Pomp

randman,

It was completely intellectually dishonest and typical of evolutionist claims because there was a deliberate ploy to pass off speculative data as fact.

Serious question: Until recently, Pluto was classified as a planet. New data has caused it to be viewed as, at best, a minor planet (this is the group into which asteroids are classified). In your view, was it dishonest of astonomers to pass off their speculative data about Pluto as fact?

This is just par for the course, and it is not honest appraisal of the facts, but passing off speculative data such as using one tooth to make drawings of a whole creature and such

Humor me. Provide an example of an entire creature being reconstructed from a single tooth.

The fact that the evolutionists here cannot admit to this is evidence as well that this is not science but propaganda.

Propaganda by whom to influence whom?

You do realize that, if scientists waited until they were absolutely sure that they had proven facts before publishing their findings, then scientists would never publish anything at all, correct?

I'm not addressing any of your specific scientific complaints. The E/C regulars are more than capable of handling those.

randman

"The original drawings were indeed a hoax."

Wow, an admission finally that it was a hoax. What I have noticed is evolutionists shying away from the word 'recapitulation" since it has been debunked though still talking about conserved embryonic stages which isn't really accurate either.
Frankly, I was surprised the term recapitulation was still used. I do think it is bogus evidence.
On the vestigal organs, I will grant you a small point, but I still would hardly call it conclusive evidence for evolution, and don't think it proves much except that animals are different, and use body parts differently at times. You might can call it consistent with evolutionary theory, but calling it "evidence" is too strong in my view.
It could be evidence we do't fully understand how these organs are used, and assume they should all be used in a similar fashion.
In a way, the fact these similar types of organs are used differently can be looked on as evidence against common descent since these organs have different purposes. I realize evolution posits a vey complex process where the function of these organs change over time, but at the same time, this is just speculation as far as I am concerned.

randman

Who is calling you a liar for pointing out that there are gaps in the fossil record?

"That alone has convinced me that near to nothing that the evolutionist community publishes is reliable.

What alone? That someone has apparently called you a liar for pointing out an obvious fact that all "evolutionists" accept anyway?"

PB, if you go back and read my earlier threads from a week or 2 ago, this is exactly what happened and why I decided to not play nice here anymore. It was absurd the ridiculous treatment I recieved, even from Phlebas one of the mods.

"Randman, you had your chance to change your lying ways, but your failed once again. Checking the pool, I see no one bet that you would behave any differently.
Moved to RRP. randman, if you must post, just post there."

There was absolutely no lie contained in this thread by me, nor in the previous threads Phlebas removed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

hezekiah jones

Moved, randman, not removed. They're still there, anxiously awaiting continuation of the frivolity.

randman

Theyti, are you really saying that the picures at the top have been posted?
Is this a lie, or just that you didn't look at the site?

hezekiah jones

You're losing it randman. They're in the other thread - the one in which you've also avoided virtually every question and rebuttal directed at you.

phlebas

Quick question, randman -- do you understand that those old threads of yours are still around yet?

I haven't moved this one yet, since there are people here who are still trying vainly to get you to read and respond. But I'm watching it carefully.

But please, answer my question -- do you believe that your old threads are still alive and well in a different part of this board?

randman

"By the way, if you are referring to the fossil quotes, the fact is the quotes were not taken out of context. It was admitted that the author's of the quotes were evolutionists,"
me

"I am referring to the "fossil quotes," among other things. Do you understand what is meant by "out of context?" They are not out of context because their authors were "evolutionists." They were out of context because you (or the YEC site you mined them from) only included a small portion of the quote which, independent of the context of the surrounding sentences, made it apear that the author was saying something that (s)he did not intend to say. This is usually considered an intellectually dishonest tactic."
you

The problem is that the surrounding lanquage did not negate the clear intention of the quotes. The authors are stating certain things about the fossil record to argue for punctuated equilibrium. I pointed this out ad nauseum, and frankly, the hostile and absurd replies and charges of deception convinced me that a sizable portion of evolutionists, at least those like pseudobug that argue so vehemently for evolution with total disregard to facts, are cult-like and suffering from indoctrination methods. Some like Morpho tried to offer up reasonable answers for the lack in the fossil record, but he was in the minority. The majority here basically convinced me that something dangerous and weird is going on with the way people are indoctrinated into evolution.
Really, whether evolution is true or not is somewhaty secondary to this issue of indoctrination.


"I've yet to see you give a clear definition of what you would consider a transitional fossil. My speculation is that you fear to do so because of the possibility that such a fossil has been discovered or will soon be discovered. No one has claimed that your standards have been met, simply because you have not defined your standards. I apologize if you did outline a clear, testable standard that I missed. If you haven't done so, then I invite you to do so now and finally put the issue to rest."
you

Apologies accepted. What I have stated is that the fossil record does not actually show the transitions occuring. For me to show macro-evolution, as I define the term just to make sure we don't play semantics, there needs to fossils which show species to species changes accomplishing major morphological change into what is clearly a new type of creature altogether. We can debate what is a new type of creature altogether if you want, but hopefully you get the picture. I want to see species morphing into something else. In other words, I want to see macro-evolution documented.
Maybe that is too primitive of an idea, but it seemed to me that if evolution were true there should be massive numbers of fossils showing such changes, that species should not exhibit "stasis" but rather gradual evolutionary change.
Now, I'll admit that evolutionists have come up with some creative ways to explain the lack of major morphological changes being shown by species to species transitions, but at the same time, I still don't see the actual fossil evidence as proving evolution, and it seems to me that it is just a good a case for Old Earth Creationism, or ID models.

Synaesthesia

Randman,

The important conceptions that evolved (sorry) from recapulation are the studies of commonalities in the processes by which various vertebra embryos grow. This is a reflection of their common ancestry but it is evidently not time-elapsed model of evolutionary history as it was initially hypothesized. The attention paid to developmental processes has paid off and focus is increasing today as we begin to unravel the relationship of gene to phenotype- the early thinking has produced sophisticated and useful conceptions of how animals grow and evolve.

To deny that organs change in what they do over time, given what we know about life and earth, is not only speculative it contradicts observed facts and is inconsistent with many otherwise sound inferences. Not only do organs change over time but the way in which structue and genes work together (for better AND for worse) change before our eyes. This is also observed and infered from evidence. That the earth is billions of years old is also well established. Through it’s history, the shape of animals change gradually and, unless we posit identical organs for different structures, so has the shape of their organs.

Exadaptation manifests itself both in the fossil record and in the way animals are made today. We find inefficiencies that are only really explicable in light of the fact that the organ once served a very different (sometimes even identifiabe) purpose. Of course we can deny all of this, in which case we have a very massive body of evidence which, whithout the bones of evolution, is a jumble of incoherent misquotations.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

randman

Synaesthesia, what you are saying is the evidence fits into evolutionary theory. I would say that first of all, I beleive significant evidence is ignored when it doesn't fit neatly into evolutionary theory, but that should be another thread, and a later date as well since I need to go.
What I really want to point out that consistent with is not the same as proving.
I submit that the evidence fits into ID and creationist models as well, that the evidence overall is not exclusionary and thus is not proof of evolution.