Freethought & Rationalism Archive

randman · 03-10-2002, 11:09 AM

"...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.]

“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.]

“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)]

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

BLoggins02 · 03-10-2002, 11:36 AM

randman:

why don't you try a revolutionary new concept called "politeness" and please keep all of these "what's the context of these quotes" posts in the same thread. People will respond to them, I promise.

Oh yeah, and my comment about "what is this? argument by spurious quotation?" still applies. A theory stands on its own merits. It doesn't matter who says what about a theory. A dissenting quote does not a theoretical refutation make.

If you do this again, I would ask the moderators to consider immediately moving all of your threads to RR&P as they appear, as you obviously love spamming the boards with all this stuff yet magically "don't have any time" to respond to it.

We know you don't agree with us, we know you think we're wrong. This does not surprise us, but maybe show a little common courtesy and intellectual honesty and we may all learn something.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: BLoggins02 ]</p>

randman · 03-10-2002, 11:49 AM

These are different quotes, and it has been alleged they are taken out of context in general, but the exact quotes have not been addressed. Since it seems necessary to verify the meaning of each of these quotes, and it can take a whole thread to discuss one quote in it's context, I think several threads are in order.
Maybe you don't, but in case you haven't noticed, the posters who responded to me did so by raising numerous directions most of which would require tremendous detail to even begin to address, but all ignore these statements by dismissing them as out of context.
Well, I really am not interested in discussing flood geology, or any number of things until these things get cleared up, and as some posters st art whole new threads bashing me for dodging them, I think I will continue to post each new set of quotes until that gets cleared up, and these people can move on.
What strikes me is how posters like yourself can continually avoid such clear statements. They are not out of context.
The fossil record does not prove evolution, and it is false to say it does.

BLoggins02 · 03-10-2002, 12:07 PM

Quote:

What strikes me is how posters like yourself can continually avoid such clear statements. They are not out of context.

Posters like myself? POSTERS LIKE MYSELF! I am not "avoiding such clear statements". I have no intention of debating this with you, there are plenty of people doing that right now. Your decision to spam the board with multiple related threads has nothing to do with the content of such threads, I simply asked you to be polite and group them together.

Furthermore, I have seen several posts in which each of your quotes was analyzed independently. Do you just ignore these or what?

And guess what, some of these posts may be absolutely in context! Some of these "evolutionists" may really be saying that they see absolutely no evidence for [whatever] in [whatever].

SO WHAT!!!!!?????!!!! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

If Richard P. Feynman himself was quoted as saying "Quantum theory is about as stupid as they come. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support even the most elementary assertions. Anyone who subscribes to such a model must surely be insane." it would not do A THING to quantum theory.

A theory stands on its own merits, not on the number of quotations you can throw at it. Really I don't know how many times we have to say this to you.

Having said that, let's promise mr. randman that we won't highjack this thread any longer, and that the only thing we'll discuss here from now on is how these specific quotes are or are not in context. There are some very capable people on this board who will be more than willing to analyze these quotes for you.

I for one, am not one of them. I am through with you.

luvluv · 03-10-2002, 01:15 PM

I think it is legitimate if you folks address the first authors claims, at least. Is it true that most fossils come into the record all at once without any hint of gradualism? That's an evidentary claim, not an opinion. If that's not true, you guys can just say it's not without all the rest of the hulabaloo.

Troll Hunter · 03-10-2002, 04:16 PM

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000405" target="_blank">Context provided here</a>, in case you're not up to reading threads you didn't start/aren't named in.

And now for a word from our sponsors ...

Automaton · 03-10-2002, 06:55 PM

randman: You deserve an honourary PhD for your masterful work at copying and pasting QUOTES, not arguments, OPINIONS, which are meaningless (why is it so hard for you to back up these supposedly "in-context" [you don't even know, you just take it for granted based on your skimming over a creationist site, why don't you get off your fat ass and look up the actual journal references for yourself!?] with ACTUAL ARGUMENTS or even A TINY SPECK OF EVIDENCE?) from another creationist, who merely ripped THOSE from that complete moron Gish's "the Fossils Still Say No!" (see, the creationist you copied it from didn't even look them up himself either! What quality scholarship!) Gish, unsuprisingly, just uses the technique of using out-of-context quotes and rhetoric and does not offer ONE SINGLE FACTUAL ARGUMENT!

Fuck off, troll.

Vorkosigan · 03-10-2002, 07:11 PM

And over in Patrick's thread, the randman watch continues....

phlebas · 03-10-2002, 07:13 PM

randman,

Until you either answer the pending responses waiting for you in other threads, or shout "uncle," any new threads you start in this forum will be moved to Rants, Raves, and Preaching.

Everyone here is happy to interact with those who disagree or who come here wanting to ask questions. No one here is interested in a belligerent troll who doesn't understand common rules of conduct.

Come back when you can handle it.

03-10-2002, 11:09 AM	#1
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	What's the context and meaning os these statements? "...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.] “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.] “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)] <a href="http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils" target="_blank">http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils</a>

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

03-10-2002, 11:36 AM	#2
BLoggins02 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: College Station, TX Posts: 254	randman: why don't you try a revolutionary new concept called "politeness" and please keep all of these "what's the context of these quotes" posts in the same thread. People will respond to them, I promise. Oh yeah, and my comment about "what is this? argument by spurious quotation?" still applies. A theory stands on its own merits. It doesn't matter who says what about a theory. A dissenting quote does not a theoretical refutation make. If you do this again, I would ask the moderators to consider immediately moving all of your threads to RR&P as they appear, as you obviously love spamming the boards with all this stuff yet magically "don't have any time" to respond to it. We know you don't agree with us, we know you think we're wrong. This does not surprise us, but maybe show a little common courtesy and intellectual honesty and we may all learn something. [ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: BLoggins02 ]</p>

03-10-2002, 11:49 AM	#3
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	These are different quotes, and it has been alleged they are taken out of context in general, but the exact quotes have not been addressed. Since it seems necessary to verify the meaning of each of these quotes, and it can take a whole thread to discuss one quote in it's context, I think several threads are in order. Maybe you don't, but in case you haven't noticed, the posters who responded to me did so by raising numerous directions most of which would require tremendous detail to even begin to address, but all ignore these statements by dismissing them as out of context. Well, I really am not interested in discussing flood geology, or any number of things until these things get cleared up, and as some posters st art whole new threads bashing me for dodging them, I think I will continue to post each new set of quotes until that gets cleared up, and these people can move on. What strikes me is how posters like yourself can continually avoid such clear statements. They are not out of context. The fossil record does not prove evolution, and it is false to say it does.

03-10-2002, 01:15 PM	#5
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	I think it is legitimate if you folks address the first authors claims, at least. Is it true that most fossils come into the record all at once without any hint of gradualism? That's an evidentary claim, not an opinion. If that's not true, you guys can just say it's not without all the rest of the hulabaloo.

03-10-2002, 04:16 PM	#6
Troll Hunter Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: The vast, bone-riddled pains of the E/C boards. Posts: 21	<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000405" target="_blank">Context provided here</a>, in case you're not up to reading threads you didn't start/aren't named in. And now for a word from our sponsors ...

03-10-2002, 06:55 PM	#7
Automaton Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 717	randman: You deserve an honourary PhD for your masterful work at copying and pasting QUOTES, not arguments, OPINIONS, which are meaningless (why is it so hard for you to back up these supposedly "in-context" [you don't even know, you just take it for granted based on your skimming over a creationist site, why don't you get off your fat ass and look up the actual journal references for yourself!?] with ACTUAL ARGUMENTS or even A TINY SPECK OF EVIDENCE?) from another creationist, who merely ripped THOSE from that complete moron Gish's "the Fossils Still Say No!" (see, the creationist you copied it from didn't even look them up himself either! What quality scholarship!) Gish, unsuprisingly, just uses the technique of using out-of-context quotes and rhetoric and does not offer ONE SINGLE FACTUAL ARGUMENT! Fuck off, troll.

03-10-2002, 07:11 PM	#8
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	And over in Patrick's thread, the randman watch continues....

03-10-2002, 07:13 PM	#9
phlebas Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Metropolis Posts: 916	randman, Until you either answer the pending responses waiting for you in other threads, or shout "uncle," any new threads you start in this forum will be moved to Rants, Raves, and Preaching. Everyone here is happy to interact with those who disagree or who come here wanting to ask questions. No one here is interested in a belligerent troll who doesn't understand common rules of conduct. Come back when you can handle it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.