Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils

Now go back and look at those transitional forms and respond.

This is a very tentative list of transitional fossils (fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with more derived life-forms to which it is related).

This isn't science. I quote from your wiki link.

It pressuposes the species are related.
What if I reject placing faith in your broad and over reaching presuppositions?

I placed faith in Darwin. They said the coelecanth was extinct Cretaceous era or 65 million years ago and we found some living recently. In fact they haven't changed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

So much for faith in the parable of the extinct coelecanth.

[coadie]

In fact, Lynn Margulis, a distinguished professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts has stated that history will ultimately judge Neo-Darwinism as “a minor twentieth century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology.” Make no mistake, no matter how much a “scientist” tries to convince you that Darwinism is fact or science, it is a religion, a cult, a belief built on faith in the words of others. The modern scientific community, particularly among microbiologists, is taking a lot of second and third looks at this outdated, unsubstantiated cult.

Ouch.
She may get kicked out of the church.

I have fun with the Darwinists. The more zeal they show like Pelthais, the more obvious to me is that they stumbled and don't have microbiology and biochemistry on their transcripts.
Of course Darwin had not taken micro either.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

This isn't science. I quote from your wiki link.

It pressuposes the species are related.
What if I reject placing faith in your broad and over reaching presuppositions?

I placed faith in Darwin. They said the coelecanth was extinct Cretaceous era or 65 million years ago and we found some living recently. In fact they haven't changed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

So much for faith in the parable of the extinct coelecanth.

Benny Hinn said that "There are NINE of them!" (Gods). So much for your theology.

Select a single fossil and show us why it does not represent a "transitional form" as per Charles Darwin's prediction. Select just one and show us.

As to the coelacanth, that was an amazing discovery - more than half a century ago. You're showing your age when you say "recently."

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Ouch.
She may get kicked out of the church.

I have fun with the Darwinists. The more zeal they show like Pelthais, the more obvious to me is that they stumbled and don't have microbiology and biochemistry on their transcripts.
Of course Darwin had not taken micro either.

Can you share the source of this "quote" for us?

Margulis is respected in many areas of science, though she does veer off into her "Gaia Hypothesis" with a bit too much enthusiasm. In my opinion.

Still, the "quote" looks suspicious. And your attempt at taunting will only lead you back to your crack pipe. You know this coadie. Just try and remain calm.

[coadie]

Gould even said in another place that ‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”’5

So if one rereads the original Patterson quote above, it is clear that it is perfectly legitimate to use it to highlight this ‘extreme rarity of transitional forms’ in the fossil record. Otherwise, the reference to Gould is meaningless.

So much for the doctrine of Gradualism.


Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

Transitionals are the product of artists. Not actual findings.

[coadie]

During a public lecture presented at New York City’s American Museum of Natural History on 5 November 1981, he dropped a bombshell among his peers that evening, who became very angry and emotional. Here are some extracts from what he said:

‘ … I’m speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it’s true to say that I know nothing whatever about either … One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let’s call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realisation.
‘… One morning I woke up … and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it.’ He added:
‘That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long … I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.”.’6
http://creation.com/that-quoteabout-...tional-fossils

looks like a faith based and false religion.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Gould even said in another place that ‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”’5

So if one rereads the original Patterson quote above, it is clear that it is perfectly legitimate to use it to highlight this ‘extreme rarity of transitional forms’ in the fossil record. Otherwise, the reference to Gould is meaningless.

So much for the doctrine of Gradualism.


Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

Transitionals are the product of artists. Not actual findings.

Yes, Stephen Jay Gould was a huge opponent to the theory of biological evolution.

Either that or you are misrepresenting the things these people have said.

Stephen J Gould on Stephen J Gould:

"Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand."

"I am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeply sad... I can understand that school curricula, imposed from above and without local input, might be seen as one more insult on all these grounds. But the culprit is not, and cannot be, evolution or any other fact of the natural world. Identify and fight our legitimate enemies by all means, but we are not among them."

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/libra...nd-theory.html

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

...
Transitionals are the product of artists. Not actual findings.

Consider the actual fossils in the photographs above. They are not "artistic representations." These are but a few of the actual fossils that have been found.

The exact place within the geologic column in which they were found is conclusively known. The dates (within the given parameters) are known. No human remains (homo sapiens) have ever been found in the same layers of the fossil record as Australopithecus.

Why coadie? Why didn't Adam and Eve and their descendants coexist with any Australopithecus?

... and I am selecting just one glaring fact that slips past that tightltly wound little knot at the top of your spinal cord. ... I gotta run to church now. Show why a single fossil - you pick which one - from any of the links and examples that I have given does not represent a "transitional form" like Darwin had predicted would be found.

... be back after a while.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Consider the actual fossils in the photographs above. They are not "artistic representations." These are but a few of the actual fossils that have been found.

The exact place within the geologic column in which they were found is conclusively known. The dates (within the given parameters) are known. No human remains (homo sapiens) have ever been found in the same layers of the fossil record as Australopithecus.

Why coadie? Why didn't Adam and Eve and their descendants coexist with any Australopithecus?

... and I am selecting just one glaring fact that slips past that tightltly wound little knot at the top of your spinal cord. ... I gotta run to church now. Show why a single fossil - you pick which one - from any of the links and examples that I have given does not represent a "transitional form" like Darwin had predicted would be found.

... be back after a while.

The underlining principles of uniformitarian geology are called the three principles of stratigraphy. They were actually developed by the Biblical geologist Nicolaus Steno about 1669. They are:

1.Principle of superposition.
2.Principle of continuity.
3.Principle of original horizontality
The geologic column assumes the three principles of stratigraphy. Two of these have been proved wrong, and one has never been tested.

Your lack of education and demonstyrated bias show you have nothing but presuppositions

You have no way to date the fossils. I know you don't and you will whine and attack and try to bluff.

It is also true that there is no way anyone can prove specifically all the creatures alive during Adam. it is faith.

http://creationwiki.org/Geological_column

[coadie]

Why didn't Adam and Eve and their descendants coexist with any Australopithecus?

I know you are unable to prove whether they did or did not. You are unable. I have a choice as did you whether to place my faith in that they did or didn't exist at the same time.
It takes a lot of faith to believe in the Darwinist doctrine.