The fossil record shows that evolution never happened

[Eliyahu]

Bs'd


Stasis, or non-change, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. .... The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, non-evolution)."

Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15

Stephen J Gould was on of the most well known evolutionists and the inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory, and professor geology en zoology at Harvard university.


********************


"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ... That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, .... prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search .... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.

The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46
Niles Eldredge is an evolutionist en co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory


***************************


"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. 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 almost never see the very process we profess to study. .... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed."

Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182

Stephen J Gould was on of the most well known evolutionists and the inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory, and professor geology en zoology at Harvard university.



***********************


".... we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."

Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44


*************************************


"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change."

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163


************************************


"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion .... it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. .... Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species."

Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.

Schwartz, Jeffrey H is professor anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh and also evolutionist, writer of boek about evolution: Sudden Origins, a provocative new theory on how evolution works by sudden leaps and bounds:
http://www.post-gazette.com/books/revie ... iew395.asp


**********************************


"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."

Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95, speaking about the Bighorn basin in Wyoming USA.

S.M. Stanley is an American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
One of his articles is Paleontology and earth system history in the new millennium which has been published in Geological Society of America
For more info about prof Stanley look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_M._Stanley


*****************************


"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. .... The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground."

Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59

Robert E Ricklefs is an evolutionist and professor biology at the University of Missouri te St. Louis:
http://www.umsl.edu/~ricklefs


*********************************


"Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. .... If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants."

Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766

Stefan Bengtson is an evolutionist en head curator of the Swedish museum of natural history in Stockholm Zweden.
For more info about S. Bentson look here http://palaeo-electronica.org/staff/stefan.htm


*****************************


"Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This Cambrian explosion marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years."

Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24

Stephen J Gould was on of the most well known evolutionists and the inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory, and professor geology en zoology at Harvard university.


*******************************


"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in lifes history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record."

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59

Niles Eldredge is an evolutionist en co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory


*********************************


"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form."

Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40

S.M. Stanley is an American professor, paleontologist, and evolutionary biologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. For most of his career he taught geology at Johns Hopkins University (1969-2005) He is best known for his empirical research documenting the evolutionary process of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
For more info about prof Stanley look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_M._Stanley


***********************


"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140

Stephen J Gould was on of the most well known evolutionists and the inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory, and professor geology en zoology at Harvard university.


*********************************


"Gaps between higher taxonomic levels are general and large."

Raff R.A, and Kaufman, T.C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1991, p. 35

"The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record."

Raff R.A, and Kaufman, T.C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1991, p. 34

Rudolf A Raff is an evolutionist en professor biology at the Indiana University in Bloomingdale, Indiana, USA, and also Director"Institute for Molecular and Cellular Biology, Distinguished Professor, Adjunct Professor of History and Philosophy of Science.
More info about prof Raff can be found here: http://newsinfo.iu.edu/sb/page/normal/608.html


********************************


"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured .... The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwins stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation. .... their story has been suppressed."

Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71

S.M. Stanley is an evolutionist and professor at the John Hopkins university in Baltimore.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
One of his articles is Paleontology and earth system history in the new millennium which has been published in Geological Society of America
For more info about prof Stanley look here: http://www.jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stanley ... l#research


*****************************


"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."

Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360

Simpson George Gaylord is anevolutionist and professor paleontologie in Columbia and Harvard.


****************************


"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwins postulate of gradualism .... and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."

Mayr, E., One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138

Ernst Mayer was one of the leading evolutionistic biologists of the 20th century, see here: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Ernst_Mayr


*******************************


"The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time.
On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type."

Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187

Peter J. Bowler, a scholar of Darwin and evolution, is a prolific author and professor of the history and philosophy of science at Queens University of Belfast.
http://www.americanscientist.org/author ... ter-bowler


*******************************


"The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 Ma. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then."

"Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376


*********************************


"Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks .... One of the ironies of the creation evolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood."

Raup, David, "Geology" New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832,1981

David Raub is an evolutionist, and professor emeritus (former Sewell L. Avery Distinguished Service Professor) in Geophysical Sciences and former curator Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History at the University van Chicago. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Raup


*******************************


"A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God."

Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56
Czarnecki Mark is an evolutionist and a paleontologist.
.

********************************


"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. .... Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."

Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987, p. 229.

Richard Dawkins is very well known evolutionist en author and professor zoology at the Oxford university.


*******************************


"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record."

Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p.189

Stephen J Gould was on of the most well known evolutionists and the inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory, and professor geology en zoology at Harvard university.


*****************************


"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwins time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact its rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find."

Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23

David Raub is an evolutionist, and professor emeritus (former Sewell L. Avery Distinguished Service Professor) in Geophysical Sciences and former curator Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History at the University van Chicago. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Raup


*********************************************************


"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

[Eliyahu]

Yet, the technique you attempted to use (quote mining) to show that, is the exact same thing that Christians do to Isaiah to show it's about Jesus.

Bs'd

Thanks to your help we know now that the quotes are correct, exact, and convey exactly the meaning that the author had in mind.

So the fossil record does NOT show any evolution, only STASIS.

Remember thtat word: STASIS, it's all over the fossil record.

[Goat]

Yet, the technique you attempted to use (quote mining) to show that, is the exact same thing that Christians do to Isaiah to show it's about Jesus.

Bs'd

Thanks to your help we know now that the quotes are correct, exact, and convey exactly the meaning that the author had in mind.

So the fossil record does NOT show any evolution, only STASIS.

Remember thtat word: STASIS, it's all over the fossil record.

You have not supported that claim. Please, back that up with something other than quotes that each and every one is found in the quote mine.

I already showed your quotes are 'quote mined', and mean something other than your claim., by examining them in context.

[Ooberman]

Can you accept the simple fact that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely sudden appearance of new species without any link to supposed predecessors, followed by stasis, non-change, for their whole stay in the fossil record?

If not then you are simply not able to accept the facts of life.

This is the stupidest comment on the fossil record.

If I looked at a photo album of a Creationists life, would I have to conclude they spontaneously grew old? Or, would I use basic reason that each photo is a moment in time of a person's development?

Again: Creationists are vampires. They try to suck our time and energy. There is no reason to take them seriously.

they can believe what they want. The only reason they argue against evolution is because they want attention. they want to be attacked so they can feel persecuted.

[Hatuey]

Can you accept the simple fact that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely sudden appearance of new species without any link to supposed predecessors, followed by stasis, non-change, for their whole stay in the fossil record?

The fossil record hints at what the genetic research and direct observation proves beyond all reasonable doubt: Evolution. I'm not going to debate the FACT of evolution with you for the same reason that I will not debate the fact that 2 2=4. You are welcome to disbelieve evolution for the same stupid reason that you might disbelieve that 2 2=4. In fact, I welcome it, and I hope you do so. The more god believers that believe ridiculous things, the better it is for me and other nonbelievers who know and understand the facts as they are. Please continue exactly as you are, now. I beg you. It helps our side, your opponents. And I thank you.

Moderator Comment

It's important, for the civility of the forum and to prevent escalation of insults, to carefully refrain from using such character attacks as using words like 'stupid,' no matter what you think of the poster. Addressing the substance of the post rather than the character of the poster is harder, but to be preferred.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

I called an IDEA "stupid," not the person. YOU check the rules.

[Danmark]

I called an IDEA "stupid," not the person. YOU check the rules.

Moderator Warning

You are not only publicly challenging a moderator action, but you are also using an uncivil tone.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Ooberman]

It's very clear this topic, and other forms of rejection of realism. It's a very personal reason people have for denying reality. There is a specific, personal defect in the brain that makes them this way.
Perhaps "defect" is unfair, and maybe we can simply say it's an evolutionary trait that seems unwell for survival. A trait.

A trait I may have, or any of us may have. However, regardless of it's source: God, Evolution, Choice, etc. - people are born differently, and some seem born to reject the most sensible things. They seem to procreate just as well as any other mental trait.

As I see it, our beliefs are based on the development of a few regions of the brain. I believe this because this is what the general consensus of scholars is: we are a product of our genes in a certain environment. Just like every other animal and species. There is nothing privileged about our ability to create poetry. It all looks the same to the universe.

Biologists and Psychiatrists all have basic assumptions about the human animal that are born out of repeated tests. They don't know everything, but one thing is clear: people's grasp of reality is highly flawed, if we think about it objectively.

For example, it seems crystal clear to me that the Jesus story is a myth, however, there are people willing to hear the Bible as if it is true history. Not one ounce of doubt.

These people are the ones lionized within their in-group. Biologists lionize the works of Darwin, and the resulting science, while Christians lionize the writings of paul and the resulting christology finished a few generations later.

The Bible has no special provenance, though it can be a moving story, and has a lot of other human interest.

The point is that science denial is a completely different topic than the belief in ancient tales. There is no reason, for example, to imagine a Divine Doctrine to be flawless in it's depiction of the universe.

There is no reason Genesis couldn't have been 100% accurate to the formation of the universe every time we find something new.

There is no reason Genesis couldn't have said "And God create Life in the smallest animal, allowing it to evolve into Humans, thus showing we are all Gods Creature, but that Man was most loved by God."

There is simply no reason God couldn't have transferred an accurate timeline. It's absurd that He didn't. That's the problem.

It's like the Norse myth of of the World coming from the sweat of the armpit of teh Giant Ymir. What are Giants? Sweat? Is that an illusion to "work" or "effort" of Giants - and Giants are Black Holes? Galaxies?



If someone defended the accuracy of the Norse religion, and it became clear they didn't even understand the Science, then we'd have to conclude it's a personal issue.


It's not an unimportant fact that Scientists are not usually Believers, and Believers aren't usually Scientists.

The next Creationist that pretends to know the science should then appreciate the average person can speak as confidently about their knowledge of "your" religion.

Creationists are not usually experts in science nor the Bible, nor history. They are usually expert Creationists.



Creationists are like the average person commenting on the Bible when they don't even know the history of it's formation.

The average Creationist has less knowledge of Science than I have of the Bible. Yet, it's as if I would be so bold to tell people what the Bible is, when I would disagree with the experts.

Creationism, and it's denial of Evolution, is like me telling people the Bible was written as a single work in the 1700's. All the art of literature is forged or faked and we are still living under a Christian regime that is hiding information, We are still in the Dark Ages, under their spell.

This is the level of absurdity to Creationism, yet, we are supposed to think the IDEA is worth thinking about?!?!?!

We have ONE life - why should we waste time, or let others waste time? That's why I think Creatinists are rude. If they want attention, do something else. But to think we, in 2014, need to rationally compare 2014 Science to a 6,000 year old fairy tale, that evolutionary trait is a defect.

[dianaiad]

It's not an unimportant fact that Scientists are not usually Believers, and Believers aren't usually Scientists.

Prove that, please.

Now the antonym of 'usual' is 'unusual.' and in this case, there is no third term; it's truly a binary (or close to binary) set. The definition of 'unusual' is this:

un-u-su-al
nyooZHool/
adjective
adjective: unusual

not habitually or commonly occurring or done.
"the government has taken the unusual step of calling home its ambassador"
synonyms: uncommon, abnormal, atypical, unexpected, surprising, unfamiliar, different; More
strange, odd, curious, out of the ordinary, extraordinary, unorthodox, unconventional, outlandish, singular, special, unique, peculiar, bizarre;
rare, scarce, few and far between, thin on the ground, exceptional, isolated, occasional, infrequent;
informalweird, offbeat, out there, freaky
"an unusual color for a marigold"

So your claim (this is a fact) and thus your job, is to prove that it is UNusual to find a scientist who is religious, and unusual for a religious person to be a scientist. That is, "strange, odd, curious, out of the ordinary, unorthodox, unconventional, outlandish, singular, special, unique, peculiar, bizarre..."

Because you and I are both aware that you aren't talking about 'unusual' in terms of 'the majority of scientists aren't," as in, a bit less than fifty percent.

So here's your challenge: define what you mean by 'unusual,' prove that your statement is indeed fact in terms of your definition, and then explain how it fits here.

[Ooberman]

It's not an unimportant fact that Scientists are not usually Believers, and Believers aren't usually Scientists.

Prove that, please.

Now the antonym of 'usual' is 'unusual.' and in this case, there is no third term; it's truly a binary (or close to binary) set. The definition of 'unusual' is this:

un-u-su-al
nyooZHool/
adjective
adjective: unusual

not habitually or commonly occurring or done.
"the government has taken the unusual step of calling home its ambassador"
synonyms: uncommon, abnormal, atypical, unexpected, surprising, unfamiliar, different; More
strange, odd, curious, out of the ordinary, extraordinary, unorthodox, unconventional, outlandish, singular, special, unique, peculiar, bizarre;
rare, scarce, few and far between, thin on the ground, exceptional, isolated, occasional, infrequent;
informalweird, offbeat, out there, freaky
"an unusual color for a marigold"

So your claim (this is a fact) and thus your job, is to prove that it is UNusual to find a scientist who is religious, and unusual for a religious person to be a scientist. That is, "strange, odd, curious, out of the ordinary, unorthodox, unconventional, outlandish, singular, special, unique, peculiar, bizarre..."

Because you and I are both aware that you aren't talking about 'unusual' in terms of 'the majority of scientists aren't," as in, a bit less than fifty percent.

So here's your challenge: define what you mean by 'unusual,' prove that your statement is indeed fact in terms of your definition, and then explain how it fits here.

Now you are being pedantic. In the context of this conversation, the beleivers are those who are Creationists who reject Evolution, and the Scientists are those who reject Creationism and accept Evolution.

The point is that evolution deniers are almost 100% exclusively fanatical religionists.

[dianaiad]

It's not an unimportant fact that Scientists are not usually Believers, and Believers aren't usually Scientists.

Prove that, please.

Now the antonym of 'usual' is 'unusual.' and in this case, there is no third term; it's truly a binary (or close to binary) set. The definition of 'unusual' is this:

un-u-su-al
nyooZHool/
adjective
adjective: unusual

not habitually or commonly occurring or done.
"the government has taken the unusual step of calling home its ambassador"
synonyms: uncommon, abnormal, atypical, unexpected, surprising, unfamiliar, different; More
strange, odd, curious, out of the ordinary, extraordinary, unorthodox, unconventional, outlandish, singular, special, unique, peculiar, bizarre;
rare, scarce, few and far between, thin on the ground, exceptional, isolated, occasional, infrequent;
informalweird, offbeat, out there, freaky
"an unusual color for a marigold"

So your claim (this is a fact) and thus your job, is to prove that it is UNusual to find a scientist who is religious, and unusual for a religious person to be a scientist. That is, "strange, odd, curious, out of the ordinary, unorthodox, unconventional, outlandish, singular, special, unique, peculiar, bizarre..."

Because you and I are both aware that you aren't talking about 'unusual' in terms of 'the majority of scientists aren't," as in, a bit less than fifty percent.

So here's your challenge: define what you mean by 'unusual,' prove that your statement is indeed fact in terms of your definition, and then explain how it fits here.

Now you are being pedantic. In the context of this conversation, the beleivers are those who are Creationists who reject Evolution, and the Scientists are those who reject Creationism and accept Evolution.

The point is that evolution deniers are almost 100% exclusively fanatical religionists.

Ok, I'm being pedantic.

Or rather, I'm calling for some actual accuracy in terminology. You realize that the MAJORITY of Christians actually believe in evolution? In the Catholic church, which the last time I looked still held the majority of Christians under its umbrella, even says so officially. So any believing Christian outside the Catholic church who accepts an old earth and evolution simply adds to the majority view that evolution...and along with it, the scientific observation of the way the earth and the universe came to be is the correct version of creation.

The problem here (and it just happened to me a few minutes ago, AMOF) is this propensity of the critics of Christianity to equate this minority view as THE official view; that if a bunch of creationist type Christians believe in strict creationism and the 'young earth,' then ALL Christians believe that, and since I'm a Christian, I must, too, believe it and am addressed as if I do, and expected to defend the idea as if I believed it.

I'm just looking to set the record straight here. If by 'Believers' you mean 'strict biblical creationists,' please SAY so.

....and if you call that pedantry, fine.

[Ooberman]

It's not an unimportant fact that Scientists are not usually Believers, and Believers aren't usually Scientists.

Prove that, please.

Now the antonym of 'usual' is 'unusual.' and in this case, there is no third term; it's truly a binary (or close to binary) set. The definition of 'unusual' is this:

un-u-su-al
nyooZHool/
adjective
adjective: unusual

not habitually or commonly occurring or done.
"the government has taken the unusual step of calling home its ambassador"
synonyms: uncommon, abnormal, atypical, unexpected, surprising, unfamiliar, different; More
strange, odd, curious, out of the ordinary, extraordinary, unorthodox, unconventional, outlandish, singular, special, unique, peculiar, bizarre;
rare, scarce, few and far between, thin on the ground, exceptional, isolated, occasional, infrequent;
informalweird, offbeat, out there, freaky
"an unusual color for a marigold"

So your claim (this is a fact) and thus your job, is to prove that it is UNusual to find a scientist who is religious, and unusual for a religious person to be a scientist. That is, "strange, odd, curious, out of the ordinary, unorthodox, unconventional, outlandish, singular, special, unique, peculiar, bizarre..."

Because you and I are both aware that you aren't talking about 'unusual' in terms of 'the majority of scientists aren't," as in, a bit less than fifty percent.

So here's your challenge: define what you mean by 'unusual,' prove that your statement is indeed fact in terms of your definition, and then explain how it fits here.

Now you are being pedantic. In the context of this conversation, the beleivers are those who are Creationists who reject Evolution, and the Scientists are those who reject Creationism and accept Evolution.

The point is that evolution deniers are almost 100% exclusively fanatical religionists.

Ok, I'm being pedantic.

Or rather, I'm calling for some actual accuracy in terminology. You realize that the MAJORITY of Christians actually believe in evolution? In the Catholic church, which the last time I looked still held the majority of Christians under its umbrella, even says so officially. So any believing Christian outside the Catholic church who accepts an old earth and evolution simply adds to the majority view that evolution...and along with it, the scientific observation of the way the earth and the universe came to be is the correct version of creation.

The problem here (and it just happened to me a few minutes ago, AMOF) is this propensity of the critics of Christianity to equate this minority view as THE official view; that if a bunch of creationist type Christians believe in strict creationism and the 'young earth,' then ALL Christians believe that, and since I'm a Christian, I must, too, believe it and am addressed as if I do, and expected to defend the idea as if I believed it.

I'm just looking to set the record straight here. If by 'Believers' you mean 'strict biblical creationists,' please SAY so.

....and if you call that pedantry, fine.

The topic is specific and if we are going to move past first gear, we should all realize generalities are useful. My point, if I'm not making it forcefully enough, is that we needen't concern ourselves with one iota of what Creationists think about the Science when it is clear they do not know what they are talkign about.

Name a YEC that is a respected scientist and I'll say it's unusual - and I think you'll agree. If you want to claim OEC's are somehow less irrational, I'll ask you to prove that claim. They both draw on the exact same thing for their "facts": Genesis.

It is flawed and we don't need ignorant, anti-science, religiously motivated people with an agenda to undermine the very Science they don't understand in favor of their religious views.

It's all fun and games to philosophize of our experiences of the world, but when it comes to questioning the immense human effort to, for example, understand how to avoid another Plague: Science, not prayer or religion, it is not a rational act.

It is supreme arrogance and ignorance Creationists exhibit and it's the height of anti-intellectualism - and a credible forum shouldn't entertain it for a moment. It makes us all look like idiots.

What next, are we going to debate the existence of aliens and unicorns? The Bilderberg group? Chem trails? Homeopathy?

Creationism is THAT ridiculous. We can't allow ourselves to be sucked dry by intellectual vampires, and it's in Christianities interest. If we lose the technology/Science battle, the Christian religion is in jeapordy. That's not why Creationists are wrong - but it's why I'm adamant they are silenced: for all our sake. We can't let backward people win.

Time is our most valuable resource. Look at how much time they have sucked from us talking about underground tunnels for all the water, or magical sleeping spells by God for the animals, or all the other childish explanations?

Why on Earth would we listen to a person giving a lecture on the literal truth of the Norse religion, or the Mayans? Imagine if he claimed it was in perfect accord to Science - and then, proved he didn't understand the Science!

That is a Creationist. We should all try to get them to stop following stupid ideas, for all our sake.

Wouldn't you want to know if you believed something totally ridiculous - and didn't even study the subject?

Imagine you having all kinds of opinions about the proper way of balancing a corporate ledger, or provide brain surgery - but you studied neither?

That is a Creationist. They offer NOTHING to humanity, except as an example of how one can be so utterly un-creative.