evolution or creationism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCarolina420
"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.)
Yes, Dr. Schwartz, did say that, but did you look up who he actually is? He's one of the leading scietists in the field of human evolution, he's just acknowledging that there are gaps, as is to be expected in a theory that goes back BILLIONS of years.... You know, the Earth changes, things move around on the surface, of course some dingy old fossils are going to dissapear. At least quote someone who truly is against evolution....
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCarolina420
"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . â??The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwinâ??s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.â?? . . . their story has been suppressed." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71
Again, Steven M. Stanley is a leading evolutionist, who came up with a neo-Darwinian theory, and you took one of his quotes completely out of context. So far, you haven't convinced me...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCarolina420
"Gaps in the fossil record - particularly those parts of it that are most needed for interpreting the course of evolution - are not surprising." (Stebbins, G. L., Darwin to DNA, Molecules to Humanity, 1982, p. 107)
this is the weakest quote supporting your argument, and manages to prove absolutely nothing... Anyone can say this, I say it all the time, and I 'believe' in evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCarolina420
"We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multicellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning . . . A Scientist Shows Why Evolutionists are Wrong, 1984, p. 95)
LOL, don't let the title of the book fool you, look it up on Amazon.com.... It's a book that does exactly the opposite of what the title claims (called irony) and destroys any claims creationists might make one by one...
Well, you managed to do absolutely nothing woth those quotes, I hope it didn't take too long to find them and write them down. My suggestion, if you're gonna quote from books, make sure you're quoting from people who actually agree with your point, not mine...
evolution or creationism?
OMG, I just noticed something really funny...
NCarolina420, your last quote comes from a book who's real title is 'A Scientist Shows Why Creationists Are Wrong'... I can't believe I didn't notice this before. So you resort to changing quotes and book titles to suit your own purposes now?
See what I mean? this is the kind of proof creationists use to validate their point. Their so desperate that they take quotes out of context, especially when quoting scientists who support evolution (!) and they try to trick others by changing a word here and there. Well, the days of Religion hiding the truth are coming to an end.
evolution or creationism?
actually the person i had received that quote from had sent it to me wrong and had typed in evolutionist instead of creationist....either way it still contradicts evolution to its core so even the evolutionists are simply saying that it is not true...and since your all about quotes and stuff why don't you send me something that validates evolution id sure like to see it...but you won't find it...(and not from the humanist manifesto I or II because there is no proof from that hurrendous book)
evolution or creationism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCarolina420
it still contradicts evolution to its core
how does it contradict itself? :confused:
evolution or creationism?
"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . â??The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwinâ??s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.â?? . . . their story has been suppressed." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71
evolution or creationism?
read that..."...their evidence contradicted Darwins stress on minutes, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation...their story has been supresses." jus one example
evolution or creationism?
^ that doesnt mean anything, no one said darwin had everything right just the basic idea and concept of evolution (he was alive before breakthroughs in the field of genetics). creationists have the burden of proof, all they can do is try to mislead others about what evolution actually is.
evolution or creationism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCarolina420
actually the person i had received that quote from had sent it to me wrong and had typed in evolutionist instead of creationist....either way it still contradicts evolution to its core so even the evolutionists are simply saying that it is not true...and since your all about quotes and stuff why don't you send me something that validates evolution id sure like to see it...but you won't find it...(and not from the humanist manifesto I or II because there is no proof from that hurrendous book)
Are you living in an imaginary world???
Look for a recent National Geographic magazine, I think it was last October or November, or around there.... The cover story is about evolution. Have fun reading it. I have it here, but I won't type out the entire article, but suffice to say that it's pretty convincing.
evolution or creationism?
heh, actually I had already typed some exerpts from the article in a topic a while back, I managed to find it:
Exerpts from National Geographic:
Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamilia with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun and not vice-versa, offered by Compernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomimc theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observationand experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally--taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.
[...]
Orchids, wondrously adapted for controlling their pollination by insects, intrigued Darwin. The parts of their strangely modified flowers, he saw, correspond to the flower parts on simpler plants, suggesting evolutionary change. One species that caught his eye was the Madagascar orchid Angraecum sesquipedale, with its 11-inch-long nectar receptacle. He predicted that somewhere in Madagascar, a place he never visited, must live a moth with a proboscis 11 inches long, adapted to harvest the orchid's nectar. Forty years later two entomologists revealed the Madagascan sphinx moth Xanthopan morganii praedicta, confirming Darwin's forecast. Such mutual adaptation--the moth to the flower, the flower to the moth--is called coevolution.
[...]
Nightmarish illnesses caused by microbes include both the infectious sort (AIDS, Ebola, SARS) that spread directly from person to person and the sort (malaria, West Nile Fever) delivered to us by biting insects or other intermediaries. The capacity for quick change among disease-causing microbes is what makes them so dangerous to large numbers of people and so difficult and expensive to treat. They leap from wildlife or domestice animals into humans, adapting to new circumstances as they go. Their inherent variability allows them to find new ways of evading and defeating human immune systems. By natural selection, they acquire resistance to drugs that should kill them. They evolve. There's no better or more immediate evidence supporting the Darwinian theory than this process of forced transformation among our inimical germs.
evolution or creationism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrenchInhale
I believe in creationism and I feel evolution is hog-wash. Also, did you know that there have been a lot of scientist who have tried to disprove creationism and have ended up believeing in it and being converted? Just thought I would throw that tid bit in there. Peace.
Oh shit, I hate this debate (check this).
Wake me up when is over, or just let each to theirs
