Logic dictates that there is a God!

[Lionz]

Consider Burlingame Canyon?



Words included that are not my own depending on definition at least maybe.

[2dimes]

Cows are delicious and go with a wide variaty of beverages. Men really like female breasts but there's no logic behind it and I could still for the most part safely land an airplane if I had to.

That's pretty much the complete list for me.

[Lionz]

Thirdlly, even if what the disputers say about evolution is correct (it rarely is and when it is, doesn't actually disprove evolution despite their claims), then there has to be some kind of evidence showing their theories even could be correct. So far, nothing of the sort has been provided, at all. I dealt with a lot of it in the "young earth creationism... again" thread in response to lionz.

Maybe I'm misquoting here for all I know, but what theories do you refer to and what's apparently missing in terms of evidence if they're correct?

[jonesthecurl]

Lionz, here's a more complete comment from Steven jay Gould.

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. It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil invertebrate species—more than ten million years. Large, widespread, and well established species, on the other hand, are not expected to change very much. We believe that the inertia of large populations explains the stasis of most fossil species over millions of years.

We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

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. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."

Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1940, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as "hopeful monsters." (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt's theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium—see essays in section 3 and my explicit essay on Goldschmidt in The Pandas Thumb.) Creationist Luther Sunderland talks of the "punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory" and tells his hopeful readers that "it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor." Duane Gish writes, "According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced." Any evolutionists who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationism—with God acting in the egg.

I am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeply sad. Sad for many reasons. Sad because so many people who respond to creationist appeals are troubled for the right reason, but venting their anger at the wrong target. It is true that scientists have often been dogmatic and elitist. It is true that we have often allowed the white-coated, advertising image to represent us—"Scientists say that Brand X cures bunions ten times faster than…" We have not fought it adequately because we derive benefits from appearing as a new priesthood. It is also true that faceless and bureaucratic state power intrudes more and more into our lives and removes choices that should belong to individuals and communities. 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.

I am sad because the practical result of this brouhaha will not be expanded coverage to include creationism (that would also make me sad), but the reduction or excision of evolution from high school curricula. Evolution is one of the half dozen "great ideas" developed by science. It speaks to the profound issues of genealogy that fascinate all of us—the "roots" phenomenon writ large. Where did we come from? Where did life arise? How did it develop? How are organisms related? It forces us to think, ponder, and wonder. Shall we deprive millions of this knowledge and once again teach biology as a set of dull and unconnected facts, without the thread that weaves diverse material into a supple unity?

But most of all I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern among my colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy debate about theory that has brought new life to evolutionary biology. It provides grist for creationist mills, they say, even if only by distortion. Perhaps we should lie low and rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment—a kind of old-time religion on our part.

But we should borrow another metaphor and recognize that we too have to tread a straight and narrow path, surrounded by roads to perdition. For if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost.

[2dimes]

Strange, I'm still miffed about this whole acusation. I presume it's directed at me. My intention was, "Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery." not criticizing his speech pattern.

Hey Lionz, you know you're winning when ignorant morons start criticizing your speech patterns instead of the actual issues.

In my opinion the issue is too many "Scientists" putting forth things they can't know, as rock solid proven truth. The end of the sentance is making light of that.

[john9blue]

Sorry if that wasn't your intention. He's been criticized before. I think he just doesn't feel comfortable making definite claims about an indefinite world.

[Darwins_Bane]

Bane,

I might be able to prove little to nothing, but do you want some evidence that He exists?

Did you mean to claim that there being a first woman would prove creationism wrong? What did you mean?

What I'm trying to say is that the biggest flaw in the postulation of creationism is just that, it's postulation. There is not and has never been a proven case of a higher power existing. Do you really think he would just create something and then kick back and watch while drinking beer? wouldn't he get bored? And what people are trying to do is find older and older fossils, until we can find a link between single celled organisms to entities. This would prove that we weren't created but just evolved. The next step would be to trace single celled organisms. in all of this though. Time and time again, creationists make a claim, and then science disproves it. then you make another claim. For instance, take the "fact" that everyone was created at year 0. Well we've proven that wrong. then that humans were created as is; Proven wrong, we can find links back to ape-like creatures and apes. what's next? Basically, the fact that there is a first woman doesn't prove creationism wrong, you do it yourself.

[2dimes]

I thought the video and pictures if real supports some of the things some of the pictures he posted suggest. There's so much CGI now days you can't completely believe pictures and videos but I have seen rapid erosion from heavy rain. I think it could be legitimate.

This clip not as much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2qbEbHZMM8
Sorry it's another youtube lionz.

[Lionz]

Jones,

Did Gould not say the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology regardless of whether or not he's gotten frustrated about a creationist using words of him to support creationism? Perhaps you even provide a quote where he admits the theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record that cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages.

[2dimes]

Fast posted.

[jonesthecurl]

Jones,

Did Gould not say the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology regardless of whether or not he's gotten frustrated about a creationist using words of him to support creationism? Perhaps you even provide a quote where he admits the theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record that cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages.

mm-hmm.

We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

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. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."...
I am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeply sad.

[Lionz]

Bane,

What would you consider proof that He exists?

I'm not proposing that He created something and then kicked back while drinking beer by any means perhaps. He even has a Flesh Body of His own that He died and rose again in maybe.

How do you define entities if you do somehow?

What have creationists backpeddled on and then replaced due to science disproving something? Maybe people should let true science influence views, but there might be some stuff passed off as science that's based on incorrect assumptions. Who's to say whether or not earth was created instantly out of nothing with diamond in it right away and who's to say He did not use common building blocks to create seperate creatures?

What do you consider to be year 0?

What would humans being created as is mean? It might be that no one's ever produced offspring that looked exactly the same as them, but what do we have in terms of fossil evidence suggesting humans share common ancestry with chimps? Maybe there's an example you consider most compelling that you can break out for discussion.

Is there someone who considers themself to be a Christian who claims there was not a first woman?

[Lionz]

I never claimed that Gould said the fossil record included no transitional forms maybe, but has he not said stuff having to do with an apparent lack of transitional forms that attacks mainstream evolution theories? Even if he's deeply sad and been angry at and amused by creationists?

[Darwins_Bane]

Bane,

What would you consider proof that He exists?

I'm not proposing that He created something and then kicked back while drinking beer by any means perhaps. He even has a Flesh Body of His own that He died and rose again in maybe.

How do you define entities if you do somehow?

has he done anything other than just create us? and please don't say he sent jesus. in all this time he has not done one thing to influence the world, or stop something bad from happening.
I defined entity in that case as being a multi-celled organism.
and so you think perhaps he is repeatedly dying and coming back to life in a human form. If he is truly all-powerful and all knowing wouldnt he already know the outcome, and therefore the excercise would be useless?

What have creationists backpeddled on and then replaced due to science disproving something? Maybe people should let true science influence views, but there might be some stuff passed off as science that's based on incorrect assumptions. Who's to say whether or not earth was created instantly out of nothing with diamond in it right away and who's to say He did not use common building blocks to create seperate creatures?

some good examples would be when fossils of dinosaurs were discovered, disputes over when the bible was created, when we were created exactly.

What do you consider to be year 0?

the literal year 0, as in we are in the year 2010 so exactly that many years ago.

What would humans being created as is mean? It might be that no one's ever produced offspring that looked exactly the same as them, but what do we have in terms of fossil evidence suggesting humans share common ancestry with chimps? Maybe there's an example you consider most compelling that you can break out for discussion.

being created as is i meant in our current form; evolved, self-aware, speaking, civilized (relatively). as opposed to evolving from a more primal state. we dont have only fossil evidence. what they do is test the DNA from the bones and look for the same genetic markers or similar ones to our own. I dont have time right now but later there is a specific article I am thinking of which talks more about it. I'll post it here later when i have time.

Is there someone who considers themself to be a Christian who claims there was not a first woman?

yes its called the church. more specifically the pope and the vatican. then again, they change their views regularly.

[IoSonoX]

Is there someone who considers themself to be a Christian who claims there was not a first woman?

yes its called the church. more specifically the pope and the vatican. then again, they change their views regularly.

That's weird. I didn't get that memo.

X

[Lionz]

Bane,

He works in mysterious ways and has done more than I will ever know maybe. Sure He doesn't do stuff to stop bad things from happening literally all the time?

Creation can be done in many ways and finding a link between single celled organisms and multi celled organisms wouldn't prove that anything was not created perhaps.

Is there a certain fossil you want to discuss?

I'm not sure what He's done and not done maybe, but what suggests I held that He was repeatedly dying and coming back to life in a human form? I might have come across wrong. Did you say the excercise and mean repeatedly dying and coming back to life in a human form?

What specifically have creationists backpeddled on when it comes to dinosaur fossils being discovered or when a Bible was created or when humans were created?

There is no true year 0 in terms of BCE and CE maybe. Who's claimed everyone was created about 2010 years ago though?

Maybe being civilized would be easier said than done with only a couple humans on earth, but what suggests there was a point in time when there were healthy humans who were not self aware or suggests there was a point in time when humans in general did not speak?

Not aware of there being any church that claims there was not a first woman maybe. You might have been told false things having to do with a church claiming that.

[PLAYER57832]

2dimes,

You might have been making jokes, but what do you ask of me and want me to answer?

Doc,

Welcome.

Evolution can be defined a number of ways and you will find quite a bit of folks speaking past eachother on cc forums maybe.

NO lionz, evolution cannot "be defined a number of ways". Many people TRY to put forward definitions that are not valid, including you.

The rest of what you wrote is garbage that many of us have already answered and clarified for you.

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry if that wasn't your intention. He's been criticized before. I think he just doesn't feel comfortable making definite claims about an indefinite world.

No, he used the indefinite because none of the questions he puts forth really have anything to do with what he believes or really wants to know.

[PLAYER57832]

Is there someone who considers themself to be a Christian who claims there was not a first woman?

yes its called the church. more specifically the pope and the vatican. then again, they change their views regularly.

That's weird. I didn't get that memo.

X

Too bad. Pope John Paul spoke on it several times. While the Pope does not affirm evolution as fact, neither does science. He absolutely affirms that it is consistant with the Bible.

You can also look at basically any mainline Protestant church and a number that don't necessarily fit into broad, neat categories of national Christendom. There is a list above, of many of the churches not to many pages back.

[Lionz]

How about some love between you and I Player? I have a way of speaking that is the result of fear of lying combined with OCD and it can be turned around and used against me maybe.

I might have come across wrong. See a 4a definition here referring to historical development of a biological group in general and a 4b definition here referring to a theory specifically and several other definitions here as well? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

[tzor]

Consider Burlingame Canyon?

OK, that's all I can stand and I can't stands no more. Where's my Spinich?

Touchet Formation

The Touchet beds are formed of sediment which deposited during the various Missoula Floods, around 16,450 to 13,750 BCE, and during the Bonneville flood that occurred in approximately 12,500 BCE. Another potential source for periodic flooding, still somewhat controversial, is flood release by jökulhlaups from subglacial lakes in British Columbia, but no specific source for these jökulhlaups has yet been identified.

During the floods, flow through the narrow Wallula Gap was restricted such that water pooled in a temporary lake, Lake Lewis, which formed in the lowlands of the Columbia Plateau. Lake Lewis backflooded up the Yakima, Walla Walla, Touchet and Tucannon River valleys. This flooding lasted for a period of 4-7 days. In the relatively calm arms of the lake, the slack waters were thick with suspended materials eroded from the scablands above. Some of the suspended materials settled out, creating thick Touchet Formation layers, or rhythmites, which are found throughout these valleys. The larger clasts settled out first, followed by the finer ones. This resulted in layers with graded bedding, or bedding in which the larger particles are at the bottom and the smaller ones are at the top.

But why speculate with facts when we can make fiction out of whole cloth. Maybe it is only 5,000 not 12,500. Maybe it wasn't just due to the fact that the only egress for the local water was blocked but becasue the whole world was flooded. Maybe ... too many "maybe's"

[PLAYER57832]

I never claimed that Gould said the fossil record included no transitional forms maybe, but has he not said stuff having to do with an apparent lack of transitional forms that attacks mainstream evolution theories? Even if he's deeply sad and been angry at and amused by creationists?

The lack of transitional forms is wholly expected and within the realm of evolutionary theory. Also, many, many more are being found all the time. What we know now and what he saw when he wrote that differ a great deal.

Young Earth creationists wish to take a few sentences out of context and claim that these show that mainstream scientists are somehow supporting the young earth views or even just leaving room for them. It is yet another reason I say they go beyond misunderstanding and into plain deception. Reading these things in whole almost always paints a very, very different picture than the one young earthers like to present. Further, they refuse to back off even when, as Gould has done, the scientist in question goes on records specifically saying they are misusing what he/she said.

You brought similar type arguments up in the young earth thread. I went through severral and showed you, point by point, why what was being presented was at best misleading and sometimes just plain false.

However, I learned that it just did not matter how much time or how detailed my discussion, you would not respond except with more questions, often pretty much identical to those I gave before. Now you are doing the same thing with new people.

We like to debate, but you don't seem to debate.

[PLAYER57832]

Consider Burlingame Canyon?

Consider the several answers I already gave to you on this, and your supposed other "proof'" that the Grand Canyon was young.

and consider that hyrdology actually IS part of my field. So, whereas in many other things I might just have to rely on what I can dig up in journals, in this case... I can speak from my own experience and knowledge.

[Lionz]

Tzor,

What are you meaning to argue against? What does Burlingame Canyon have to do with the Touchet beds regardless of whether or not the Missoula Floods are mythological floods called on to help explain stuff laid down by the Great Flood?

Player,

Did Gould not say the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology regardless of whether or not he's gotten frustrated about a creationist using words of him to support creationism? He might have noticed that there was an apparent lack of transition fossils and helped come with a secular theory that went against mainstream evolution theories as a result of that as opposed to seeing it as evidence against universal common descent, but where am I being deceptive and what am I misusing?

Can someone help me figure out what Player's said about the Grand Canyon? Not counting simply calling on water and time and shifting land if that occured? Can someone help me understand where each canyon here comes from if this shows just upstream from it and there's a canyon within a canyon shown?

[PLAYER57832]

How about some love between you and I Player? I have a way of speaking that is the result of fear of lying combined with OCD and it can be turned around and used against me maybe.

I might have come across wrong. See a 4a definition here referring to historical development of a biological group in general and a 4b definition here referring to a theory specifically and several other definitions here as well? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

OK, technically you are correct. BUT, what we have been discussing here is solely the theory of evolution, not the many uses of that word within the English language.

Second, as I have also said, you have not "many definitions", but many parts to the single theory of Evolution. So, no, you were not correct in the context of the conversation here. (not lying, but mistaken).