questions about people

[TecK NeeX]

There's plenty of evidence in the fossil record but your favorite religious websites have distorted it or not understood it, and so come up with valid-sounding arguments (like the one you present) that really have no meaning to one informed on the subject.

There is NONE in the fossil record, the majority of evolutionists ADMIT that, only the ignorant fools like yourself still hold on to that belief. this explains why many desperate evolutionists were left with no choice but to dig up another reason behind the absolute lack of any kind of fossil evidence of evolution

for example Evolutonist Steven Jay Gould, he is practically the 20th century version of Darwin, he came up with the concept of "punctuated equilibrium" it is the theory that for example a bird can actually hatch out of a lizards egg. essentially he is saying that evolution does not happen in a slow gradual process (believed by darwin and the majority of evolution believers like yourself, story and glockmatic) but instead in sudden spurts, and that is why there is not any fossil evidence of it having occurd, this just shows the absurd and desperate lengths evolutionists will go to bolster support for the theory

if and thats a big if living things did evolve step by step there should be millions and millions of fossils of intermediate creatures in every museum out there, not ONE is found. why does the fossil record which holds billions of fossils ONLY show PERFECTED kinds of species and not one of the transitional creatures? There should be millions more fossils of transitional creatures than fossils of the perfected species. why is that? I'll tell you why, because they were CREATED!.

Dr. David Raup: "We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition today than we had in Darwin’s time," Field Museum of Natural History, vol 50, Jan 1979,

this one is for you jokerman

Dr. Mark Ridley: "No real evolutionist uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution." New Scientist, June 25, 1981,

I'm not going to write a paper here on this for someone who wouldn't even believe it if God Himself told him it was correct. Just read some books on it

no i would believe it if God told me it was correct


im done here, i am presenting factual proof of why evolution could not in anyway work and not one of you evolution believers has even come close to refuting them!

 

[Jokerman]

for example Evolutonist Steven Jay Gould, he is practically the 20th century version of Darwin, he came up with the concept of "punctuated equilibrium" it is the theory that for example a bird can actually hatch out of a lizards egg. essentially he is saying that evolution does not happen in a slow gradual process (believed by darwin and the majority of evolution believers like yourself, story and glockmatic) but instead in sudden spurts, and that is why there is not any fossil evidence of it having occurd,

Let's see what Steven Jay Gould had to say about you blind people's selective quoting of him: "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists (like Teck) --whether by design or stupidity, I do not know-- as admitting the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups...."

---Gould, S.J. "Toward the Vindication of Punctuational Change" in Catastrophies and Earth History. The New Uniformitarianism, edited by Berggen, W.A. and Van Couvering, J.A., Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.


Let me repeat him: RIFE WITH TRANSITIONS WITHIN MAJOR GROUPS

And he's not the 20th century version of Darwin, just a decent scientist.

Dr. Mark Ridley is a creationist. Yes, even creationists can have a Dr. in front of their names. That doesn't keep them from having a creationist agenda.

The points you raised are not valid. Invalid points cannot be answered. They are based on a misunderstanding of the subject, willfully or ignorantly. So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, and between reptiles and mammals. In fact, all fossils can be regarded as intermediates in that they come between the forms that preceded them and those that followed. The fossil record provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time. You don't know what you are talking about and your sources are liars desperately trying to hold onto their superstitions.

 

[TecK NeeX]

Let's see what Steven Jay Gould had to say about you blind people's selective quoting of him: "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists (like Teck) --whether by design or stupidity, I do not know-- as admitting the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups...."

fact remains the punctuated equilibrium theory which states that organisms in small populations can swiftly evolve with macromutations is actually even less valid than the model of evolution proposed by the Darwinists themselves.

it appears that supporters of darwins theory of evolution and supporters of Goulds punctuated equilibrium theory are at war with each other, The Oxford University zoologist Richard Dawkins fiercely criticizes the proponents of the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution, and accuses them of "destroying the theory of evolution's credibility", however if there is one thing the punctuated equilibrium accomplished is that it has made one important, albeit unwitting, contribution to science, it has clearly shown that the fossil record conflicts with the concept of evolution.

you quote Gould admitting the fossil record includes no transitional forms, then you contradict yourself with sayin that there are "many transitional fossils in the record" which side are you on? are you a darwinist or a Gouldist?

The points you raised are not valid. Invalid points cannot be answered. They are based on a misunderstanding of the subject, willfully or ignorantly.

of course my points are valid, you could be right that invalid points cannot be answered but if my points are that obviously invalid then they sure can be corrected, and that my friend is something you and the rest of the darwinists on this board can never do.

So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, and between reptiles and mammals.

so many? im sure steven Gould himself and the majority of evolutionists who have accepted and acknowledged the fact that no transitional fossil evidence available whatsoever would have known or had access to these "mysterious" transitional fossils you speak of dont you think?

In fact, all fossils can be regarded as intermediates in that they come between the forms that preceded them and those that followed. The fossil record provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time. You don't know what you are talking about and your sources are liars desperately trying to hold onto their superstitions

that is also the scapegoat evolutionists (not including gould which he by the way opposed this) had to come up with to make up for the absolute lack of transitional fossils in the record which they are desperately in search of, but once reality hit them hard and accepted the fact that the fossil record holds no TF they had to go to absurd lengths to defended the theory by claiming that "all fossils are regarded as intermediates" this is really laughable

the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. what we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and apparently unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." for example

 

[Jokerman]

you quote Gould admitting the fossil record includes no transitional forms, then you contradict yourself with sayin that there are "many transitional fossils in the record" which side are you on? are you a darwinist or a Gouldist?

I'll post more later today when i have time, but did you maybe misunderstand that quote of Gould's I posted? He says his punctuated equilibrium theory does not say there are no transitional forms, and he is infuriated by creationists who keep quoting him as if that's what he's saying.

 

[simo]

id say most white people have brown eyes. not that many blue eyed people around, well not that i notice.

from what i remember in human biology, we all came from africa and then migrated to different parts over time, and due to environmental influences, we all evolved differently

 

[Zero Cool]

id say most white people have brown eyes. not that many blue eyed people around, well not that i notice.

I have blue eyes

 

[TecK NeeX]

just a little addition to the subject of the fossil record

i dont know if you've herd or read about this but in 1980 a historic conference, consisting of one hundred and sixty of the world's most distinguished evolutionists, took place in Chicago during October. At that meeting a unanimous admission was made to the fact that the previous 120 years of fossil recovery had failed to provide one irrefutable case of an intermediate fossil. In other words, it was conceded that the long held Darwinian belief that evolution had occurred through infinitesimal small changes over immense periods of time was unlikely.

Newsweek had this to say following this conference

"The missing link between man and apes...is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record missing links are the rule... The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated...Evidence from the fossil record now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans were taught in high school; that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment."

but of course rather than renounce evolution a more rediculous theory was quickly evoked, "the hopeful monster" theory called Punctuated equilibrium.