Alan,
My brother in law is an accountant in the uk - email me; I'm out this pm but we can talk tomorrow.
Gefanken
Gedanken
JoinedPosts by Gedanken
-
-
-
-
35
Kangaroos and the Fossil Record
by Gedanken increationists like to attack evolution by attacking the "fossil record" as being incomplete; i.e., if something existed, for example, transitional states, then we should see evidence of them in the fossil record.
so, their argument is that if something existed, then we should see it in the fossil record.. let's take a look at the case of kangaroos.
we must assume, if we accept the notion of a global flood, that noah collected two kangaroos for his menagerie in the ark.
-
-
Gedanken
pomagrante,
One misquotation per day is surely enough.
I suggest you read Ridley's article and then you will understand what he is saying. The fossil record does not in itself suggest gradual evolution, and Ridley emphasizes thatthis is what he is talking about - since it contains gaps, as even Darwin noted. It does, however, show that a variety of different species have existed over time - and that means millions of years - some of which are here now, but not then, while others existed then and not now. Evolution accounts for that fact whereas creationism cannot - just as it cannot explain the enigma about kangaroos.
The fossil record alone cannot tell us whether that resulted from evolution or from a God who wiped populations out every now and then. It could be the case that God plants fake bones to test between those who will follow the Bible and those who look to rational explanations. The fossil record cannot distinguish those possibilities - and that was Ridley's point.
But let's cut to the chase as I ask you again:
DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT READ RIDLEY"S ARTICLE BEFORE QUOTING HIM OUT OF CONTEXT?
What excuses do you have for your _proven_ intellectual dishonesty - I can suggest one but you might take it to be an insult.
Gedanken
Edited by - Gedanken on 27 October 2002 18:42:36
-
35
Kangaroos and the Fossil Record
by Gedanken increationists like to attack evolution by attacking the "fossil record" as being incomplete; i.e., if something existed, for example, transitional states, then we should see evidence of them in the fossil record.
so, their argument is that if something existed, then we should see it in the fossil record.. let's take a look at the case of kangaroos.
we must assume, if we accept the notion of a global flood, that noah collected two kangaroos for his menagerie in the ark.
-
-
Gedanken
As I will show, pomegranate is guilty of being intellecutually dishonest; this is the case whatever his reply to my question to him might be - if he even decides to reply at all.
If pomagranate didn't read the original article by Mark Ridley then he is doing merely what the WTS often does - quote people out of context, or misquote them altogether, to support preconceived beliefs. It is intellectually dishonest to obtain a quotation without checking the source and then simply passing it on.
If pomagranate did read the article then he is being intellectually dishonest in making Ridley appear to be saying something that will cause readers to draw a different conclusion from the one Ridley himself draws.
But, in these things most born again fundamentalist Christians are as crooked and dishonest as is the Watchtower Society. They would defend God with a lie (Job 13) although it is their own beliefs that they are defending through lies - the sure sign of the true believer.
Exceprts from Ridley's article - apart from title all bold mine:
Who doubts evolution?
[Abstract]Paleontologists diasgree about the speed and pattern of evolution. But they do not - as much recent publicity has implied - doubt that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution simply does not depend upon the fossil record.
[Introductory paragraph] 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. 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). Thus, instead of gradual change, they posit the idea of "punctuated equilibrium." 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. 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. 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.
[Para. 4] Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it's the creationists and the media. But why?
[Para 6 - IMPORTANT since it contains pom's quote]However, the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it.The same argument still applies. Eldredge and Gould pointed out that the fossil record might be even less complete than Darwin had thought. Populations in the process of speciating are probably small and geographically separated fromtheir ancestral population, so the ful course of speciation would not be preserved at any one site of fossil deposition. What we would see is a series replaced by another, obviously related and yet with no gradual transitional intermediate forms. In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationalist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed t special creation. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS UNPROVED. (capitals mine; italics his).
Follows three cast iron but lengthy arguments proving evolution, but note the final paragraph.
[final paragraph] If the creationists want to impress the Darwinian establishmen, it will be no use prating on about the fossils say. No good Darwinian's belief in evolution stands on the fossil evidence for gradual evolution, so nor will his belief fall by it. What we want to know instead is what the creationists say about organiz variation in space and time, in nature and the laboratory, about the artificial manufacture of new species, about ring species of gulls, about the universality of the genetic code. And about a host of other cases of which these are but examples.
**************************
So the creationists have erected a straw man - the fossil record - and then proceded to attack it rather than the actual accepted evidence for evolution. The fossil record is certainly consistent with evolution, but, as I showed above, attacking the gaps in it presents problems for those who accept Creation and a flood, e.g., "how did kangaroos get to Australia aftre the flood without leaving fossil evidence elsewhere."
As usual, Creationists have deliberately, and dishonestly, quoted a scientist out of context to try to prove their point. The basic point of the article is that differences in opinion about various theories of evolution, and what the fossil record is saying, in no way call evolution itself into question. This infuriates creationists because they generally do not have the critical thinking abilities to understand the point being made. It is quite simple: I might not be able to explain how gravity works but my inability does not do away with gravity itself.
As usual, pomagranate has said nothing original on the point of evolution - preferring to employ quotes - or, in this case, misrepresentative quotations.
I encourage everyone to visit their local library and read the entire article. It presents a compelling case for the truth of evolution - and the article is now over 20 years old.
Gedanken
Edited by - Gedanken on 27 October 2002 18:12:56
Edited by - Gedanken on 27 October 2002 18:16:13
-
35
Kangaroos and the Fossil Record
by Gedanken increationists like to attack evolution by attacking the "fossil record" as being incomplete; i.e., if something existed, for example, transitional states, then we should see evidence of them in the fossil record.
so, their argument is that if something existed, then we should see it in the fossil record.. let's take a look at the case of kangaroos.
we must assume, if we accept the notion of a global flood, that noah collected two kangaroos for his menagerie in the ark.
-
-
Gedanken
IW - thanks for your kind words and insights.
Carlos - unfortunately I don't speak German and am not German. The handle comes from the idea of "thought" or "gedanken" experiment in physics - it has to do with a thought experiment that is worth doing: imagine that JWs who died in the 1950s were resurrected - would they recognize the religion...
jack2 - check your email.
Gedanken
Edited by - Gedanken on 27 October 2002 15:46:54
-
35
Kangaroos and the Fossil Record
by Gedanken increationists like to attack evolution by attacking the "fossil record" as being incomplete; i.e., if something existed, for example, transitional states, then we should see evidence of them in the fossil record.
so, their argument is that if something existed, then we should see it in the fossil record.. let's take a look at the case of kangaroos.
we must assume, if we accept the notion of a global flood, that noah collected two kangaroos for his menagerie in the ark.
-
-
Gedanken
jack2,
Thanks for your comments and observations. Yes, it is a very interesting article. It will be equally interesting to see if pomegranate is quoting from the actual article or merely reproducing a quotation he (or she) found somewhere - incidentally, the latter is the standard practice of the Watchtower Society; if it is wrong for the Society to quote people out of context to bolster its predictions of the end, then is it equally wrong for them to quote evolutionists out of context to support Creation? If it is, then surely it must be just as bad for non JW creationists to do the same thing. Or am I missing something?
Anyway, I'll post what Ridley said after pomegranate has answered. There is no doubt that the quotation itself is accurate by the way. Actually, I'd try to post the entire article but I don't know how to do that, assuming that my digital camera is good enough to get the resolution correct.
In the meantime here's a book by Mark Ridley - it's interesting to read the table of contents.
Gedanken
-
35
Kangaroos and the Fossil Record
by Gedanken increationists like to attack evolution by attacking the "fossil record" as being incomplete; i.e., if something existed, for example, transitional states, then we should see evidence of them in the fossil record.
so, their argument is that if something existed, then we should see it in the fossil record.. let's take a look at the case of kangaroos.
we must assume, if we accept the notion of a global flood, that noah collected two kangaroos for his menagerie in the ark.
-
-
Gedanken
pomegranate,
You'll note that I wasn't using the fossil record as evidence for evolution versus special creation. I was applying the same arguments that Creationists use to deny evolution, i.e., by attacking the fossil record, to demonstrate that those arguments also, and equally, argue against a global flood.
In fact, it is Creationists who insist that the fossil record is used by evolutionists to prove evolution.
But since you quoted Mark Ridley - a noted evolutionist - let me ask you this, pomegranate, have you read the article or did you merely reproduce a quotation you found somewhere?
You see, I have the actual article on my desk right now.
Please do answer before I post what Professor Ridley's article said.
Gedanken
Edited by - Gedanken for typos on 27 October 2002 14:24:37
Edited by - Gedanken on 27 October 2002 14:56:46
-
35
Kangaroos and the Fossil Record
by Gedanken increationists like to attack evolution by attacking the "fossil record" as being incomplete; i.e., if something existed, for example, transitional states, then we should see evidence of them in the fossil record.
so, their argument is that if something existed, then we should see it in the fossil record.. let's take a look at the case of kangaroos.
we must assume, if we accept the notion of a global flood, that noah collected two kangaroos for his menagerie in the ark.
-
-
Gedanken
Creationists like to attack evolution by attacking the "fossil record" as being incomplete; i.e., if something existed, for example, transitional states, then we should see evidence of them in the fossil record.
So, their argument is that if something existed, then we should see it in the fossil record.
Let's take a look at the case of Kangaroos. We must assume, if we accept the notion of a global flood, that Noah collected two kangaroos for his menagerie in the Ark. This, then, supposes that kangaroos were natives of the Middle East at that time, along with representatives of all other species we see today.
This raises a number of questions, including:
(i) By Creationists own arguments then we should see plentiful evidence of kangaroos and other marsupials in the fossil records of Asia, the Middle East, Europe etc. In reality, marsupial fossils are extremely rare in Europe and Asia and are not kangaroo-like at all.
(ii) How did marsupials get back to Australia and why didn't placentals accompany them?
(iii) Australis's fossils do show a rich variety of marsupials including a flesh eating marsupial lion.
Of course, Creationists love to engage in special pleading - here we have an example (one of many) in which their arguments against the fossil record also argue against their dearly held beliefs as well - so let's see how the Creationists respond - with reasoned argumentation or special pleading and invocation of divine transportation of animals....
Gedanken
Edited by - Gedanken on 27 October 2002 12:48:34
-
18
XJW web sites
by ballistic inif you had unlimited skills, time and web space and cost was no object, what kind of xjw web site would you build and why?
do you think there is a need for more types of site?
i ask this as part of my market research for building a site.
-
-
Gedanken
There's a huge site devoted to blood:
-
113
Bill Bowen's attack on Ray Franz
by COJ inbill bowens attack on ray franz: .
i very seldom find time for checking the discussions going on at various debate sites, and wasnt aware of bill bowens statements about ray franz in his original post of oct. 9, 2002 at 7:26 (now evidently altered), until a friend quite recently sent my a copy of it.
i was not only surprised but was shocked at his statements.
-
-
Gedanken
I think COJ's point is, if I interpret it correctly, that no one has any special responsibility to become involved in the child abuse issue unless one either (a) has direct knowledge of some relevant event or (b) one wants to. COJ has done tremendously valuable work in exposing the doctrinal silliness of many JW teachings - in particular those regarding chronology. In fact, the argument could be made that this is a much more serious long-term issue for the JWs than is child abuse, in the sense that COJ's work destroys the very basis of the religion whereas, as COJ notes, child abuse in religious organizations -and society - is widespread; the issue with the JWs is not whether it happens but the degree to which the religion covers up molestation. So it is a question of "degree" not "whether or not" and so people, COJ, Ray Franz, Bill Bowen and others must be allowed to express their opinions and put their efforts where they will. A simple blanket condemnation of someone who diasgrees with a particular position in some details is unfair - especially if the people involved are being named publicly.
The Pope has recently defended their equivalent of the "two-witness" rule for priests accused of molestation and the authorities are not really responding with legal action. So the only redress with the JWs is to do what Bill is doing; generate publicity and private or class action lawsuits. For those who choose not to get involved directly, it isn't a question of supporting or not supporting silentlambs in many cases - it is more a question of deciding where to put one's efforts; in particular, without special knowledge of child abuse within the JWs it's unclear what anyone can do that will be very effective; if Ray Franz had special knowledge then he would tell us that, unless we think the man is a liar.
It strikes me that while silentlambs has been very effective in helping victims and pressuring the WTS to reform, that perhaps some see it as a mechanism for bringing the WTS "down." That isn't its primary purpose.
I'd also add that the blood issue is also an example of child abuse, and more; as is the psychological damage that many JW children and adults suffer. To single out a single issue as the touchstone of one's integrity while implicitly ignoring these other problems which COJ and Ray Franz have been pioneers in addressing is unkind, to say the least.
Gedanken
-
31
So Has Anyone Got A Joke For HL Then?
by Englishman in3 times a year, at the end of every college term, her ladyship likes to have a joke to tell at the end of term party.
normally softly spoken and amiable, she likes to have a well rehearsed, totally original joke to tell at the party, the more raucous the better as far as she is concerned.
in fact, she has become something of a legend now, so that she is already being asked if she has her joke sorted out for xmas, so good at the telling of them is she.. the problem is, that this terms joke, whilst being exceedingly funny, does require the use of a welsh accent.
-
-
Gedanken
E-man,
A man sees a sign in a dry cleaners/launderers in a Jewish part of New York City (or Golders Green perhaps) that says "Clothes laundered while you wait." Being in a hurry he goes in and hands his stuff over to be cleaned, picks up the receipt and asks how long they'll take. She says come back in 3 days - they'll be ready then. He says, but your signs says "while you wait." She says, so, you gonna stop waiting after two days!
Gedanken