Dr Rick

Typical randman evasion with a false dichotomy. Here's how his question was answered, and answered completely:

"Both! It was a whale. It had legs, not flippers. It lived on land, along rivers. It had characteristics both of aquatic whales and terrestrial mammals--exactly what we would expect from an animal transitional between 4-legged terrestrial mammals and fully aquatic whales"

Randman asks "Which is it?" and is answered with "Both" to which he falsely responds with "You didn't answer the question."

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Automaton

A typical day on the E/C boards. *sigh*

randman: Here is some big scientist man's opinion on something I don't understand, but it says ya'll are wrong!
Us: The quote is out of context. [Full quote provided, demonstrating Gould actually says the exact opposite of what randman thinks he does.]
randman: The quote is not out of context!
Us: [full quote]
randman: The quote is not out of context!
Us: [full quote]
randman: The quote is not out of context!
Us: Why are you consistantly ignoring everything we say?
random: TYPICAL DEVILUTIONIST TACTICS, USING PERSONAL ATTACKS AS ARGUMENTS! YOU CAN'T BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY!

Automaton

In my opinion, we all should just ignore the asshole. He'll never learn, he'll just continue on with his tactics of replying to one line in a post, unrelated to the rest, and claiming al we can do is attack him! The heavily mentally ill never realise they're ill, and I suspect the same is with randman. He'll call us liars and propaganda mongerers, then go on to lie and use emotional pleas and personal attacks in the next sentence. Perhaps if we ignore him, he'll go away.

MrDarwin

randman

Morpho, you appear to be the only evolutionist here requesting an answer, or making a valid point. I will expand this answer later, but want to make a quick comment on fossils and stasis. My point on stasis is in part in light of the context of a general lack in what I call transitional fossils, that is fossils showing the actual transitions. The fossil record is lacking, but apparently there is enough of it to demonstrate stasis over long periods of time. Now, I realize that larger populations are now considered much more stable and resistant to evolution, and thus it is easier to find fossils of species that exhibit stasis. However, it is also clear that the fossil record is not so incomplete as some might suppose, or making claims of stasis would be silly. In that context, I am less sure that the issue is a lack of fossils as you would be, and think that actually what is occuring is that common descent is not actually true.
I realize ecological considerations and similar peripheal points you have made offer an explanation, but at the same time, the fossil record appears to me to be more easily explained by special creation than common descent.
The idea that we don't yet have enough fossils to show these transitions taking place is possible, but we do have some transitions, don't we, that are micro-evolutionary in nature, or between kinds.
The stumbling block, as I see it, for evolutionists is refusing to consider the concept of a Creator, or the spiritual realm, but is this right to do so?
There have been studies for instance by secular doctors to see if prayer, generic prayer mind you, has a statistical impact on patients, and they have found to their surprise that it does. They don't necessarily say it is God helping, and who knows the whole answer seeing as how the studies didn't limit the prayer to one type. They also found a significant benefit to even long-distance prayer when there was no contact between those praying and the patients. Personally, I do beleive God answers some prayers, but also that there are extra-levels of perception, which can be scientifically documented, and that prayer can both affect God to move and release positive energy into a patient from the spiritual realm, and that this can be done by people at times regardless of their relationship with God.
I bring this up because if you have seen miracles, and I have, and know they are bona-fide miracles, then it is easier to compare special creation models with evolutionary models, and actually give the special creation models a fair hearing.
This is a significant digression though. I will check the other older posts, and get back to you.

randman

Ok, from the other thread, you stated:

"The other type of transitional is the one I have been trying (unsuccessfully, apparently) to get across to you. These transitions are the A..T..B variety between major genera or classes. Examples such as Hynercetus, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus (yeah, yeah, I know they're not in order) which are differentiated temporally and morphologically. We don't, in these major transitions, see a series of begats. We DO, however, see a step-wise, time-linked series of species transiting from a fully-land-dwelling mammal to a fully sea-going mammal. These species are actually representatives of genera (or even families), and thus constitute single representatives of higher taxonomic groupings. What the fossil record shows is thus changes in major groups, rather than "simple" speciation."

This 2nd type of transition that you mentioned is considered to be transitional due to similarities and the times beleived that the creatures lived. In other words, you don't see a series of begats. Correct?
However, it is also true that this is conjencture in the sense that we don't have a record of these species gradually changing. PE as I understand it explains this by stating the evolutionary changes occur in smaller groups, and in such a fashion as to not leave a fossil record of the change, but the idea is the similarities and apparent "in-between" points of the species appearance in the fossil record thus indicate it evolved from one group and into another.
Am I correct thus far?
My point though is this is not proven. There is still a considerable lack in the fossil record, namely the fact we don't see a series of begats as you put it.
It could just as easily be explained by my art analogy, that the Creator created species in intervals and the closer to the same interval, the more similar the species are.
There are other issues as well, but suffice to say, in this thread at least, I do feel the way evolution is presented to the public, and the reaction of many evolutionists to criticism, casts doubt in my mind as to all of their data. Maybe you feel that it is too strong, but I think there is a deliberate attempt to use coercive mental tricks to silence their critics, and really, a large portion of the people I see so vehement against ID and for evolution appear to be religiously motivated. Atheism, it seems, is as much their motive as any scientific inquiry.
I do realize there are many theistic evolutionists, but I see the atheistic motivation dominating the evolutionist camp, at least here and some other places, and I think it is more dogmatism and power than anything else that they are after.
But you have certainly presented a reasonable argument here. I hope you can see a little of why I think it is reasonable to doubt evolutionary theory.

Dr Rick

...And the evasions continue:
Wrong, again, and totally irrelevant.

<strong> Theistic, unverifiable, unfalsifiable assertions having nothing to do with the way randman ignores the answers and responses to his misrepresentations and lies.

Randman was more convincing with the "5,6,7...etc..." argument

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

General Zod

Isn't it funny how, when someone enters into a disagreement with the majority of posters in the Evo/Cre forum here, even when they're a demonstratable lunatic cultist like the topic originator, Randman will immediately side with them, even though their beliefs are contradictory to his, as well as science, just because the posters on Infidels oppose him. Randman will hitch onto any passing nutjob as long as the Infidels don't like him, even one whose views are totally opposed to Biblical Creationism.

Stick it to the man, randman. I mean, if wacky UFO cultists AND you are at odds with Infidels, there's no hope for 'em. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

phlebas

Ok, that's far enough. Between randy and thiaooubla, this thread has certainly outlived it's location.

randman, you can tell your UNC buddies that I've locked this thread because I fear you.

To the rest of you, it's off to RRP.