Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pseudobug · 03-08-2002, 12:07 PM

Gentleman, you are seeing the classic randman that I have come to know all to well in the past several months.

The same quotes out of context....
The same use of garbage from AiG and True Origins...

Next will be accusations of conspiracies and lies by scientists as evidenced by this oldie but goodie from randman in <a href="http://pub93.ezboard.com/finsidecarolinafrm7.showMessage?topicID=1732.topic " target="_blank">this thread.</a>

Quote:

It is hard to see evolutionists methods as scientific in the slightest, but rather as deliberate propoganda.
If evolution were true, why are evolutionists so afraid of honest debate. Why all the use of hoaxes and distortions?
Maybe the reality is that the theory of evolution has little real evidence to back it up. Therefore, fabrications must be used to silence the opposition and maintain a sense of dominance. I see no other plausible explanation for the behaviour of the proponents of evolution.
Heck, if they had all that evidence, they would welcome a side by side comparison in high school textbooks, but instead, they resort to falsely stating that the critics have no data and research.
The truth is the critics of evolution have more data and research on their side, and this is why evolutionists work so hard to silence the oppositions voice with false claims.

Next, randman will come up with conspiracy theories such as these found in <a href="http://pub93.ezboard.com/finsidecarolinafrm7.showMessage?topicID=1697.topic " target="_blank">this thread.</a>

Quote:

In fact, I can't think of a single instance of honesty in the way evolution is taught/sold to the public. It is rife with hoaxes, distortions, and overstatements. In no way has it ever relied chiefly on scientific methodology, and even today, it offers no testable hypothesis.

Facts are, randman is a serious Bible-thumper that is too stupid to realize that he is using garbage in the form of AiG "science" to back his bible-thumper claims which he tries in vain to hide in his self-purported "serious debate" about evolution.

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]</p>

Kevin Dorner · 03-08-2002, 12:15 PM

pseudobug: He's agreed to post an anwswer this weekend to <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000370" target="_blank">this thread</a> so I am replying anytime he posts anywhere else reminding him. I suggest other posters do the same and not reply to him for anything else. Then he has a choice of either leaving, or staying the course in one topic without changing the subject or avoiding answering when he finds his assertions are being well-challenged.

Mageth · 03-08-2002, 12:18 PM

pseudobug: randman's already resorted to those tactics here, in one thread or another.

randman · 03-08-2002, 03:32 PM

Thanks to the one poster who gave an answer to the fact of stasis and sudden appearance. The fact another poster was unware of the dominant characteristics of the fossil record is EXTREMELY TELLING. This is one of the first things that should be taught in school, but instead the exact opposite is taught, namely that the fossil record shows evolution happening when it does not. In other words, one would expect to see a species gradually evolve if we have fossils spanning several millions years, but we do not.
The following quotes testify to this fact, and if anyone thinks they are out of context, please explain what they do mean.
Moreover if anyone complains these are out-of-date, then will the same person accept that prior to this date there were no transitional fossils?

"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 Baupl�ne 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)]
[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to “several” superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences—“more than enough” (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these “superb examples” were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanation—not unheard of among evolutionists—would be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]

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

John Solum · 03-08-2002, 04:01 PM

Funny you should bring this up.

Quote:

�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.]

Would you care to finish this thread?<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=00028" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=00028</a>

Even better, would you present what you consider to be the evidence from AiG that supports a young earth or flood geology?

pseudobug · 03-08-2002, 04:04 PM

randman,

I swear you are dumber than a ten pound bag of hog manure. You post the SAME GARBAGE of quotes out of context on two threads from the SAME TRUELIES site.

ANd this isn't
t the first time you've done it either--just on a different site.

So, once again, I'll post a link showing a near point-by-point demonstration of just how that nitwit Wallace uses quotes out of context to make an ass of himself.

<a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~duckster/evolution/transitional.html" target="_blank">Duck's rebuttal of Wallace's nonsense</a>

I used to just think you were niave, randman. However, I've changed my mind--you're simply stupid and don't have enough sense to realize what a quote out of context is.

I pity your ignorance and stupidity.

pseudobug · 03-08-2002, 04:08 PM

sorry for the double post..

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]</p>

Scrambles · 03-08-2002, 04:18 PM

randman,

Since you didn't address my post which set out to show that you would never accept anything as "transitional" no matter what, I will assume that you agree with me.

Now that we have that out of the road we can safely say that randman's definition of a transitional form is equivalant to...

"Something which does not exist"

I think when the conclusion is that transitional forms don't exist and the definition is the same that this is a form of begging the question.

Anyway, until you can tell me what is wrong with my previous post I will assume that your definition of a transitional form is the definition given above.

Scrambles

Valentine Pontifex · 03-08-2002, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
<strong>Liastaob:

"Stasis" is the observation that many species stay approximately the same for long periods of time in the fossil record. The thing is that a lot of change would appear to be stasis, and that some degree of stasis is expected since species may reach a local fitness maximum.
</strong>

"long periods of time" is relative. It is a long period of time when compared to how long it took for the species to appear. It is a short amount of time compared to the length of geologic time. If a mammalian species has a stasis of five million years that is about 8% the time since the dinosaurs were wiped out. It is about one-tenth of a percent of the history of the planet.

Of course since Randman is using stasis, he is, whether he knows it or not admitting that the world is old since the concept of stasis in the fossil record makes no sense from a YEC prospective.

randman · 03-08-2002, 06:26 PM

Why don't some of you bother to read the quotes and explain them?
Are you afraid or something?
By the way, LV, I am not a YEC, but basically I am undecided. Maybe ID is the best category to place me in.
I was taught evolution. The "evidence" I was taught was mostly a lie so I tend to sticking to what I know, which is:

1. The fossil record exhibits stasis not gradualism.
2. Neanderthals are not the humpback ape-men we were taught they were.
3. Recapitulation is a lie. Babies don't develop "regressive traits" in the womb. They develop only humanity and nothing else. The so-called "tail" is nothing but the backbone forming, etc,..Moreover, the drawings used to convince us of these things were a hoax.
4. Many of the so-called prehumans such as Piltdown man, and Nebraska man were a hoax.
5. Micro-evolution is not documented to lead to macro-evolution. Even the Creationists use Darwin's finches in their models. In no way are they proof of evolution, and in fact, the fossil record seems to suggest mirco-evolution does not cause macro-evolution.

About the only thing evolutionists have going for their theory is the geologic record, and I would not be surprised to see their view of it shot-down as well.

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

03-08-2002, 12:15 PM	#92
Kevin Dorner Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Posts: 762	pseudobug: He's agreed to post an anwswer this weekend to <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000370" target="_blank">this thread</a> so I am replying anytime he posts anywhere else reminding him. I suggest other posters do the same and not reply to him for anything else. Then he has a choice of either leaving, or staying the course in one topic without changing the subject or avoiding answering when he finds his assertions are being well-challenged.

03-08-2002, 12:18 PM	#93
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	pseudobug: randman's already resorted to those tactics here, in one thread or another.

03-08-2002, 03:32 PM	#94
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Thanks to the one poster who gave an answer to the fact of stasis and sudden appearance. The fact another poster was unware of the dominant characteristics of the fossil record is EXTREMELY TELLING. This is one of the first things that should be taught in school, but instead the exact opposite is taught, namely that the fossil record shows evolution happening when it does not. In other words, one would expect to see a species gradually evolve if we have fossils spanning several millions years, but we do not. The following quotes testify to this fact, and if anyone thinks they are out of context, please explain what they do mean. Moreover if anyone complains these are out-of-date, then will the same person accept that prior to this date there were no transitional fossils? "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 Baupl�ne 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)] [It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to “several” superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences—“more than enough” (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these “superb examples” were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanation—not unheard of among evolutionists—would be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.] <a href="http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils" target="_blank">http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils</a>

03-08-2002, 04:04 PM	#96
pseudobug Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: land of confusion Posts: 178	randman, I swear you are dumber than a ten pound bag of hog manure. You post the SAME GARBAGE of quotes out of context on two threads from the SAME TRUELIES site. ANd this isn't t the first time you've done it either--just on a different site. So, once again, I'll post a link showing a near point-by-point demonstration of just how that nitwit Wallace uses quotes out of context to make an ass of himself. <a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~duckster/evolution/transitional.html" target="_blank">Duck's rebuttal of Wallace's nonsense</a> I used to just think you were niave, randman. However, I've changed my mind--you're simply stupid and don't have enough sense to realize what a quote out of context is. I pity your ignorance and stupidity.

03-08-2002, 04:08 PM	#97
pseudobug Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: land of confusion Posts: 178	sorry for the double post.. [ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]</p>

03-08-2002, 04:18 PM	#98
Scrambles Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Chch, NZ Posts: 234	randman, Since you didn't address my post which set out to show that you would never accept anything as "transitional" no matter what, I will assume that you agree with me. Now that we have that out of the road we can safely say that randman's definition of a transitional form is equivalant to... "Something which does not exist" I think when the conclusion is that transitional forms don't exist and the definition is the same that this is a form of begging the question. Anyway, until you can tell me what is wrong with my previous post I will assume that your definition of a transitional form is the definition given above. Scrambles

03-08-2002, 06:26 PM	#100
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Why don't some of you bother to read the quotes and explain them? Are you afraid or something? By the way, LV, I am not a YEC, but basically I am undecided. Maybe ID is the best category to place me in. I was taught evolution. The "evidence" I was taught was mostly a lie so I tend to sticking to what I know, which is: 1. The fossil record exhibits stasis not gradualism. 2. Neanderthals are not the humpback ape-men we were taught they were. 3. Recapitulation is a lie. Babies don't develop "regressive traits" in the womb. They develop only humanity and nothing else. The so-called "tail" is nothing but the backbone forming, etc,..Moreover, the drawings used to convince us of these things were a hoax. 4. Many of the so-called prehumans such as Piltdown man, and Nebraska man were a hoax. 5. Micro-evolution is not documented to lead to macro-evolution. Even the Creationists use Darwin's finches in their models. In no way are they proof of evolution, and in fact, the fossil record seems to suggest mirco-evolution does not cause macro-evolution. About the only thing evolutionists have going for their theory is the geologic record, and I would not be surprised to see their view of it shot-down as well.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.