Evolutionists Dogmatic like WTS?

by Gedanken 63 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  pomegranate

  Flatly I don't believe you have read the article.

  Flatly I do not care what you believe regarding what I have and have not done. Frankly, it's just another personal smoke screen.

  You say everything that he has written in the article is pure speculation. Give me a concrete example. What about ring species? And, if it is ALL speculation, then isn't the bit you quoted also pure speculation?

  See the end of this post.

  (added: so do you think that Ridley's comments on the California Salamnder are based on faulty data - he shows that they consist of several different non-interbreeding species),

  Salamanders remain salamanders. Kinds can interbreed, species cannot.

  But, what I meant by "having nothing to do with evolution" is the following: You quoted Ridley as an "Oxford Zoologist" who, so you thought, was saying that evolution was not supported by the fossil record. That is you quoted him as an authority to make your point.

  I never THOUGHT that. Mr. Ridley contradicts himself in saying that no REAL evolutionist would use the fossil record as evidence opposed to special creation. THAT'S FALSE.

  REAL evolutionists EVERY day, use (mis-use) the fossil record all the time to refute creation. You can be sure that when he comes up against a creationist who is knowledgable as he is, that is time HE or any other REAL evolutionist would not use the fossil record as evidence, because their EVIDENCE folds like a house of cards.

  But now you no longer see his article as being meaningful, in fact, you say it's full of contradictions.

  The article is VERY meaningful to me NOW as it was when I first read it. IT IS full of contradictions and excuses for the missing in action transistions.

  That's because you misquoted him.

  Go back and cut and paste my "misquotation" will you?

  So whether he is right or wrong in what he says, or even if he is a total loon, nevertheless you misquoted him and misrepresented the conclusion of his article which was stated right at the beginning in the abstract.

  It's right at the beginning of the abstract that he shows his true intent. Explain away the serious flaw in the evolutionary theory of the missing transistions.

  So, I ask you again - why quote someone who you believe is an idiot and who contradicts himself?

  Because it's true.

  Had you criticized Ridley as contyracdicting himself from the start then fair enough - but you dishonestly presented him as an authority who seemed to back you up.

  That is WHOLEY incorrect. My stand was from the beginning, CONTRADICTION by his own words. If the fossil record is GOOD for evolution, then it surely be proof positive to any debate against a ceationist. If it is NOT, then any REAL evolutionist would NEVER use it because they know the HOLES that are in the record of which Ridley tries to patch up with speculative hypothesis.

  That is, you didn't know what his article was about - and I'd guess you still don't.

  I know what the article is about...It's called; The ship is sinking fast, stick your finger in the holes so the ship stays afloat!

  That's what makes you dishonest. You will misquote a person to advance your own ends which is just plain old fashioned lying.

  You are WRONG. Go re-read what I have written.

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Some paleontologists maintain that animals have evolved gradually, through an infinity of intermediate stages from one form to another. Others point out that the fossil record offers no firm evidence for such gradual change.

  Here Ridley states that paleontoligists themselves are in total disagreement and HAVE NO CLUE how evolution happened (gradual or not) because the fossil record IS ABSENT from transition.

  What really happened, they suggest, is that one animal species in the past survived more or less unchanged for a time, and then either died out or evolved rapidly into a new descendent form (or forms).

  Please note the above HYPOTEHSIS is only a SUGGESTION from the evolutionary paleontologists to the creationist paleontologists, so this is NOT a fact by a long shot.

  Thus, instead of gradual change, they posit the idea of "punctuated equilibrium."

  POSIT? I don't NEED positing, I need facts. Where's the BEEF? Since the fossil record contains NO transitional examples, they need to develope a NEW HYPOTHETICAL THEORUM to compensate for the lack of FACTS, so goes the POSIT.

  The argument is about the actual historical pattern; but outsiders, seeing a controversy unfolding have imagined that it is about the truth of evolution - whether evolution occurred at all.

  So, who's arguing here? It is paleontologists. The arguement is INSIDE THE FIELD, and that the actual historical PATTERN which is the fossil record, is VOID of all evolutionary proof. The controversy is BETWEEN Paleontologists...and outsiders are US, looking at them ARGUE over the historical pattern. KEWL HUH?

  This is a terrible mistake; and it springs, I believe from the false idea that the fossil record provides an important part of the evidence that evolution took place.

  Here is Mr. Ridley saying HIMSELF, that the fossil record as providing an important part of the evidence that evolution took place IS A FALSE IDEA. Why? Because it DOESN'T.

  So by Ridley's own words, the fossil record is NOT important to the theory. It is a false idea. Because the record is WEAK in regard to proving evolution. He KNOWS it is weak.

  In fact evolution is proven by a totally different set of arguments and the present debate within paleontology does not impinge at all on the evidence that supports evolution.

  Here is Mr Ridley again, insinuates that the fossil record IS NOT the proof evolutionists go by to PROVE the truth of evolution. He also goes on to say that the ARGUEMENT RAGES within the science field itself. Did you know that the field of paleontology was in such an intellectual upheaval?? It is. Because the "evidence" for evolution is WAAAAAaaaayyyyyy lacking.

  He also says there are OTHER sets of arguements that supports evolution. Hmmm. What the heck could they be????

  One is the SPECULATIVE ring species...Cool huh?

  The whole article can be blown away as dust in the wind...Ridley SURELY contradicts himself over and over again.

  Edited by - pomegranate on 30 October 2002 15:33:41
• 

  rem

  Pomegranate is a glutton for self-inflicted punishment. He just loves the world to see his lack of reading comprehension skills by publicly posting his misinterpretations of what scientists write on the Internet. I believe his misrepresentations are due to hebetudinous reasoning rather than malice - at least I can only hope.

  rem

  Edited by - rem on 30 October 2002 15:57:26
• 

  patio34

  "hebetudinous" for the vocabulary challenged of us:

  lethargic and dull.

  Pat
• 

  Gedanken

  pomegranate,

  What about the salamanders? Please explain carefully how the observational evidence that Ridley provides regarding living, non interbreeding salamnders is "pure speculation."

  For example, Ridley argues that the ring species of salamanders surrounds the San Joaquim Valley. The change between neighbours is gradual, but in San Diego county the two ends of the ring are distinct species.

  Does that come under the heading of "pure speculation" when it is based on direct observation?

  But you still misunderstand Ridley; the fossil record supports evolution but evolution does not depend on the fossil record - Ridley provides the salamanders but you have done nothing to disprove his argument beyond just stating that it is nonsense.

  Can you, for once provde a specific explanation why Ridley's article is "pure speculation" even though Creationists like to quote from it since it appears to give credence to the nonsense that evolutions think that the fossil record undermines evolution.

  You didn't quote Ridley originally because you though he was an idiot, you quoted him to add weigth to your argument that the fossil record does not support evolution; here is what your post consisted of:

  Here is how a professor of zoology at Oxford University, puts it:

  "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."*Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 831.

  You didn't say Ridley was an idiot then, did you; you said that he was a professor of zoologogy at Oxford. Now why say that, to show he is a nutcase or to show that he is a legitimate authority? Also, he wasn't a professor at Oxford - the Creationists promoted him to that for obvious reasons. He's actually now a Professor at Emory University in Atlanta.

  And what about Prof. Salisbury whom you treated similarly.

  Come on prmegranate, you are claiming the man you loved to quote is now an idiot because his article supports evolution and you claim it is pure speculation - tell me what is spculative about his photographs of living salamanders which prove that ring species exist.

  Gedanken