Daggah

randman, I'd like to congratulate you for your very nice DODGE of the issue. Good job, I've not seen such spectacular use of the red herring in a long time.

hezekiah jones

<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Daggah

Yeah, seriously hezekiah, one would get the impression that it's the evilutionists and not the cretinists who are massive liars, ICR, AiG, Hovind, Morris, Gish, Ken Ham, Behe, Dembsky, Woodmorappe, etc., not-withstanding.

S2Focus

randman's post here, if nothing else, is a nice illustration of the law of conservation of enjoyment!

MrDarwin

And yet randman had this to say:

on <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000365&p=5" target="_blank">this thread.
</a>

Interesting. I wonder what parts of the geological record randman has doubts about, that he would not be surprised to see "shot down"?

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

l-bow

I wonder what randman expected us to do with those links to articles he posted? If he didn't want to discuss the content of those articles, then why the hell did he post them in the first place? I tell you, randman's a pathetic joke.

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Hey randman! I think I speak for all of us when I say:

We are still waiting for you to pick out the single best argument from AiG on the Flood and present it here. So pick one, just one, only one. Stop talking about stasis, and put your money where your mouth is. Patrick is waiting.

Michael

Darwin's Finch

&lt;bump&gt;

Valentine Pontifex

I don't think that you have yet made a link to a creationist site that not YEC. Correct me if I am wrong. You are asked for links that support your viewpoint and you give us links that "prove" that the Earth is young.

Somewhere alone the line, we must make a conclusion. If you walk like a duck, fly like a duck, quack like a duck; then you are a duck.


You are going to have to justify your observed changes are not properly called evolutionary. In fact they are. And the stasis being a "Long period of time" is a bit misleading. Long compared to formation of the species, not all that long geologically. Stasis rarely lasts ten million years and is usually far shorter.
This is false. Not even Gould would say that. Even PE is extremely gradual on timescales that we humans are used to dealing with. Indeed, the observed rates of change in the wild (like with Darwin's finches) are greater than what is needed for PE. In the end, PE is gradually over fifty thousand years instead of gradually over a few million years.
The PE advocates did NOT come up with that idea and it was not orginated to explain the fossil record as I have already explained to you.
Then what are you whining about?
This is an outright lie on your part. As we have demonstrated to you again and again, the are many transitions on the higher levels of taxa. The proponents of PE, such as Gould, are very clear that these transitions exist.
No it is your side that lies and evades as they always do.
Evasion. What does this have to do with evolution above the species level?
This is another false statement. A thousand transitional forms would not end stasis.
Do you even know what stasis is, or are you lying?
Ignoring that YECs usually don't allow contrary opinions on their boards...

You were the one who brought up YEC geology. It was you who said we were ignoring AiG's arguments. It is you that provided a couple dozens links (give or take) to YEC articles. It is you that used their arguments.

If you don't want to defend YEC geology, than do not bring it up in the first place. If you don't want to defend a YEC link, then don't use it.
If you don't want to defend a YEC argument, then don't use it when we ask you to support your views. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: LordValentine ]</p>

randman

Still lying, ducking, and dodging. Pathetic.
How can you state that species are transitional when the actual transitions are not shown?
You say they are lacking species to species but are present between major groups.
Really?
Are you even aware of what you are saying?
Obviously not.
Here are the quotes. Please explain them if you think they are out of context.

"In the first place, any objective paleontologist must concede that one’s interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by one’s presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework. This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record—where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):


“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]
If that weren’t enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:


“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:


"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:


“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:


“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:


“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]"

Some telling remarks:

"the fossil record does not support the Darwinian "
"we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process."
"Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD."

Are any of you guys more qualified than Steven Stanley in this field?
Didn't think so.
Then, before you call me a liar, please explain what Stanely means by these statements. What is the context here?
As far as the fossil record goes, this is game,set, and match. I will now go over and shake your hand as you acknowledge full defeat.

<a href="http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp" target="_blank">http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp</a>

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>