What does the fossil record say?

[waitasec]

Great, you make it seems as though there some grand problem when scientist don't agree. No one doubts that at all and it's to be expected. It's one of the best ways for the various fields to progress. As a creationist I thought you would appreciate the various debates scientist have concerning the natural world considering Creationist are not a cohesive bunch with most of you falling way or another as to how your religious book should be interpreted.

Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Young Earth creationism
Old Earth creationism
Gap creationism
Day-Age creationism
Progressive creationism
Neo-Creationism
Intelligent design

Talk about flavor of the month......:thud:

everything is subjected to scrutiny....but for some reason when

Young Earth creationism
Old Earth creationism
Gap creationism
Day-Age creationism
Progressive creationism
Neo-Creationism
Intelligent design

are closely examined, there is a sense of a pragmatic doctrine of absolutes
which stands apart from the scientific method.


Certainty and myth
A scientific theory hinges on empirical findings, and remains subject to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered certain. Theories very rarely result in vast changes in human understanding. Knowledge in science is gained by a gradual synthesis of information from different experiments, by various researchers, across different domains of science.[25] Theories vary in the extent to which they have been tested and retained, as well as their acceptance in the scientific community.
In contrast, a myth may enjoy uncritical acceptance by members of a certain group.[26] The difference between a theory and a myth reflects a preference for a posteriori versus a priori knowledge. That is, theories become accepted by a scientific community as evidence for the theory is presented, and as presumptions that are inconsistent with the evidence are falsified.

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[wilsoncole]

Great, you make it seems as though there some grand problem when scientist don't agree. No one doubts that at all and it's to be expected. It's one of the best ways for the various fields to progress. As a creationist I thought you would appreciate the various debates scientist have concerning the natural world considering Creationist are not a cohesive bunch with most of you falling way or another as to how your religious book should be interpreted.

Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Young Earth creationism
Old Earth creationism
Gap creationism
Day-Age creationism
Progressive creationism
Neo-Creationism
Intelligent design

Talk about flavor of the month.....

You omitted a most crucial one:
Biblical Creation. Forget the "ism."
The ones with the flavors don't count at all.

Is there a consensus on Intelligent Design? Where is it fully outlined and who put it all together?
If assembled by evolutionists or unbelievers, can anyone expect it to be unbiased?

There are millions of people who never heard of evolution. If I am one of them and claim to believe in a Creator, the only way that could be seen as biased is if an unbeliever colored it that way with words the believer did not say.

Intelligent Design as explained by an evolutionist, is not worth the cost of the ink that is used to write it.

"In 1998, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences printed a guide to teaching evolution that included an essay by the eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, which stated: "One of the most characteristic features of science is this openness to challenge. The willingness to abandon a currently accepted belief when a new, better one is proposed is an important demarcation between science and religious dogma."1 PBS may claim that evolution is open to scrutiny, but the authoritarian and one-sided treatment of the subject in "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" shows that they treat it more like a religious dogma than a science."
Darwin's Failed Predictions - A Response to PBS-NOVA's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial"


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[waitasec]

You omitted a most crucial one:
Biblical Creation. Forget the "ism."
The ones with the flavors don't count at all.

Is there a consensus on Intelligent Design? Where is it fully outlined and who put it all together?
If assembled by evolutionists or unbelievers, can anyone expect it to be unbiased?

the stance of design is a biased stance, right?

[/QUOTE]

 

[wilsoncole]

everything is subjected to scrutiny....but for some reason when

Young Earth creationism
Old Earth creationism
Gap creationism
Day-Age creationism
Progressive creationism
Neo-Creationism
Intelligent design

are closely examined, there is a sense of a pragmatic doctrine of absolutes
which stands apart from the scientific method.


Certainty and myth
A scientific theory hinges on empirical findings, and remains subject to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered certain. Theories very rarely result in vast changes in human understanding. Knowledge in science is gained by a gradual synthesis of information from different experiments, by various researchers, across different domains of science.[25] Theories vary in the extent to which they have been tested and retained, as well as their acceptance in the scientific community.
In contrast, a myth may enjoy uncritical acceptance by members of a certain group.[26] The difference between a theory and a myth reflects a preference for a posteriori versus a priori knowledge. That is, theories become accepted by a scientific community as evidence for the theory is presented, and as presumptions that are inconsistent with the evidence are falsified.

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's the theory! Just empty words!
If that position is generally accepted by all evolutionists, why do they behave like the theory is a fact set in stone - unshakeable, incontestible, irrefutable?
That is not the attitude you just described and those who behave the way you (pl) do are apostates and hypocrites to the dogma - just like radical Moslems to the Koran and Christendom to the Bible.

Yes - like the piece on PBS says, they treat it like a holy religious dogma. To doubt it is to commit an act of blasphemy!
Dissenters of evolution are akin to the unbelievers of scripture, so stop acting so superior. You've got nothing on us.


The role of natural selection in evolution is controversial among scientists.

Darwin's Failed Predictions - A Response to PBS-NOVA's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial"


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

the stance of design is a biased stance, right?

You cannot doubt there is design here - can you?

What is biased about it?
But you're ducking the question.
Here it is again:
"Is there a consensus on Intelligent Design? Where is it fully outlined and who put it all together?
If assembled by evolutionists or unbelievers, can anyone expect it to be unbiased?

There are millions of people who never heard of evolution. If I am one of them and claim to believe in a Creator, the only way that could be seen as biased is if an unbeliever colored it that way with words the believer did not say."

Try to do better.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[camanintx]

You cannot doubt there is design here - can you?

Yes, we can.
Indian with an iPod in Google Earth

The appearance of design is not the same as evidence of design.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Is there a consensus on Intelligent Design?

Not amongst those who believe in such a thing.

Where is it fully outlined and who put it all together?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

If assembled by evolutionists or unbelievers, can anyone expect it to be unbiased?

For those of us who accept the fact of evolution we have nothing to do with ID advocates but understand how completely bias they are.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It appears the only example of beneficial mutations that has been offered by evos is 'immunity' and examples of benifits in relation to disease.

So we agree that it is a "beneficial mutation" correct? Wilson seems to think otherwise. Maybe you two can get together and work on your stance.

Can none of you come up with anything better than bacteria mutating into bacteria, fruitfly's evolving into fruitflys and adaptive changes such as immunity and resistence to disease?

So you are you admitting that it's evidence just not the type of evidence you're looking for?

As usual you evolutionists are only showing that organisms have the ability to adapt and become immune to some diseases. So what? This is in no way any sort of evidence for evolution.

It sure is. Adaptation is a part of Evolution. You may disagree but it doesn't change the fact.

I don't think any creationist disagrees with that. You are offering really pathetic evidence for TOE.

Your opinion is noted.....but you do agree it's evidence right?

Has any bacteria sprouted a limb or the beginnings of an eye or anything at all that would take it out of the category "Bacteria"? No you haven't.

Where did I ever say it did? Where, in evolution does it say this?

Again here your very own researchers have given evidence in thehere and now that 70% of mutations have deleterious consequences...and still you will continue to go around in circles in some sort of denial.

Which fits nicely with Evolution.

No one disagrees with an organisims ability to adapt but it is limited.You really do not know the difference in relation to the evidence you provide, do you?

Adaptation is a part of Evolution and fits with the the understanding of Natural Selection. Would you not agree? Wilson's source agrees.

NATURAL SELECTION
DOES NATURAL SELECTION EXIST AT ALL?
The remarks made so far, however, do not refute the occurrence of natural selection. In spite of the problems just mentioned, it is self-evident that physiologically, anatomically, and ethologically damaged mutants and recombinants (to speak again in the contemporary genetic language of these individuals) will be at a disadvantage in many situations (lame prey in relation to their predators and vice versa). It is only on islands with loss or diminution of stabilizing selection that processes of degeneration may occur quickly (for further discussion of the topic, see Lönnig, 1993, 1998; Kunze et al., 1997). Furthermore, survival of the fittest evidently takes place, for example, in cases of alleles and plasmids with strongly selective advantages, as in the cases of multiple resistance in bacteria and resistance to DDT in many insect species. After pointing out that Darwin knew hardly any cases of natural selection, Mayr asserts (1998, p. 191): "Now, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of well-established proofs, including such well-known instances as insecticide resistance of agricultural pests, antibiotic resistance of bacteria, industrial melanism, the attenuation of the myxomatosis virus in Australia, the sickle-cell gene and other blood genes and malaria, to mention only a few spectacular cases."

You have not provided any evidence at all of beneficial mutaions outside of immunity and resistence to disease.

So you agree that I've provided evidence of "Beneficial Mutations" though? Wilson doesn't seem to agree with you that I have.

You must be one of those evos that have difficulty acknowledging your own reseach. I don't blame you in a way. I'd say denial is your best defence as you have no better to offer as illustrated by your posts and pathetic attempts to demonstrate the contrary.

You say that I've provided evidence of "Beneficial Mutation" and then you proceed to go on the attack. Is this some sort of defense mechanism on your part?

 

[waitasec]

You cannot doubt there is design here - can you?
What is biased about it?

it's your assumption based on belief, not empirical evidence.

But you're ducking the question.
Here it is again:
"Is there a consensus on Intelligent Design? Where is it fully outlined and who put it all together?
If assembled by evolutionists or unbelievers, can anyone expect it to be unbiased?

hard evidence supports evolution
where is the hard evidence that supports design?

There are millions of people who never heard of evolution. If I am one of them and claim to believe in a Creator,

and where did the idea of a creator come from? would it be fair to say it's a belief that was presented to you without evidence to support it?
it is called faith for a reason
and if it was a position that you take because you simply believe it to be true (without any evidence to support your point of view), are you automatically going to dismiss the evidence presented that happens to contradict your belief for the sake of belief and risk your intellectual honesty?

the only way that could be seen as biased is if an unbeliever colored it that way with words the believer did not say."

"colored it that way with words" you are mis-interpreting empirical evidence. the words are there to describe the evidence found not to color or induce a biased opinion.

Try to do better.

i'm way ahead of you, do try to catch up...

 

[waitasec]

That's the theory! Just empty words!
If that position is generally accepted by all evolutionists, why do they behave like the theory is a fact set in stone - unshakeable, incontestible, irrefutable?

evolution is not the end all, is it? maybe for you it is but not for scientists...
evolution is shakeable, contestable and refutable...who says evolution isn't,
creationists?
are you forgetting to look at the bigger picture...
there are many many facets that are involved in the anatomy of ToE...

maybe what you are not taking into consideration is that mutations occur through natural selection and by hybridization...
why does it have to be one or the other? both are plausible...nonetheless the original source(s) were subjected to both potential hypothesis's and who knows scientists may discover something new...

That is not the attitude you just described and those who behave the way you (pl) do are apostates and hypocrites to the dogma - just like radical Moslems to the Koran and Christendom to the Bible.

i disagree because the theory of evolution is subjected to the scientific method.

Yes - like the piece on PBS says, they treat it like a holy religious dogma. To doubt it is to commit an act of blasphemy!

and who is credited to saying such a thing?
a creationist i bet...

Dissenters of evolution are akin to the unbelievers of scripture, so stop acting so superior. You've got nothing on us.

well i like to think that when evidence is presented which happens to support something i have an unsupported biased opinion about, i would be open minded and not be afraid to change my mind about it....
can you say the same?

The role of natural selection in evolution is controversial among scientists.

that is a misleading statement
"nearly all criticisms of evolution have come from religious sources, rather than from the scientific community.[4] Although most religions have accepted the occurrence of evolution, such as those advocating theistic evolution, there still exist religious beliefs which reject evolutionary explanations in favor of creationism, the belief that a deity supernaturally created the world largely in its current form.[5] The resultant U.S.-centric creation-evolution controversy has been a focal point of recent conflict between religion and science."

Objections to evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

tell me wilson, what other developed country teaches creationism?
and why is the US trailing behind other developed countries in the sciences?

Darwin's Failed Predictions - A Response to PBS-NOVA's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial"

question, is this an unbiased source?


ps

i just found this post from another thread in which i think gets to the core of this issue...

I guess you're either a person who takes a scientific view toward the world, or a mythological one. I'm in the former group. Generally speaking, I think science is the best tool we have for figuring out what's going on in the world. I think it's possible for us to learn a lot, though never everything, about how the universe got to be

 

[wilsoncole]

So we agree that it is a "beneficial mutation" correct? Wilson seems to think otherwise. Maybe you two can get together and work on your stSo you are you admitting that it's evidence just not the type of evidence you're looking for?

It sure is. Adaptation is a part of Evolution. You may disagree but it doesn't change the fact.

Your opinion is noted.....but you do agree it's evidence right?

Where did I ever say it did? Where, in evolution does it say this?

Which fits nicely with Evolution.

Adaptation is a part of Evolution and fits with the the understanding of Natural Selection. Would you not agree? Wilson's source agrees.

NATURAL SELECTION
DOES NATURAL SELECTION EXIST AT ALL?
The remarks made so far, however, do not refute the occurrence of natural selection. In spite of the problems just mentioned, it is self-evident that physiologically, anatomically, and ethologically damaged mutants and recombinants (to speak again in the contemporary genetic language of these individuals) will be at a disadvantage in many situations (lame prey in relation to their predators and vice versa). It is only on islands with loss or diminution of stabilizing selection that processes of degeneration may occur quickly (for further discussion of the topic, see Lönnig, 1993, 1998; Kunze et al., 1997). Furthermore, survival of the fittest evidently takes place, for example, in cases of alleles and plasmids with strongly selective advantages, as in the cases of multiple resistance in bacteria and resistance to DDT in many insect species. After pointing out that Darwin knew hardly any cases of natural selection, Mayr asserts (1998, p. 191): "Now, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of well-established proofs, including such well-known instances as insecticide resistance of agricultural pests, antibiotic resistance of bacteria, industrial melanism, the attenuation of the myxomatosis virus in Australia, the sickle-cell gene and other blood genes and malaria, to mention only a few spectacular cases."

So you agree that I've provided evidence of "Beneficial Mutations" though? Wilson doesn't not seem to agree with you that I have.

You say that I've provided evidence of "Beneficial Mutation" and then you proceed to go on the attack. Is this some sort of defense mechanism on your part?

And the monkey said to the buzzard: "Straighten up and fly right."
[youtube]qK8IXI259IE[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK8IXI259IE&feature=related

Who in the world are you talking to? I agree to nothing you have in this post.
I submitted the piece on "Natural Selection," but nothing else!
You'd better "straighten up and fly right."

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[outhouse]

the fossils say humans evolved like everything else.

didnt take no creationist myth, sideways trash talking horse pucky to figure that out LOL

its rather simple really, we look at the fossil evidence at hand and it shows a clear path of evolution for everything on the planet.

funny thing is ALL FOSSILS go against the creation myth %100 and leaves that myth hanging out to dry.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Who in the world are you talking to? I agree to nothing you have in this post.

I never said you agreed to anything in that post. Pay attention....:slap:

I said that newhope seems to be calling the information I listed as (one single piece of evidence for Beneficial Mutation) but you do not agree with her.

I submitted the piece on "Natural Selection," but nothing else!

You listed that guy as a peer reviewed scientist over and over and over again.....he, in that statement, did not dismiss Natural selection. Do you agree with your source or not?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Mr. Weed,

That is YOUR opinion and it has no credibility whatsoever!

Actually, it is the opinion of the science community as a whole.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Mr. Weed,
Some very reputable scientists such as Werner VonBraun, worked on Hitler's nefarious projects.

And the Godwins Law Award for this thread goes to........Wilson!!!

Instead of speculating, you should be trying to prove that they are not "REPUTABLE SCIENTISTS" not what they would or would not do.

A reputable scientist would not align themselves with Dr Downs Ethnic Classification of Idiots.

A reputable scientist would not align themselves with Phrenology.

A reputable scientist would not align themselves with Preformationism.

A reputable scientist would not align themselves with Telegony

Nor would a reputable scientist align themselves with Irreducible Complexity.

 

[wilsoncole]

Mr. Penguin,
Are you insisting that I wrote this?
........................................................................................................
Originally Posted by newhope101

It appears the only example of beneficial mutations that has been offered by evos is 'immunity' and examples of benifits in relation to disease.
........................................................................................................
And this?
....................................................................................................
Originally Posted by wilsoncole

Can none of you come up with anything better than bacteria mutating into bacteria, fruitfly's evolving into fruitflys and adaptive changes such as immunity and resistence to disease?
........................................................................................................
And this?
........................................................................................................
Originally Posted by wilsoncole

As usual you evolutionists are only showing that organisms have the ability to adapt and become immune to some diseases. So what? This is in no way any sort of evidence for evolution.
........................................................................................................

And this?
.......................................................................................................
Originally Posted by wilsoncole

I don't think any creationist disagrees with that. You are offering really pathetic evidence for TOE.
......................................................................................................
And this?
......................................................................................................
Originally Posted by wilsoncole

Has any bacteria sprouted a limb or the beginnings of an eye or anything at all that would take it out of the category "Bacteria"? No you haven't.
.....................................................................................................

And this?
.....................................................................................................
Originally Posted by wilsoncole

Again here your very own researchers have given evidence in thehere and now that 70% of mutations have deleterious consequences...and still you will continue to go around in circles in some sort of denial.
......................................................................................................

And this?
......................................................................................................
Originally Posted by wilsoncole

No one disagrees with an organisims ability to adapt but it is limited.You really do not know the difference in relation to the evidence you provide, do you?
........................................................................................................

And this?
.....................................................................................................
Originally Posted by wilsoncole

You have not provided any evidence at all of beneficial mutaions outside of immunity and resistence to disease.
.......................................................................................................
And this?
.......................................................................................................
Originally Posted by wilsoncole

You must be one of those evos that have difficulty acknowledging your own reseach. I don't blame you in a way. I'd say denial is your best defence as you have no better to offer as illustrated by your posts and pathetic attempts to demonstrate the contrary.

You say that I've provided evidence of "Beneficial Mutation" and then you proceed to go on the attack. Is this some sort of defense mechanism on your part?

I said no such thing!


I did not write those things!
If you insist that I did, you will have to prove it. Make sure you provide the Reply #s in your proof. In any case, it tells me that you are so desperate for a concession on my part that you will stoop to deceit and go to such lengths in order to manufacture such concession.

I will be sure to keep a copy this post in my file.

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

 

[wilsoncole]

Actually, it is the opinion of the science community as a whole.

Then I guess you will just have to prove that.
Don't know how you'll do it.

Have fun!

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

And the Godwins Law Award for this thread goes to........Wilson!!!


A reputable scientist would not align themselves with Dr Downs Ethnic Classification of Idiots.

A reputable scientist would not align themselves with Phrenology.

A reputable scientist would not align themselves with Preformationism.

A reputable scientist would not align themselves with Telegony

Nor would a reputable scientist align themselves with Irreducible Complexity.

I think that would be the equivalent of me saying:

"No reputable scientist would align himself with atheism."

Or...
"No reputable scientist would align himself with making a weapon that could eliminate entire cities."

Or....
"No reputable scientist would align himself with the manufacture of PCB."

Personal opinion does not count in the scientific community.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think that would be the equivalent of me saying:

"No reputable scientist would align himself with atheism."

Then you'd be an idiot, since atheism has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Or...
"No reputable scientist would align himself with making a weapon that could eliminate entire cities."

Then you'd still be an idiot, since that is an issue of personal morality and has no reflection whatsoever on the reliability and quality of a scientist's output and their commitment to the scientific method.

Or....
"No reputable scientist would align himself with the manufacture of PCB."

Again, see above.

Personal opinion does not count in the scientific community.

You're right, which is why these scientists are no longer reputable since they aligned themselves with pseudoscientific notions that have already been proven to the scientific community at large to be false. It's the equivalent of no longer taking a scientist seriously if they continue to insist that the world is flat.

 

[wilsoncole]

I did not say or suggest you said ANY of that. Why is this so hard to understand.....??????

I was responding to newhope and letting her know that she was indicating I presented (one piece of evidence) that support "Beneficial Mutation"

I said to her that (YOU) and (SHE) seem to be in disagreement because you do not agree with me that the evidence I presented is in fact an example of "Beneficial Mutation".

I posted your supposed peer reviewed scientist that did not disagree with Natural Selection and in fact gave the same example of Natural Selection (i.e Sickle Cell in relation to Malaria) as I did....thus confirming Natural Selection does occur and is a "Beneficial Mutation"

I never said that what newhope said came from you. Try going back to read it in context instead of jumping to a conclusion.

Here it is;
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2361404-post1528.html

"Hard to understand" is on your part.

Why in the world does every one of those quotes (after the first one) say:
Originally Posted by wilsoncole
I am wilsoncole and those messages were not originally posted by me, even though you claim they were!

Why is this so hard to understand?

Now I await your apology!

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