evolved naturally from nonliving chemicals, or that complex organs evolved by the accumulation of micromutations through natural selection, but having reasons is not the same as having proof.

I have seen people, previously inclined to believe whatever "science says," become skeptical when they realize that the scientists actually do seem to think that variations in finch beaks or peppered moths, or the mere existence of fossils, proves all the vast claims of "evolution." It is as though the scientists, so confident in their answers, simply do not understand the question."

Where's the Proof of Evolution?

Where is that "obvious evidence for creation"?

Take a look in the mirror!
Is this what you see"

The deception is complete!



(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry for hoping that you meant it. My mistake.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is not! There is a great deal of information that proves it.
ANY object in the way of the ToE is pounded and forged into the mold created for it by wishful thinkers.

Nonsense. Name a single example of this that isn't based on a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution on your part.

But why?
The answer my lie here:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a-priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." ("Billion And Billions Of Demons," The New York Review, p.31, January 9, 1997)
Now I expect some zealot to tell me that ain't what he said this is what he meant.

Nope, it's exactly what he meant. He's explaining how scientists refuse to insert untestable, supernatural explanations, and how no matter how counterintuitive an answer science gives us, if that's what the evidence indicates then reason tells us it is what's true. This is yet another example of a quote mine from someone with little to no understanding of what the person you're quoting actually meant.

But, why should I bother trying to convince you? You've already said you're not willing to understand anything no matter how hard we try to teach you, so instead I'll just let the rest of the forum make up their own mind by doing what you avoided to do - post a link to the entire text:

RICHARD LEWONTIN: Billions and Billions of Demons

Honestly, Wilson, give it break already. You've already been exposed as both ignorant and dishonest, you don't need to dig a deeper hole for yourself.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well of course not, TOE is basically irrefuteable.

No one here ever said this and no biologist believes this.....but so you know, falsifiable and irrefutable are two separate issues concerning the ToE.

A summary of the objections to creation science by scientists follows:

• Creation science is not falsifiable : The act of creation as defined in creation science is not falsifiable because no testable bounds can be imposed on the creator. In creation science, the creator is defined as limitless, with the capacity to create (or not), through fiat alone, infinite universes, not just one, and endow each one with its own unique, unimaginable and incomparable character. It is impossible to disprove a claim when that claim as defined encompasses every conceivable contingency.[60] Neither is TOE. Anything unexpected is just remodelled into fit the status quo, whatever that is at the time eg accelerated evolution to explain the remarkable Y chromo differences and other genomic regions, punctuated evolution to explain the fossil evidence etc Evos have separated out abiogenesis to alleviate the miraculous rise of life so that you do not have to speak to miracles that you purport to have occured
• Creation science violates the principle of parsimony : Parsimony favours those explanations which rely on the fewest assumptions. Scientists prefer explanations which are consistent with known and supported facts and evidence and require the fewest assumptions to fill remaining gaps. Many of the alternative claims made in creation science retreat from simpler scientific explanations and introduce more complications and conjecture into the equation.[61] This is a funny one given the plethora of theories to turn obvious evidence for creation into a mystery. How can anyone see your convoluted theories as parsimonous? A parsinomous explanation for the Y chromo difference in chimps/humans would be to say that they are simply not related rather than requiring a plethora of explanation to resolve why they are so different. Despite the differences that amount to 30% as opposed to the 2% usually cited, chimps and humans will remain related even if the difference was 80%, it would not matter, it would still 'prove' evolution... (Wiki Chimp genome project)!
• Creation science is not, and cannot be, empirically or experimentally tested : Creationism posits supernatural causes which lie outside the realm of methodological naturalism and scientific experiment. Science can only test empirical, natural claims. Neither can Toe hypothesis. The experiments you did with drosophilia over 600 generations did not show the fixing of an allele for accelerated development, and all changes that occured were reverseable, hence no real evolution occured at the germ line level, and still you purport this is what happens in the wild where fixation is even less likely, yet leads to speciation. You give your supernatural causes names such as 'accelerated evolution' and depend on luck in that mutations that are harmfull most of the time were not harful during this accelerated evolution that caused the uptake of deleterious mutations to make us human. Methodological naturalism is some sort of free pass to giving miracles names and saying this is a hypothesis and therefore is scientific..NOT.
• Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive : Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or "absolute truth", the "word of God," which is not open to change. Any evidence that runs contrary to that truth must be discarded. In science, all claims are tentative, they are forever open to challenge, and must be discarded or adjusted when the weight of evidence demands it. So does Toe. In fact the only premise that has remained stable is that all life evolved from some other kind. The dates, whom is decendant from what, the how ..mutation, natural selection, genetic drift(luck), co habitation and socialization, RNA regulation, gene families and expression, epigenetic factors etc...You have guesses and hypothesis that change like the wind yet the central tennant 'all life evolved' is fixed and unchangeable also. Any evidence that runs contrary to the truth of evolution is dismissed or theorised into acceptance.

You can critique the various points made in that trial all you want. It wasn't important enough to deal with here. I never raised this trial as an issue. Wilson did. I responded giving the facts that it went through the judiciary process and thoroughly dealt with.

The other thing I see is that if so many fossils or data can be debated it proves one thing for sure. That the field of evolutionary science is not black and white and obvious. One would expect these researchers know what they are on about. They debate so much about so many things that one really has to question if any of them know what they are seeing at all. I do not believe they do. That goes for fossils and for genomics also. It looks at best like straw grabbing.

Don't blame them because you're unfamiliar with how science works. This bantering back in forth happens in all fields of science.....

I think you are doing a fine job here! I see you have made your point here, even though this lot will never concede.

I think you two need to date....why are you addressing me but talking to him......talk about being desperate for attention....:biglaugh:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You still don't get it! I don't think you ever will.
I brought up the case to show you that all is not well in the field of science when it comes to evolution. There is a great deal of controversy. The claims of "No dispute in evolution" is as false as it could be.

[/QUOTE]

You can focus on the controversy all you like. I focused on the merits of the case. It was unimportant to deal with that case here other than to show that once again that when creationist try to play science they get pwned. I didn't do it. The scientist involved in the case didn't do it.....the case ran it's course and was put to rest by a judge.

I told you - I don't care about the case! I just used it to prove my point - there's a raging fire in your backyard. How in the world are you going to put it out?

Well, you've failed....

Constitutional? What in the world is that?
NOBODY seems to understand that most confusing document.

There you go making bold unfounded assertions again.....

It is by no means an infallible document, so I don't put much stock in it. Federal judges tear into laws once considered "constitutional," overturning them and frustrating their sponsors.

Then in the future do your best not to post information on court cases......

Lawmakers have proved that they are not wise. They make laws, only to have them repealed by a succeeding government. The don't really know what is good for their country OR themselves.
So - what is or is not "constitutional" now, is of little consequence.

And yet.... you haven't move out of the country. See, the grass is never really greener on the other side. Stop your complaining and do what I do....get involved.



Now......back to what the fossil record says......:faint:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Nope, it's exactly what he meant. He's explaining how scientists refuse to insert untestable, supernatural explanations, and how no matter how counterintuitive an answer science gives us, if that's what the evidence indicates then reason tells us it is what's true. This is yet another example of a quote mine from someone with little to no understanding of what the person you're quoting actually meant.

But, why should I bother trying to convince you? You've already said you're not willing to understand anything no matter how hard we try to teach you, so instead I'll just let the rest of the forum make up their own mind by doing what you avoided to do - post a link to the entire text:

RICHARD LEWONTIN: Billions and Billions of Demons

Honestly, Wilson, give it break already. You've already been exposed as both ignorant and dishonest, you don't need to dig a deeper hole for yourself.

It's not even quote mining per se......It's quote mining the quote miner....Getting most of these snippets from creationist websites....It smells of desperation....:sad:

 

[tumbleweed41]

You sure did and I did not!
I said we only need one biologist to give the lie to the position you take that no biologist doubts Darwin.

Speaking of lies.

When did I, or anyone else for that matter, claim the position that there are no biologists who doubt Darwin?

Ask the man in the outhouse.

Really? And where exactly did Outhouse claim the position that there are no biologists who doubt Darwin?

 

[painted wolf]

So, about the fossil record....
What about this guy?

How do creationists explain him? What kind is he?

wa:do

 

[wilsoncole]

So, about the fossil record....
What about this guy?

This is a woman!!!!!!!!
Used to be quite a nagger!

How do creationists explain him? What kind is he?

wa:do

Dead!

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson