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

[dianaiad]

Di, there is a vast difference with how the Church restricted verifiable information, and how science restricts unverifiable claims. You are being polemic for the sake of it, IMO.

The harm anti-science does to us as a culture has true consequences. You favor personal freedom over truth that would literally save personal freedom for some.

Stop there.

Boy, is that 'Newspeak!"

Yes, I do favor personal freedom over 'truth,' especially when truth would save personal freedom for 'some.' Because by saving it for 'some,' you are really 'saving it only for some.'

Who are you to decide that your personal freedom to believe what you think is 'truth' trumps someone else's freedom to believe what they think it to be?

Here's the thing: if, as you and I both believe, the earth is billions of years old and evolution is how we became what we are, then all the science and ideas based upon those concepts will work. They'll work practically (such as genetics, breeding new plant types, medicine, etc.). It doesn't matter how many people don't believe in it, the facts will 'out,' and eventually those who have differing opinions will have to adjust their thinking and beliefs. Remember that far fewer folks believe in literal biblical creationism than did fifty years ago.

Those of us who have no problem reconciling scientific discoveries with our religious beliefs celebrate such advances. Those who break their noses on 'em will have to make choices; ignore all the stuff that these discoveries make possible and hold to their beliefs (which doesn't hurt you and me...only them..), adjust their religious ideas to include scientific truth, or abandon their religion and go with scientific truth. I chose door #2.

But they must be free to make those decisions themselves. Those who disagree have every right to criticize them for being wrong, and to attempt to change their minds; your freedom to disagree with them is as important as their freedom to believe as they wish.

But the entire tenor of your attitude speaks of some force, or coercion; taking away their freedom to be stupid so that YOU have the freedom to 'be smart?"

Oh, there is so much wrong with that idea.....

[Ooberman]

Di, there is a vast difference with how the Church restricted verifiable information, and how science restricts unverifiable claims. You are being polemic for the sake of it, IMO.

The harm anti-science does to us as a culture has true consequences. You favor personal freedom over truth that would literally save personal freedom for some.

Stop there.

Boy, is that 'Newspeak!"

Yes, I do favor personal freedom over 'truth,' especially when truth would save personal freedom for 'some.' Because by saving it for 'some,' you are really 'saving it only for some.'

Who are you to decide that your personal freedom to believe what you think is 'truth' trumps someone else's freedom to believe what they think it to be?

Here's the thing: if, as you and I both believe, the earth is billions of years old and evolution is how we became what we are, then all the science and ideas based upon those concepts will work. They'll work practically (such as genetics, breeding new plant types, medicine, etc.). It doesn't matter how many people don't believe in it, the facts will 'out,' and eventually those who have differing opinions will have to adjust their thinking and beliefs. Remember that far fewer folks believe in literal biblical creationism than did fifty years ago.

Those of us who have no problem reconciling scientific discoveries with our religious beliefs celebrate such advances. Those who break their noses on 'em will have to make choices; ignore all the stuff that these discoveries make possible and hold to their beliefs (which doesn't hurt you and me...only them..), adjust their religious ideas to include scientific truth, or abandon their religion and go with scientific truth. I chose door #2.

But they must be free to make those decisions themselves. Those who disagree have every right to criticize them for being wrong, and to attempt to change their minds; your freedom to disagree with them is as important as their freedom to believe as they wish.

But the entire tenor of your attitude speaks of some force, or coercion; taking away their freedom to be stupid so that YOU have the freedom to 'be smart?"

Oh, there is so much wrong with that idea.....

You'd vote fools into office, to make decisions for you - but, I suppose that is what a Church is, isn't it? Letting the most ignorant guide the rest of us?

Of course you wouldn't want knowledgeable people to make policy.. better the ignorant?

And what I mean by "You favor personal freedom over truth that would literally save personal freedom for some." is that you'd have a parent think prayer is going to cure their son, thus letting them die.

How is letting a person die allowing them personal freedom? Or, do you stop at that point? Well, I suggest the teaching of Creationism, while not as acute, is the same category as this.

If a person wanted to drive a bus into a wall because they believe it's a fake wall - do you let them - because of personal freedoms?

Face it, Di, we intervene all the time. We must. It's our duty as social beings.

[dianaiad]

Di, there is a vast difference with how the Church restricted verifiable information, and how science restricts unverifiable claims. You are being polemic for the sake of it, IMO.

The harm anti-science does to us as a culture has true consequences. You favor personal freedom over truth that would literally save personal freedom for some.

Stop there.

Boy, is that 'Newspeak!"

Yes, I do favor personal freedom over 'truth,' especially when truth would save personal freedom for 'some.' Because by saving it for 'some,' you are really 'saving it only for some.'

Who are you to decide that your personal freedom to believe what you think is 'truth' trumps someone else's freedom to believe what they think it to be?

Here's the thing: if, as you and I both believe, the earth is billions of years old and evolution is how we became what we are, then all the science and ideas based upon those concepts will work. They'll work practically (such as genetics, breeding new plant types, medicine, etc.). It doesn't matter how many people don't believe in it, the facts will 'out,' and eventually those who have differing opinions will have to adjust their thinking and beliefs. Remember that far fewer folks believe in literal biblical creationism than did fifty years ago.

Those of us who have no problem reconciling scientific discoveries with our religious beliefs celebrate such advances. Those who break their noses on 'em will have to make choices; ignore all the stuff that these discoveries make possible and hold to their beliefs (which doesn't hurt you and me...only them..), adjust their religious ideas to include scientific truth, or abandon their religion and go with scientific truth. I chose door #2.

But they must be free to make those decisions themselves. Those who disagree have every right to criticize them for being wrong, and to attempt to change their minds; your freedom to disagree with them is as important as their freedom to believe as they wish.

But the entire tenor of your attitude speaks of some force, or coercion; taking away their freedom to be stupid so that YOU have the freedom to 'be smart?"

Oh, there is so much wrong with that idea.....

You'd vote fools into office, to make decisions for you - but, I suppose that is what a Church is, isn't it? Letting the most ignorant guide the rest of us?

I would? Odd, I don't remember saying that allowing people to believe as they will means that I have to vote for 'em. Mind you, I might vote for 'em, if the position they are trying for isn't affected by their religious beliefs. A literal biblical creationist might do quite well on any position at the local level, except perhaps the school board. Indeed, I don't see a problem with one pretty much anywhere except for positions which will impact education and funding for the sciences.

Of course you wouldn't want knowledgeable people to make policy.. better the ignorant?

And what I mean by "You favor personal freedom over truth that would literally save personal freedom for some." is that you'd have a parent think prayer is going to cure their son, thus letting them die.

How is letting a person die allowing them personal freedom? Or, do you stop at that point? Well, I suggest the teaching of Creationism, while not as acute, is the same category as this.

If a person wanted to drive a bus into a wall because they believe it's a fake wall - do you let them - because of personal freedoms?

Face it, Di, we intervene all the time. We must. It's our duty as social beings.

Ooberman, we already have laws on the books that keep parents from endangering the lives of their children. this is a 'slippery slope' argument that is not valid, especially since the topic here is whether we should allow people the right to believe in literal biblical creationism or not.

Freedom to believe as you will does not mean you have the right to put someone else's life at risk, physically. A belief in literal biblical creationism is not simply a less severe form of believing prayer will cure your child, and thus you have the right to keep your child from having medical care. It's not even in the same category.

As to your last example; I have seldom seen such a ludicrous, not to mention inappropriate, example. How, pray tell me, are you going to keep a bus driver from driving through a wall he thinks is fake?

Is there a law against driving through walls one thinks is fake?

Is there time to pass one, that drivers might actually read and pay attention to? One must consider why someone would drive through a wall, fake or not; is the alternative worse?

In actuality, if a driver has the propensity to drive into things thinking that they are fake, he's probably delusional in all sorts of ways, and, again probably, doesn't have a license to drive a bus...or a car, for that matter.

Are you honestly proposing that we 'pass a law' or otherwise forcibly prohibit people from believing in literal biblical creationism?

If so, that's a whole lot scarier than they could ever be, simply by holding the opinions they do.

[Ooberman]

You brought up the legalities. I am arguing against the stupidity of Creationism and how it shouldn't be part of valid reasoning. You are welcome to extend that as you wish.

Creationism is like trying to drive a bus through a wall you think is fake. It's stupid.

It's untrue. Flatly, it is. Parents who teach Creationism are idiots - willful idiots. That is my point.

And, I think I've been quite clear about it, while you have tried to turn this into some grand gesture of personal freedoms.

People can believe what they want. That doesn't mean everything they believe is intelligent or useful.


For some reason you are defending a dumb idea (Creationism) by using a generic objection that I have shown applies to everything - yet, you agree we should use discretion.

Why don't you call a spade a spade? Creationism is a dumb idea.

[dianaiad]

You brought up the legalities. I am arguing against the stupidity of Creationism and how it shouldn't be part of valid reasoning. You are welcome to extend that as you wish.

Creationism is like trying to drive a bus through a wall you think is fake. It's stupid.

It's untrue. Flatly, it is. Parents who teach Creationism are idiots - willful idiots. That is my point.

And, I think I've been quite clear about it, while you have tried to turn this into some grand gesture of personal freedoms.

People can believe what they want. That doesn't mean everything they believe is intelligent or useful.


For some reason you are defending a dumb idea (Creationism) by using a generic objection that I have shown applies to everything - yet, you agree we should use discretion.

Why don't you call a spade a spade? Creationism is a dumb idea.

Yeah, creationism is 'a dumb idea.' That is, I don't believe in literal biblical creationism.

However, and with all due respect, you went considerably further than simply saying that it's "a dumb idea." You are the one telling me that if I believe people have the right to believe in that 'dumb idea,' I'm advocating allowing people to 'make decisions for me."

You are also rather strongly intimating that it would be a good thing if we did something legal...or at least forcible...to those who do believe this dumb idea to keep them from expressing that dumb idea, or participating in life that includes those who disagree with them, or even believing in it in the first place.

My grandmother taught me that 'a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

We CAN'T force people to change their minds.
We CAN'T legislate this sort of thing. It's not that it's immoral or unethical or unconstitutional...it's not possible.

The only thing we can do is teach/show people, and express our own opinions. Now I have faith that truth will prevail; we don't have to squash dissenters. Reality will do that quite efficiently, eventually.

[Ooberman]

Di, look again at the title of the OP, and the OP itself. There is no content, except stupidity. Not what was said by the scientists, but the Creationist agenda behind the OP.

The OP is trying to make the case that pictures and paintings of people prove they were spontaneously created. Thats the level of thought Creationist have. They think each fossil tells the whole story and they ignore the actual science.

This goes beyond mild ignorance, it's wilful stupidity.

Why would you defend it? Because it threatens your pardner's? Your in group?

I think so. I think you somehow see this as a personal attack, against your world view.

Its true that evolution threatens theism. I cant help that. I didnt invent evolution.
However, someone did invent Creationism. Its a dumb idea made up by an ignorant man.
We dont need to sugar coat it. Its 2014, not 14. We are better than that.

[Danmark]

Di, there is a vast difference with . . . .

Moderator Clarification*

Ooberman: It's 'Lady Di' to you. I will grant you the benefit of the doubt . . . reluctantly. In addition to our Great Lady's royal status, I remind you that she is burdened with what you and I, and a few others, consider an 'odd' belief system at best. Rather than condemn her for it, she is much to be admired for bravely soldiering on despite this handicap. In fact it is only because of her great humility that 'Lady Di' is suggested.

If you agree that, considering her high and Royal status, 'Lady Di' is too familiar, I recommend you consider her formal title, "Diana the Great."

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.


______________________________
*

[dianaiad]

Di, look again at the title of the OP, and the OP itself. There is no content, except stupidity. Not what was said by the scientists, but the Creationist agenda behind the OP.

The OP is trying to make the case that pictures and paintings of people prove they were spontaneously created. Thats the level of thought Creationist have. They think each fossil tells the whole story and they ignore the actual science.

This goes beyond mild ignorance, it's wilful stupidity.

OK,....and? It's not that I disagree with your stance that literal biblical creationism is wrong. It's what you seem to want to DO about it that disturbs me.

And yes, the OP 'makes the case that..." but I wasn't reacting to the OP. I was reacting to you reacting to the OP.

What is that saying...OH, yeah, Evelyn Hall wrote (about Voltaire) "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I didn't chime in until it became fairly obvious to me that you were going a bit beyond simple disagreement with a 'stupid idea.'

Why would you defend it? Because it threatens your pardner's? Your in group?

I think so. I think you somehow see this as a personal attack, against your world view.

I repeat: the quote is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Yes, your attitude does seem to be an attack on my world view, but I don't think you have identified my world view. I've been rather clear on it, actually: A. I am not a proponent of the literal, biblical, creation, and B. I have no problem at all with evolution or the scientific method. These don't impact my belief in God at all; I celebrate new scientific discoveries, and new ones do not now, and probably will never, contradict what I believe about God.

The world view you are attacking is the one in which I honestly feel that everybody has the right to believe, and say, what he or she wishes to believe and say. Nobody has the right to regulate someone else's beliefs or speech. In that sense, you really are attacking my world view, yes.

Or, to put it another way, you aren't the boss of me. And you aren't the boss of the creationists to tell them that they must shut up and/or hide their opinions, or refrain from living according to their beliefs.

They may be wrong, but the best way to know that...and to get them to change their minds about that, are to allow them to freely express their ideas and to enter into discussions with those who disagree.

NOT to be held at some point of coercion and told that they 'can' not, or 'must' not.

Its true that evolution threatens theism. I cant help that.

Doesn't threaten mine any.

I didnt invent evolution.
However, someone did invent Creationism. Its a dumb idea made up by an ignorant man.
We dont need to sugar coat it. Its 2014, not 14. We are better than that.

And I think that discarding the entire idea of deity because someone has invented one that can't possibly exist to attack, (a straw god) and in which nobody believes, is also a dumb idea. We are better than that.

However, please note that I'm not advocating that someone fix it so that you can't express those ideas, or make it illegal to do so, or enforce a 'must not.' upon those who believe in this way.

................................and since when is defending someone's right to believe as they wish an automatic endorsement of that belief? I mean, I defend your right to believe as you wish, or in your case, to disbelieve. Does that mean that I must, of necessity, agree with you?

'cause trust me on this one; I don't.

[Ooberman]

I'm not approaching this as a Free Speech issue. Let's take out Creationism and insert Phrenology or Leeching. Or Homeopathy.

They are dumb ideas and they have no place in the modern world. Like Creationism.

[dianaiad]

I'm not approaching this as a Free Speech issue. Let's take out Creationism and insert Phrenology or Leeching. Or Homeopathy.

They are dumb ideas and they have no place in the modern world. Like Creationism.

They ARE dumb ideas. I agree with you. The problem is with the next phrase "they have no place in the modern world."

Of course they have a place, this modern world would be far more boring without such ideas. I celebrate the folks in the tin foil hats, long may they wear 'em!

...........and here's why.

You mentioned leeches. Leeches have long been a symbol of outdated and outlandish medical practice, but were you aware that leeches are also life savers, and the use of them is fairly standard practice in orthopedic surgery (limb reattachments, for instance) and infection control? For that matter, there is a medical use for maggots in that area. They have saved many, lives.

Because people with dumb ideas might not be all that dumb. Now I can't find a positive about phrenology, but homeopathy? That works mainly on the 'placebo effect,' which, as it happens, actually works. I would not use homeopathic methods, personally, but I understand why it might well work for some. So do doctors, the best of whom will sometimes recommend them, depending on the patient and the situation.

All these dumb ideas may be irritating. They may well be wrong; but to say that they 'have no place?" Nope. For one thing, even saying that 'they have no place' is taking a pretty big step toward 'and we should get rid of them." Not 'the believers should wake up and smell the truth," but "we have the right to rid ourselves of those opinions held by others." It's a bit worrisome.

It IS a 'free speech issue,' in other words.

I mean, you can't accuse me of defending literal biblical creationism as 'truth,' nor can you accuse me of thinking that leeches will cure fevers, phrenology will diagnose personalities or that homeopathy will cure cancer (or anything else, save through the placebo effect). I think that those who believe in these things are wrong.

But their wrong headedness is valuable. We NEED them. We make discoveries in fact because of them. They are, if nothing else, the nail in the shoe that prompts someone to invent a better sole, one that helps everybody.....even those who don't have nails in their shoes.

I love 'em.
I celebrate 'em.

Long may crazy, wrong headed, idiotic and weird ideas appear.