NFT: World Renowned Scientist: Definitive Proof God Exists

that god exists.

As I said this is just another in a series of creationist ploys to distort real science. They are really forms of the same thing. Their target audience does not understand science well enough(if at all) to understand the false argument, I just searched and found a website which explains this in a better way than I could. The first paragraph:

"Microevolution, when used by creationists, refers to arbitrarily small evolutionary changes. This use posits that some kinds of evolution can happen, but the larger changes—referred to as macroevolution—cannot happen naturally. This is the evolutionary equivalent of saying that the mechanism you use to move from your bedroom to the kitchen (i.e., walking) is insufficient to get you from Boston to Los Angeles. In another sense it is like saying that watching objects fall to Earth is "microgravity" but the sun exerting influence on the planets is "macrogravity" (They might actually have it ready when needed). In short, it is a nonsensical distinction, but a useful concept for creationists to use where the evidence for evolution is impossible to deny."
Link - ( New Window )

Personally, I believe God exists. But it is just as irrational to believe there is a God as is it is to believe no God exists. There is no evidence supporting either position.

In comment 12989939 Maximus, Esq. said:

Quote:

Personally, I believe God exists. But it is just as irrational to believe there is a God as is it is to believe no God exists. There is no evidence supporting either position.

No one here has said god doesn't exist. The contention is that there is no tangible, testable evidence that god exists.

In comment 12989937 Big Al said:

Quote:

As I said this is just another in a series of creationist ploys to distort real science. They are really forms of the same thing. Their target audience does not understand science well enough(if at all) to understand the false argument, I just searched and found a website which explains this in a better way than I could. The first paragraph: "Microevolution, when used by creationists, refers to arbitrarily small evolutionary changes. This use posits that some kinds of evolution can happen, but the larger changes—referred to as macroevolution—cannot happen naturally. This is the evolutionary equivalent of saying that the mechanism you use to move from your bedroom to the kitchen (i.e., walking) is insufficient to get you from Boston to Los Angeles. In another sense it is like saying that watching objects fall to Earth is "microgravity" but the sun exerting influence on the planets is "macrogravity" (They might actually have it ready when needed). In short, it is a nonsensical distinction, but a useful concept for creationists to use where the evidence for evolution is impossible to deny." Link - ( New Window )

I am not using some ploy to try and convert anyone to anything. Everyone has to make their own conclusions as to what they want to believe, whether it's Panspermia, Theistic Evolution, Classical Evolution, Creation, or whatever.

I find many people who fear the possible existence of an intelligence get very testy if you question anything about classical evolution. Makes it difficult to have a quality debate when one side is easily offended and shuts down.

If "micro-evolution" is virtually no different than "macro-evolution" - then the question begs: what were the circumstances that led to the beginning of life? What caused very simple single-celled lifeforms to "morph" into a walking, swimming, flying, growing, thinking, reproducting, life form? If classical evolution is factual, where are the transitional forms between simple and complex found in the fossil record? Why can't we reproduce similar phenomena when we so thoroughly understand the workings of living things? Why does life require opposite sexes?

Everyone seems to prefer talking about the ability for life forms to vary due to the environment or breeding factors (micro-evolution). But that doesn't explain why lifeless slurry suddenly became life in a simple form and it certainly doesn't explain why it became dual gendered and how it grew a complex and perfect skeletal system in which to develop a brain, eyes, and so forth (macro-evolution). Hence, the small adaptations we have figured out such as natural selection and adaptation are a couple of "links" in a chain that requires many millions of links and we don't understand it. We have a "missing chain", not a "missing link". And according to the greatest paleontologist in history (Stephen Jay Gould, may he RIP), the fossil record indicates a missing chain. Hence the reason he took off on the punctuated equilibria kick simply because he could not find "transitional forms" in the fossil record and discovered that fully formed life forms suddenly appear in a certain geological strata and just as quickly disappear. But there are no traces of intermediate life forms. This troubled Gould and he had access to millions of fossils hidden in the basements of the British Museum of Natural History (where hundreds of thousands are stored) and the American Museum of Natural History (again, where untold hundreds of thousands of fossils are stored). Gould spent years in these dark basements comparing every type of fossil and every type of bone ever discovered. His conclusion can be found in his writings:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.

Like Gould, many of the most prominent evolutionary scientists know just how much the theory relies on imagination, not substance that can be documented. But in order to keep a career and the money flowing in from universities and government educational grants, the scientists must keep little secrets from the knaves like us.

World renown late paleontologist and systematist, the prestigious Dr. Colin Patterson after spending the majority of his life as an advocate of classical evolution (gradualism) addressed a crowd of colleagues and made his famous quote: "Can any one of you tell me anything about evolution, any one thing that is true?"

In comment 12989964 mavric said:

Quote:

In comment 12989937 Big Al said: Quote: As I said this is just another in a series of creationist ploys to distort real science. They are really forms of the same thing. Their target audience does not understand science well enough(if at all) to understand the false argument, I just searched and found a website which explains this in a better way than I could. The first paragraph: "Microevolution, when used by creationists, refers to arbitrarily small evolutionary changes. This use posits that some kinds of evolution can happen, but the larger changes—referred to as macroevolution—cannot happen naturally. This is the evolutionary equivalent of saying that the mechanism you use to move from your bedroom to the kitchen (i.e., walking) is insufficient to get you from Boston to Los Angeles. In another sense it is like saying that watching objects fall to Earth is "microgravity" but the sun exerting influence on the planets is "macrogravity" (They might actually have it ready when needed). In short, it is a nonsensical distinction, but a useful concept for creationists to use where the evidence for evolution is impossible to deny." Link - ( New Window ) I am not using some ploy to try and convert anyone to anything. Everyone has to make their own conclusions as to what they want to believe, whether it's Panspermia, Theistic Evolution, Classical Evolution, Creation, or whatever. I find many people who fear the possible existence of an intelligence get very testy if you question anything about classical evolution. Makes it difficult to have a quality debate when one side is easily offended and shuts down. If "micro-evolution" is virtually no different than "macro-evolution" - then the question begs: what were the circumstances that led to the beginning of life? What caused very simple single-celled lifeforms to "morph" into a walking, swimming, flying, growing, thinking, reproducting, life form? If classical evolution is factual, where are the transitional forms between simple and complex found in the fossil record? Why can't we reproduce similar phenomena when we so thoroughly understand the workings of living things? Why does life require opposite sexes? Everyone seems to prefer talking about the ability for life forms to vary due to the environment or breeding factors (micro-evolution). But that doesn't explain why lifeless slurry suddenly became life in a simple form and it certainly doesn't explain why it became dual gendered and how it grew a complex and perfect skeletal system in which to develop a brain, eyes, and so forth (macro-evolution). Hence, the small adaptations we have figured out such as natural selection and adaptation are a couple of "links" in a chain that requires many millions of links and we don't understand it. We have a "missing chain", not a "missing link". And according to the greatest paleontologist in history (Stephen Jay Gould, may he RIP), the fossil record indicates a missing chain. Hence the reason he took off on the punctuated equilibria kick simply because he could not find "transitional forms" in the fossil record and discovered that fully formed life forms suddenly appear in a certain geological strata and just as quickly disappear. But there are no traces of intermediate life forms. This troubled Gould and he had access to millions of fossils hidden in the basements of the British Museum of Natural History (where hundreds of thousands are stored) and the American Museum of Natural History (again, where untold hundreds of thousands of fossils are stored). Gould spent years in these dark basements comparing every type of fossil and every type of bone ever discovered. His conclusion can be found in his writings: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14. Like Gould, many of the most prominent evolutionary scientists know just how much the theory relies on imagination, not substance that can be documented. But in order to keep a career and the money flowing in from universities and government educational grants, the scientists must keep little secrets from the knaves like us. World renown late paleontologist and systematist, the prestigious Dr. Colin Patterson after spending the majority of his life as an advocate of classical evolution (gradualism) addressed a crowd of colleagues and made his famous quote: "Can any one of you tell me anything about evolution, any one thing that is true?"

Life does not require opposite sexes. There are still plenty of species that reproduce asexually.

There are literally thousands of examples of "transitional" species.

No, we don't understand what first created life. That's not any sort of argument for or against evolution or god. It is just an unknown.

If you accept micro-evolution as small changes in species over a relatively short period of time, why are you struggling so much with the idea of when that time period is extended to "unfathomable" lengths (millions or billions of years) that all of those small changes would build upon one another to eventually end up with a completely different species? Your arguments aren't logical.

folks have reconciling religion and evolution.

God is all knowing and all powerful. Evolution just happens to be the mechanism used to get the result he wanted. Just like he created all sorts of physical laws to govern our reality.

They don't conflict at all that I can tell.

In comment 12989964 mavric said:

Quote:

In comment 12989937 Big Al said: Quote: As I said this is just another in a series of creationist ploys to distort real science. They are really forms of the same thing. Their target audience does not understand science well enough(if at all) to understand the false argument, I just searched and found a website which explains this in a better way than I could. The first paragraph: "Microevolution, when used by creationists, refers to arbitrarily small evolutionary changes. This use posits that some kinds of evolution can happen, but the larger changes—referred to as macroevolution—cannot happen naturally. This is the evolutionary equivalent of saying that the mechanism you use to move from your bedroom to the kitchen (i.e., walking) is insufficient to get you from Boston to Los Angeles. In another sense it is like saying that watching objects fall to Earth is "microgravity" but the sun exerting influence on the planets is "macrogravity" (They might actually have it ready when needed). In short, it is a nonsensical distinction, but a useful concept for creationists to use where the evidence for evolution is impossible to deny." Link - ( New Window ) I am not using some ploy to try and convert anyone to anything. Everyone has to make their own conclusions as to what they want to believe, whether it's Panspermia, Theistic Evolution, Classical Evolution, Creation, or whatever. I find many people who fear the possible existence of an intelligence get very testy if you question anything about classical evolution. Makes it difficult to have a quality debate when one side is easily offended and shuts down. If "micro-evolution" is virtually no different than "macro-evolution" - then the question begs: what were the circumstances that led to the beginning of life? What caused very simple single-celled lifeforms to "morph" into a walking, swimming, flying, growing, thinking, reproducting, life form? If classical evolution is factual, where are the transitional forms between simple and complex found in the fossil record? Why can't we reproduce similar phenomena when we so thoroughly understand the workings of living things? Why does life require opposite sexes? Everyone seems to prefer talking about the ability for life forms to vary due to the environment or breeding factors (micro-evolution). But that doesn't explain why lifeless slurry suddenly became life in a simple form and it certainly doesn't explain why it became dual gendered and how it grew a complex and perfect skeletal system in which to develop a brain, eyes, and so forth (macro-evolution). Hence, the small adaptations we have figured out such as natural selection and adaptation are a couple of "links" in a chain that requires many millions of links and we don't understand it. We have a "missing chain", not a "missing link". And according to the greatest paleontologist in history (Stephen Jay Gould, may he RIP), the fossil record indicates a missing chain. Hence the reason he took off on the punctuated equilibria kick simply because he could not find "transitional forms" in the fossil record and discovered that fully formed life forms suddenly appear in a certain geological strata and just as quickly disappear. But there are no traces of intermediate life forms. This troubled Gould and he had access to millions of fossils hidden in the basements of the British Museum of Natural History (where hundreds of thousands are stored) and the American Museum of Natural History (again, where untold hundreds of thousands of fossils are stored). Gould spent years in these dark basements comparing every type of fossil and every type of bone ever discovered. His conclusion can be found in his writings: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14. Like Gould, many of the most prominent evolutionary scientists know just how much the theory relies on imagination, not substance that can be documented. But in order to keep a career and the money flowing in from universities and government educational grants, the scientists must keep little secrets from the knaves like us. World renown late paleontologist and systematist, the prestigious Dr. Colin Patterson after spending the majority of his life as an advocate of classical evolution (gradualism) addressed a crowd of colleagues and made his famous quote: "Can any one of you tell me anything about evolution, any one thing that is true?"

A few points. I see you used another Creationist ploy in your post. Debate by scientists about the mechanisms and details of evolution is not doubt about their belief in evolution, but Creationists use isolated quotes by scientists to mislead people to think that such legitimate scientists doubt evolution.

Second, I don't see any "fear" by those who believe in evolution, of intelligent intervention. What I see is them finding no evidence or need for it. In other words, scientific doubt, not fear.

Third, the fossil record of transitional forms is overwhelming. Frankly I think pretty much all fossil records, other than those species that went extinct are transition forms between one thing and another. If you expect an absolutely complete fossil record, you are doing what Creationists do, ask for more than possible, and then claim victory because the impossible is not achieved (while holding their own claims free of need of any evidence).

By the way, who claims life needs two sexes?

trying to convert anyone to anything. I really don't care what you believe concerning God or Evolution.

There is no PLOY. Except for super-sensitive people who think everything is a ploy when confronted with questions they cannot answer.

And seriously, when Stephen Jay Gould says that are no transitional forms of life found in the fossil record, I'll take his word over some guy on a sports message board who probably has never even taken a college course in biology or anthropology. Gould was the most respected paleontologist in the world by virtually every scientist - a most highly esteemed Harvard University professor.

Why do you think it's a "ploy" to question something? I don't question natural selection or adaptation. I don't question selective processes. I question things like, "how did life originate from nothing?" and "how did single celled organisms become multi-celled organisms?" and "how can DNA code contain billions of data that creates all that we are?".

There is no ploy - just questions without answers. But it apparently rubs some people the wrong way to ask questions.

"Along with many other researchers in the field, Gould's works were sometimes deliberately taken out of context by creationists as "proof" that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved. Gould himself corrected some of these misinterpretations and distortions of his writings in later works."

In comment 12990023 Big Al said:

Quote:

"Along with many other researchers in the field, Gould's works were sometimes deliberately taken out of context by creationists as "proof" that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved. Gould himself corrected some of these misinterpretations and distortions of his writings in later works."

This reminds very much of the marathon session with Spock and his hired gun. Pointless to continue because Mavric has transparently displayed his purpose, and that purpose isn't to "discuss' anything rationally.

I have never taken a college course in anthropology. I did take one course in biochemistry but at a very basic level.

In comment 12990028 BMac said:

Quote:

In comment 12990023 Big Al said: Quote: "Along with many other researchers in the field, Gould's works were sometimes deliberately taken out of context by creationists as "proof" that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved. Gould himself corrected some of these misinterpretations and distortions of his writings in later works." This reminds very much of the marathon session with Spock and his hired gun. Pointless to continue because Mavric has transparently displayed his purpose, and that purpose isn't to "discuss' anything rationally.

You remember some of my debates with Spock? That was fun. Must have been around the year 2000.

In comment 12990033 Big Al said:

Quote:

In comment 12990028 BMac said: Quote: In comment 12990023 Big Al said: Quote: "Along with many other researchers in the field, Gould's works were sometimes deliberately taken out of context by creationists as "proof" that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved. Gould himself corrected some of these misinterpretations and distortions of his writings in later works." This reminds very much of the marathon session with Spock and his hired gun. Pointless to continue because Mavric has transparently displayed his purpose, and that purpose isn't to "discuss' anything rationally. You remember some of my debates with Spock? That was fun. Must have been around the year 2000.

I do remember those; difficult to forget dinosaurs in the Congo! However, I'm referring to a session in which Spock got banned, along with his compatriot who tried his best to impersonate an intellectual (he got shit-canned, too). This was between 1.5 and 2 years ago.

Now we have Mavric. How are you Spock?

Quote:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.

First off, your citation is wrong.

Here is the original article is was from:

Gould, S. J. 1977. "Evolution's Erratic Pace" in Natural History 86(5):12-16.

Secondly, here is Gould himself correcting the false interpretation of what you quoted:

Quote:

[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.] Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices. I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . . Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. - Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

So there is your answer for why nobody (including Gould) believes there are no transitional species in the fossil records.

In comment 12990060 BMac said:

Quote:

In comment 12990033 Big Al said: Quote: In comment 12990028 BMac said: Quote: In comment 12990023 Big Al said: Quote: "Along with many other researchers in the field, Gould's works were sometimes deliberately taken out of context by creationists as "proof" that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved. Gould himself corrected some of these misinterpretations and distortions of his writings in later works." This reminds very much of the marathon session with Spock and his hired gun. Pointless to continue because Mavric has transparently displayed his purpose, and that purpose isn't to "discuss' anything rationally. You remember some of my debates with Spock? That was fun. Must have been around the year 2000. I do remember those; difficult to forget dinosaurs in the Congo! However, I'm referring to a session in which Spock got banned, along with his compatriot who tried his best to impersonate an intellectual (he got shit-canned, too). This was between 1.5 and 2 years ago. Now we have Mavric. How are you Spock?

yeah I realised that after I posted. Someone found the forum where Rocky/Rhett/Spock called for help from his pal Eunuch to help him in his debate with the "New York Jews"

Quote:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. - Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

In comment 12990071 Cam in MO said:

Quote:

Quote: Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. - Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

This is quite a quandary. Who are we to believe on what Gould thought? A quote from Gould himself or a guy on a sports message board?

In comment 12990077 Big Al said:

Quote:

In comment 12990071 Cam in MO said: Quote: Quote: Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. - Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260. This is quite a quandary. Who are we to believe on what Gould thought? A quote from Gould himself or a guy on a sports message board?

Its obvious, you need to go with the BBI member.

In his attempt to re-define science as "natural science". This tactic is quite literally used by every creationalist who speaks in a public forum. If accepted, it muddles and dilutes generations of study, rigorous debate and testing to terms only the creationalist is willing to accept. Nonsense.

My ridicule of you was well earned. There's no shame in not knowing something. There's no shame in holding different beliefs, in the minority, whicheck fly in the face of consensus, as Giordano Bruno and Copernicious did centuries ago.

The shame lies in claiming to hold all of the answers - the Universe and everything in it - spins at the behest of a being who's not shown himself once in several millenia. The believe in God, you must accept one of, if not a combination of:

a) God is a benevolent being who allows the massacre, suffering and destruction of his favorite chosen creation, or;

b) God is powerless to stop it;

c) God is a malevolent being that invokes pain and suffering, to what ends I'm sure I don't know.


My ridicule of you is based not on your beliefs, but the dishonest manner in which you intentionally twist and obfuscate things which are no longer in dispute by reasonable individuals.

Evolution and all that it entails are not in dispute. It's established fact and the evidence is quite literally everywhere, in all forms of life, and are accepted by every scientific discipline.

If you've ever debated learned individuals, as you so claim, I can only surmise the reason you weren't laughed out of the room was their unending patience and politeness.

And I've no doubt that you are, in fact, Spock.

I hate the fall back, "God works in mysterious ways".

My daughters friend was killed in HS. She was jogging and a senior citizen swerved and hit her. The minister at her funeral kept saying she was so special God wanted her now. I was tempted to ask him why she had to suffer 3 days in the hospital AFTER being hit by a fucking car if she was so special.

Why did God create homosexuals?

doubt this is Spock.

In comment 12990148 Big Al said:

Quote:

doubt this is Spock.

The timing, the message, and the method is just too coincidental for this not to be Spock.

In comment 12990217 BMac said:

Quote:

In comment 12990148 Big Al said: Quote: doubt this is Spock. The timing, the message, and the method is just too coincidental for this not to be Spock.

Spock does not know enough about science to comment at this level.

In comment 12990219 Big Al said:

Quote:

In comment 12990217 BMac said: Quote: In comment 12990148 Big Al said: Quote: doubt this is Spock. The timing, the message, and the method is just too coincidental for this not to be Spock. Spock does not know enough about science to comment at this level.

But he (Mavric) isn't talking about science. He's quoting from the Creationist playbook, just as he and his compatriot did in the recent past. He's copying and pasting this tripe, with small revisions to make it fit the thread narrative.

In comment 12990225 BMac said:

Quote:

In comment 12990219 Big Al said: Quote: In comment 12990217 BMac said: Quote: In comment 12990148 Big Al said: Quote: doubt this is Spock. The timing, the message, and the method is just too coincidental for this not to be Spock. Spock does not know enough about science to comment at this level. But he (Mavric) isn't talking about science. He's quoting from the Creationist playbook, just as he and his compatriot did in the recent past. He's copying and pasting this tripe, with small revisions to make it fit the thread narrative.

Spock did not know enough on how to use the playbook by himself. His answers were even more shallow. He needed his henchman Eunuch to get up to this level.

In comment 12990228 Big Al said:

Quote:

In comment 12990225 BMac said: Quote: In comment 12990219 Big Al said: Quote: In comment 12990217 BMac said: Quote: In comment 12990148 Big Al said: Quote: doubt this is Spock. The timing, the message, and the method is just too coincidental for this not to be Spock. Spock does not know enough about science to comment at this level. But he (Mavric) isn't talking about science. He's quoting from the Creationist playbook, just as he and his compatriot did in the recent past. He's copying and pasting this tripe, with small revisions to make it fit the thread narrative. Spock did not know enough on how to use the playbook by himself. His answers were even more shallow. He needed his henchman Eunuch to get up to this level.

He's had two years to "bone up."

I had a wedding to go to yesterday so haven't been on in awhile.

Looks like I kicked a hornet's nest and stirred up a lot of sensitive people.

Regardless, I have no "ploy" as I have no desire to change anyone's beliefs and I certainly do not have a "playbook". I have never defended creationism because there is no hard evidence to back it up. I only question things being pawned off as real science when in my opinion, it's just another religion with a different godhead. There have been some great scientific breakthroughs while trying to prove macro-evolution, especially in the fields of DNA/RNA research and knowledge of viruses and the development of vaccines. Although important, it doesn't explain how we got here in the first place.

I am not confused, I am not on some duplicitous mission, or wanting to challenge someone's beliefs. I just have a lot of questions and am more than a little skeptical about the model of classical evolution based on gradualism as the engine. And I have always admired Gould and even went to one of his symposiums he held at Cornell along with several local professors. He too shared a healthy amount of skepticism without apology. That is the sign of a healthy mind in science.

There was a time when skepticism was a good thing (although, Galileo might argue). Now it's rockin like it's 1635...and "never question anything being fed to you". Just imagine if Copernicus never questioned the worldwide accepted view of the world's scientists who held the views passed down by Ptolemy. And here we are a thousand years later and people go off the rails if you question generally accepted theories. Mind boggling.

Well sorry guys, I question everything and I don't apologize for being a skeptic. I'm sorry if you take it personally.

In comment 12990512 mavric said:

Quote:

I had a wedding to go to yesterday so haven't been on in awhile. Looks like I kicked a hornet's nest and stirred up a lot of sensitive people. Regardless, I have no "ploy" as I have no desire to change anyone's beliefs and I certainly do not have a "playbook". I have never defended creationism because there is no hard evidence to back it up. I only question things being pawned off as real science when in my opinion, it's just another religion with a different godhead. There have been some great scientific breakthroughs while trying to prove macro-evolution, especially in the fields of DNA/RNA research and knowledge of viruses and the development of vaccines. Although important, it doesn't explain how we got here in the first place. I am not confused, I am not on some duplicitous mission, or wanting to challenge someone's beliefs. I just have a lot of questions and am more than a little skeptical about the model of classical evolution based on gradualism as the engine. And I have always admired Gould and even went to one of his symposiums he held at Cornell along with several local professors. He too shared a healthy amount of skepticism without apology. That is the sign of a healthy mind in science. There was a time when skepticism was a good thing (although, Galileo might argue). Now it's rockin like it's 1635...and "never question anything being fed to you". Just imagine if Copernicus never questioned the worldwide accepted view of the world's scientists who held the views passed down by Ptolemy. And here we are a thousand years later and people go off the rails if you question generally accepted theories. Mind boggling. Well sorry guys, I question everything and I don't apologize for being a skeptic. I'm sorry if you take it personally.

Actually you seem extremely sensitive about people expressing skepticism about your intentions and honesty. I have one and only one question. We showed above by quotes from Gould that you misrepresented what he said. Can you put apart your sensitivity and explain why you did this without another rant about how you are being picked on? You have earned a lot of skepticism.

make about mavric is that he's said at least a half of dozen times on this thread that he's debated several "top scientists" on this topic. Almost as if the numerous references to that should provide credibility.

Based on what he's posted, I'd guess that these debates actually don't happen at all, or that he's looked at as an ignorant crackpot by any group he's engaging publicly.

In comment 12990529 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

make about mavric is that he's said at least a half of dozen times on this thread that he's debated several "top scientists" on this topic. Almost as if the numerous references to that should provide credibility. Based on what he's posted, I'd guess that these debates actually don't happen at all, or that he's looked at as an ignorant crackpot by any group he's engaging publicly.

If he can torn apart so badly by a bunch of us idiots on a football website, imagine what can done to him by several "top scientists" so I am also skeptical.

In comment 12990512 mavric said:

Quote:

I had a wedding to go to yesterday so haven't been on in awhile. Looks like I kicked a hornet's nest and stirred up a lot of sensitive people. Regardless, I have no "ploy" as I have no desire to change anyone's beliefs and I certainly do not have a "playbook". I have never defended creationism because there is no hard evidence to back it up. I only question things being pawned off as real science when in my opinion, it's just another religion with a different godhead. There have been some great scientific breakthroughs while trying to prove macro-evolution, especially in the fields of DNA/RNA research and knowledge of viruses and the development of vaccines. Although important, it doesn't explain how we got here in the first place. I am not confused, I am not on some duplicitous mission, or wanting to challenge someone's beliefs. I just have a lot of questions and am more than a little skeptical about the model of classical evolution based on gradualism as the engine. And I have always admired Gould and even went to one of his symposiums he held at Cornell along with several local professors. He too shared a healthy amount of skepticism without apology. That is the sign of a healthy mind in science. There was a time when skepticism was a good thing (although, Galileo might argue). Now it's rockin like it's 1635...and "never question anything being fed to you". Just imagine if Copernicus never questioned the worldwide accepted view of the world's scientists who held the views passed down by Ptolemy. And here we are a thousand years later and people go off the rails if you question generally accepted theories. Mind boggling. Well sorry guys, I question everything and I don't apologize for being a skeptic. I'm sorry if you take it personally.

Who is being sensitive here? You say you want a good discussion, yet don't address anything that's been posted that contradicts you- instead you just claim that everyone is being "sensitive".

I'm trying to have a decent back and forth, I haven't resorted to any personal attacks, and have backed up my claims with evidence, yet instead of responding to any of them, you call people "sensitive". Pot or Kettle?

The evidence on this thread points to just one person not wanting to engage in discussion, and one person avoiding anything that challenges their beliefs.

Quote:

Actually you seem extremely sensitive about people expressing skepticism about your intentions and honesty.

Everyone is sensitive when they are basically called a liar.

This discussion has turned into a personal attack on me and no one is coming up with any scientific information that answers the questions. I understand that people will attack the messenger when they don't have answers, but this is getting ridiculous.

Regardless: let's start from the beginning and maybe someone will actually state something scientific rather than dig deep to find different ways to disparage me as a person in hopes that I will stop asking questions or pointing out the obvious.

- Micro evolution is refinement over time of "existing life forms". I am in 100% agreement with the factual evidence of micro evolution. In my college days, it was called "adaptation" and "speciation".

- Macro is how the existing life forms came into being in the first place - the whole enchilada from "simple life snaps into being from dead matter (abiogenesis) and then morphs into incredibly complex individual life forms"

I have brought up the fallacy of "macro evolution", yet people either cannot fathom the difference between micro and macro, or they are playing dumb. And it irritates me when a non-science educated person says "evolution is proven" without a clue they are talking about "adaptation" and "speciation".

I could care less that deer have become bigger, stronger, and have bigger horns than several hundred years ago...or that canine life forms have become refined into untold varieties of dogs. I want to know how the glob of primordial goop found life and turned itself into the original deer or dog in the first place. That is macro evolution. Please learn the difference.

Secondly, what purpose would it serve me to lie or try to deceive strangers on a message board? I am a retired professional engineer and many of my associates think I'm an intellectual (which always makes me laugh because I've met intellectuals and they are a lot smarter than me). I'm not some bored high school troll trying to stir up conflict with strangers. I have no desire to get people to suddenly turn to religion or anything else. I don't want creationism taught in schools as a science class or even a philosophy class - I just see a lot of holes in something that many people take for granted as fact and think it's "science" because the hypothesis of evolution has been integrated into the high school biology textbooks and insinuates that it's factual to young minds who are a captive audience. I wish the proper perspective of timelines would be shown (i.e., a ten mile long timeline with a miniscule dot at the end and within that dot of time, arrogant people actually state as fact that they understand everything that took place on that previous ten mile strip based on hand drawn pictures and a lot of imagination). I wish it would be brought up that there are some genuine flaws in the whole concept and that those flaws tend to be kept secret and swept under the rug to keep even more skepticism from entering smart young minds.

I have always liked the subject and found it fascinating for decades. I like discussing the subject with science-type knowledgeable people. Nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately, a lot of times the subject turns away from actual intelligent discourse and into personal attacks...which to me, never made any sense.

evolution takes place. His theory only focused on HOW. He contends that there are fits and starts- none of which is evidence for anything other than fits and starts.

Contrary to what you are attempting to make it sound like he's said, there are literally THOUSANDS of examples of transitional forms that are clear evidence of macro evolution.

Is his science background not good enough?

he completely refutes what you are claiming that he has said by quote mining.

In comment 12990553 mavric said:

Quote:

Quote: Actually you seem extremely sensitive about people expressing skepticism about your intentions and honesty. Everyone is sensitive when they are basically called a liar. This discussion has turned into a personal attack on me and no one is coming up with any scientific information that answers the questions. I understand that people will attack the messenger when they don't have answers, but this is getting ridiculous. Regardless: let's start from the beginning and maybe someone will actually state something scientific rather than dig deep to find different ways to disparage me as a person in hopes that I will stop asking questions or pointing out the obvious. - Micro evolution is refinement over time of "existing life forms". I am in 100% agreement with the factual evidence of micro evolution. In my college days, it was called "adaptation" and "speciation". - Macro is how the existing life forms came into being in the first place - the whole enchilada from "simple life snaps into being from dead matter (abiogenesis) and then morphs into incredibly complex individual life forms" I have brought up the fallacy of "macro evolution", yet people either cannot fathom the difference between micro and macro, or they are playing dumb. And it irritates me when a non-science educated person says "evolution is proven" without a clue they are talking about "adaptation" and "speciation". I could care less that deer have become bigger, stronger, and have bigger horns than several hundred years ago...or that canine life forms have become refined into untold varieties of dogs. I want to know how the glob of primordial goop found life and turned itself into the original deer or dog in the first place. That is macro evolution. Please learn the difference. Secondly, what purpose would it serve me to lie or try to deceive strangers on a message board? I am a retired professional engineer and many of my associates think I'm an intellectual (which always makes me laugh because I've met intellectuals and they are a lot smarter than me). I'm not some bored high school troll trying to stir up conflict with strangers. I have no desire to get people to suddenly turn to religion or anything else. I don't want creationism taught in schools as a science class or even a philosophy class - I just see a lot of holes in something that many people take for granted as fact and think it's "science" because the hypothesis of evolution has been integrated into the high school biology textbooks and insinuates that it's factual to young minds who are a captive audience. I wish the proper perspective of timelines would be shown (i.e., a ten mile long timeline with a miniscule dot at the end and within that dot of time, arrogant people actually state as fact that they understand everything that took place on that previous ten mile strip based on hand drawn pictures and a lot of imagination). I wish it would be brought up that there are some genuine flaws in the whole concept and that those flaws tend to be kept secret and swept under the rug to keep even more skepticism from entering smart young minds. I have always liked the subject and found it fascinating for decades. I like discussing the subject with science-type knowledgeable people. Nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately, a lot of times the subject turns away from actual intelligent discourse and into personal attacks...which to me, never made any sense.

A simple answer to my one question above which you ignored would clarify your intentions to me but you avoided it.

Cliff notes please.

There will NEVER be a scientific explanation to how or where the first speck of life or matter came to be. That is a fact.

...

...to a suspiciously relevant source for Spock's babble here:


Science Against Evolution - ( New Window )

In comment 12990581 XBRONX said:

Quote:

There will NEVER be a scientific explanation to how or where the first speck of life or matter came to be. That is a fact.

No, that's an opinion.

thats a fact.

In comment 12990587 XBRONX said:

Quote:

thats a fact.

How yes. There are theories on the chemical mix and environment required. One day my guess is that man will replicate the process. Where probably not. Could have been many places.

In comment 12990563 Cam in MO said:

Quote:

evolution takes place. His theory only focused on HOW. He contends that there are fits and starts- none of which is evidence for anything other than fits and starts. Contrary to what you are attempting to make it sound like he's said, there are literally THOUSANDS of examples of transitional forms that are clear evidence of macro evolution. Is his science background not good enough?

Ha, ha...I have followed Gould and his work for literally decades. I admire his work and admired him as a person when he was alive. I have nothing but respect and admiration for his knowledge and his life's work.

As far as "transitional fossils" go - there's a link, but the chain is missing. It was the biggest dilemma that Gould faced and he openly stated such. Example: any trace of transition between the most simple life form into a highly complex complete life form with skeletal formation is entirely missing. Are there transitional fossils of various forms of horses? Of course there are. It's just that the oldest fossil of an equine life form is a wholly complete complex horse complete with legs, body, head, teeth, eyes, etc. The links between the goop and the first horse are missing. And therein lies the problem of "transitional" forms found in the fossil record. The ones that Gould pointed out.

Then that leads to other questions by inquisitive people with a thirst for answers. For instance, "why haven't bats, dragonflies, mosquitos, rats, or crocodiles changed - or your basic elephant...to name just a few species that decided not to morph into something else". Some of the oldest fossils ever discovered show a 50 million year old bat virtually identical to modern bats. The skeletal systems of crocodiles indicate no difference between modern and the most ancient. And yes, modern elephants are quite different from ancient elephants, but where did that first ancient elephant come from??? We certainly understand the micro evolution in which modern elephants adapted to a new environment - we just don't know where the first elephant came from and the fossil record does NOT give us a clue.

Gould asked these questions and didn't get ridiculed. Perhaps because he intimidated his colleagues. Gould was not afraid to admit there were questions without answers - and he was an atheist and one of the prime promoters of macro evolution. He was honest and straight forward, unlike today's promoters of macro evolution who have little scientific background and haven't got even the slightest clue why punctualism became a valid alternative hypothesis by Eldrige and Gould in the first place.

Maybe one of you who bash me can explain why Gould adopted punctuated equilibrium (punctualism) as a potential answer to his personal questions and dilemma. That would be an interesting start to intelligent debate.

before nothing and no man to recreate it.

In comment 12990594 XBRONX said:

Quote:

before nothing and no man to recreate it.

You said life or matter which are two difference things. My comment was in regard to life.

In comment 12990594 XBRONX said:

Quote:

before nothing and no man to recreate it.

Okay, you're making the statement. Now prove it. If you can't, it's just another opinion.

Wow, guess you have no real understanding of what a scientific fact is and what it requires.

In comment 12990605 XBRONX said:

Quote:

Wow, guess you have no real understanding of what a scientific fact is and what it requires.

If you think that your statement was a fact rather than an opinion, I don't think you know the difference between a fact and a opinion, nor what those words mean.