by GermanXJW 229 Replies latest jw friends
sorry thichi...i was J/K... thats why i put the smiley face!
I am very surprised that you have not blamed "ID" on the Zionists!
LOL good one!
by the same token...its surprising that you always complain about conspiracies and now you believe in one yourself!
I only offer another viewpoint that deserves some attention.
you are copy pasting articles about issues that you don'T understand and refuse to understand.
and NO they actually do not deserve attention.
Realist:
Please address the many remarks from respected scientists in the field that don’t share your optimism regarding the fossil record.
Let me guess, we are all ignorant? The fact is many questions remain........
This really is my viewpoint:
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Stephen J. Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pg 127)
ThiChi,
The fact that you do huge cut and pastes only reinforces the perception that you have no idea of what you are talking about. A person who fully understands a topic can summarize and pull small quotes to back up points where necessary. It is evident, both by your style and by the content you are pasting, that you do not have a firm grasp of the concepts.
Yes, there are many unanswered questions in the field of evolution. They just don't include the points the papers you quote bring up. Those are a bunch of non-issues that never needed to be addressed because they are simple misconceptions, or they are real issues that were dealt with long ago. If you want to get into more detail, I would suggest starting a new topic thread since you have sucessfully hijacked this one.
rem
This view too, seems resonable, I must agree:
"evolutionary theory deals with biology in the present, and uniformitarianism permits the use of present processes to explain past events. THe concept of uniformitarianism does not enter the picture until the attempt is made to use evolutionary theory (biological present) to explain the fossil record (paleobiological past). Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory. When an effort is made to explain the fossil record (whether it be taxonomic differences or changes in response to ecological factors) in terms of Darwinian evolution the concept of uniformitarianism is essential, for it alows us to use the present to explain the past. This should be its main purpose, to allow us to reconstruct the past on the basis of a theory or theories founded on nonhistoric events." (Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology), Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University, Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216.
ThiChi,
Interesting and unsurprising quote from Gould. Unfortunately you don't seem to understand the context it was written in. If you did, you would never have posted it.
rem
thichi,
i am sorry but i am not gonna address every so called "quote" against evolution from your list. from a first look it seems that 1/3 of the quotes have no date and are in part 100 or more years old. 1/3 is quotes from creationists and 1/3 is quotes taken out of context.
best example is your favorite one....did you even read Gould's book and do you understand punctuated equilibrium?
REM:
Calm down, my man!
Your tactic will not work. The issue is not if Cut&Paste is right or wrong, but if the information is worthy of consideration.
I have provided quotes from Scientists that the fossil record is not as "Factual" as you and Realist claim.
I stand by my claim, that you two are really intellectually dishonest, if you can’t admit there may be more than one valid viewpoint to consider.
The Fact? The fact is, on a percentage calculation alone, you don’t know much. In fact, no one has the answer.
Realist:
The question is, what part of the information do you disagree with?
Realist:
Many of the scientists quoted believe strongly in evolutionary theory, but the point is that their comments on various aspects of evolutionary theory at least reveal that there is discontent and a lack of consensus over many crucial aspects of naturalistic theories. One does get the impression that evolutionary theory as a whole, or at least in part, is by no means without its qualified skeptics in the academic arena. It is my true desire that anyone with the belief that evolutionary theory is 100% solid and not doubted by any legitimate scientists might be dissuaded from that perspective by reading these quotes. It is my hope that after reading these quotes you would also be able to come to some of these conclusions for yourself.
