Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John Solum · 03-06-2002, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
You don't get what he saying?
Circular reasoning is a fairly simple concept.
Concerning the fossil record, spend some time thinking about it.

Please answer the questions.

1) What does West say the fossil record supports?

2) What does West refer to when he talks about circular reasoning? Is West espousing this view:

"The answer, somewhat oversimplified but nevertheless fundamentally correct, is that the date is determined by the fossils it contains. If the fossils are only simple marine organisms, then it must be dated in one of the Paleozoic systems; if it contains fossil mammals, then it must be Cenozoic. In other words, the assumption of an ages-long evolutionary development of the organic world is the basic key for identifying and dating the various components of the geologic column." (Morris, H. 1967. Evolution and the Modern Christian. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.)

ps418 · 03-06-2002, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
You don't get what he saying?

You didn't answer the question. John asked you to elaborate on what you take West to be saying. For instance, is he saying that the fossil record is inconsistent with evolution in general, or with Darwinian evolution in particular?

l-bow · 03-06-2002, 05:44 PM

Creationists, when presented with an example of a species-to-species transition, will call it just "variations with a kind". Yet they use the PE to argue that transitions don't occur. Which is it, creationists? You can't have it both ways.

randman · 03-06-2002, 06:14 PM

The last 2 posts are worthy of a response. West is not saying the fossil record is inconsistent with evolution. The reason I did not post a response is because it was patently obvious from the entirety of the quotes what I think West is saying. He is saying there is a circular reasoning process so that the fossils are not proof of evolution, they are merely consistent with it. I think also West is arguing along with others about different theories within the evolution camp. However, that does not make their statements on data necessarily irrevelant.
I am not sure why the question is even asked personally. West is only one quote of many talking about the data of the fossil record and how it used and intepreted within the evolutionists camp. For me, I think the species to species transition beyond the "kind" are not shown because they didn't happen, a perfectly logical conclusion.
This brings up the 2nd question. You are right what we want to see is evolutionists claims to be backed uo by hard data, micro-evolutionary changes clearly documented in the fossil record showing these changes to go from one species to another gradually and surpass the admittedly somewhat vague but real idea of "kind" into somewhat another kind of creature altogether. Until this has been done, evolutionary theory is mere speculation.

notto · 03-06-2002, 06:25 PM

randman,

You consistently talk about kinds. How come we can't find fossils of each kind throughout the fossil record if they were created at the same time? How come no fossils of the rabbit kind or the cow kind along side those of the t-rex kind?

randman · 03-06-2002, 06:34 PM

That's a good question, but one thing you have to remember, disproving one theory does not prove another.
I readily admit that I learned mostly of evolution. That was all I was taught in school, and basically all I have ever seen in magazines and TY documentaries and such. Personally, I didn't see a problem with theistic evolution and the Bible just thinking, hey, that was how God did it.
But I was challenged to look into it for myself, and I found most of what I was taught was in fact wrong. So I quit beleiving in evolution, and the more I studied it, the less I beleive it happened the way it is taught.
On the ideas of Creationists, I readily admit that I don't know enough to defend their theories. I am learning more about their research since debating this topic, and constantly being attacked as being deluded by creationist's web-sites when in fact I hadn't read them.
Well, I have been reading since then. That's why I came here originally. To learn about any rebutalls published concerning Gentry's work.
I am pretty much an Old Earth Creationist at present I guess, but I do think the ideas of a catastrophic global flood with rapid tectonic changes to be fascinating, and I also find the "kind" argument to be telling seeing as how this is the only evolution we have actually observed.

notto · 03-06-2002, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
 and I also find the "kind" argument to be telling seeing as how this is the only evolution we have actually observed.

If this is the only type of evolution that we have observed then do you agree that we should find examples of each kind throughout the fossil record?

This doesn't appear to be the case since we don't find flying birds, large mammals, and primates throughout.

randman · 03-06-2002, 06:53 PM

Notto, no, I don't think everything was created at the same time. I don't as of yet ascribe to the literal 24 hour day theory on the days of Genesis if that is what you are asking.

John Solum · 03-07-2002, 06:30 AM

My question #1:

"1) What does West say the fossil record supports?"

Your response:

"I think also West is arguing along with others about different theories within the evolution camp."

That is incorrect. West does not discuss competing theories of evolution in his paper. What is the focus of West's paper?

My question #2:

"2) What does West refer to when he talks about circular reasoning?"

Your response:

"The reason I did not post a response is because it was patently obvious from the entirety of the quotes what I think West is saying. He is saying there is a circular reasoning process so that the fossils are not proof of evolution, they are merely consistent with it."

What is the circular reasoning process that West refers to? How are fossils interpreted using Darwinian evolution? How does West define Darwinian evolution?

In addition, you said:

"I am not sure why the question is even asked personally."

In an earlier post you said:
"The problem is that the fossil record indicates 2 qualities inconsistent with evolutionary theory.
Stasis: Species exhibit very little change over their life within the fossil record.
Sudden Apperance: Species appear fully formed without any trace in thefossil record of whom thier immediate ancestors were."

Therefore I assume that you presented the quotation from West to support your claim that the fossil record is inconsistent with evolutionary theory.

The reason I'm asking these questions is to illustrate the danger of using quotations in lieu of data when discussing science, and the double danger of using second-hand quotations from creationist sources (West was originally quoted by Henry Morris in ICR Impact No. 48, "Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Geology"). I do not believe that you have read the paper by West, I do not believe that you know the context of the paragraph that you quote. The answers to the questions I've asked are in that paper.

Daggah · 03-07-2002, 10:56 AM

randman, MY posts are worth a response too! And yet you conveniently continue to ignore evidence.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-06-2002, 05:44 PM	#33
l-bow Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hawaii Posts: 215	Creationists, when presented with an example of a species-to-species transition, will call it just "variations with a kind". Yet they use the PE to argue that transitions don't occur. Which is it, creationists? You can't have it both ways.

03-06-2002, 06:14 PM	#34
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	The last 2 posts are worthy of a response. West is not saying the fossil record is inconsistent with evolution. The reason I did not post a response is because it was patently obvious from the entirety of the quotes what I think West is saying. He is saying there is a circular reasoning process so that the fossils are not proof of evolution, they are merely consistent with it. I think also West is arguing along with others about different theories within the evolution camp. However, that does not make their statements on data necessarily irrevelant. I am not sure why the question is even asked personally. West is only one quote of many talking about the data of the fossil record and how it used and intepreted within the evolutionists camp. For me, I think the species to species transition beyond the "kind" are not shown because they didn't happen, a perfectly logical conclusion. This brings up the 2nd question. You are right what we want to see is evolutionists claims to be backed uo by hard data, micro-evolutionary changes clearly documented in the fossil record showing these changes to go from one species to another gradually and surpass the admittedly somewhat vague but real idea of "kind" into somewhat another kind of creature altogether. Until this has been done, evolutionary theory is mere speculation.

03-06-2002, 06:25 PM	#35
notto Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Minneapolis, MN US Posts: 133	randman, You consistently talk about kinds. How come we can't find fossils of each kind throughout the fossil record if they were created at the same time? How come no fossils of the rabbit kind or the cow kind along side those of the t-rex kind?

03-06-2002, 06:34 PM	#36
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	That's a good question, but one thing you have to remember, disproving one theory does not prove another. I readily admit that I learned mostly of evolution. That was all I was taught in school, and basically all I have ever seen in magazines and TY documentaries and such. Personally, I didn't see a problem with theistic evolution and the Bible just thinking, hey, that was how God did it. But I was challenged to look into it for myself, and I found most of what I was taught was in fact wrong. So I quit beleiving in evolution, and the more I studied it, the less I beleive it happened the way it is taught. On the ideas of Creationists, I readily admit that I don't know enough to defend their theories. I am learning more about their research since debating this topic, and constantly being attacked as being deluded by creationist's web-sites when in fact I hadn't read them. Well, I have been reading since then. That's why I came here originally. To learn about any rebutalls published concerning Gentry's work. I am pretty much an Old Earth Creationist at present I guess, but I do think the ideas of a catastrophic global flood with rapid tectonic changes to be fascinating, and I also find the "kind" argument to be telling seeing as how this is the only evolution we have actually observed.

03-06-2002, 06:53 PM	#38
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Notto, no, I don't think everything was created at the same time. I don't as of yet ascribe to the literal 24 hour day theory on the days of Genesis if that is what you are asking.

03-07-2002, 06:30 AM	#39
John Solum Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 139	My question #1: "1) What does West say the fossil record supports?" Your response: "I think also West is arguing along with others about different theories within the evolution camp." That is incorrect. West does not discuss competing theories of evolution in his paper. What is the focus of West's paper? My question #2: "2) What does West refer to when he talks about circular reasoning?" Your response: "The reason I did not post a response is because it was patently obvious from the entirety of the quotes what I think West is saying. He is saying there is a circular reasoning process so that the fossils are not proof of evolution, they are merely consistent with it." What is the circular reasoning process that West refers to? How are fossils interpreted using Darwinian evolution? How does West define Darwinian evolution? In addition, you said: "I am not sure why the question is even asked personally." In an earlier post you said: "The problem is that the fossil record indicates 2 qualities inconsistent with evolutionary theory. Stasis: Species exhibit very little change over their life within the fossil record. Sudden Apperance: Species appear fully formed without any trace in thefossil record of whom thier immediate ancestors were." Therefore I assume that you presented the quotation from West to support your claim that the fossil record is inconsistent with evolutionary theory. The reason I'm asking these questions is to illustrate the danger of using quotations in lieu of data when discussing science, and the double danger of using second-hand quotations from creationist sources (West was originally quoted by Henry Morris in ICR Impact No. 48, "Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Geology"). I do not believe that you have read the paper by West, I do not believe that you know the context of the paragraph that you quote. The answers to the questions I've asked are in that paper.

03-07-2002, 10:56 AM	#40
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	randman, MY posts are worth a response too! And yet you conveniently continue to ignore evidence.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.