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

[Ooberman]

But their wrong headedness is valuable. We NEED them. We make discoveries in fact because of them.

I don't think this is true, and in fact, it might actually be false.

But, again, you are turning this into something entirely off topic.

We aren't talking about all bad ideas, and bad ideas in general, but Creationism and specifically science denial.


Would you really celebrate a person who believes the President is a Lizard Person? Not the abstract philosophical point that it's great people can voice their opinions, but the fact they really thought the President was a Lizard Person and they should act on that information?

Would you encourage a blind person to go jogging alone near a busy intersection? How many bad ideas do you actually think are great?

Let babies wander into wood chippers? There are trillions of bad ideas - and you are champion for all of them?

Or, again, do you use discretion? I suggest Creationism is a bad idea that shouldn't be encouraged - like making kool aid from anti-freeze, or sharing heroin needles.

I get your point, but it is so over reaching it's meaningless. Clearly you don't think ALL bad ideas should be celebrated.

Yet, your position is that at least some bad ideas - ones that you feel are OK - should be allowed.

You are making the distinction based on personal preference like me, I'm just being specific about 1 dumb idea: Creationism.

[dianaiad]

But their wrong headedness is valuable. We NEED them. We make discoveries in fact because of them.

I don't think this is true, and in fact, it might actually be false.

But, again, you are turning this into something entirely off topic.

We aren't talking about all bad ideas, and bad ideas in general, but Creationism and specifically science denial.

Hey.

*I* didn't bring up phrenology, leeches and homeopathy. You did.

Would you really celebrate a person who believes the President is a Lizard Person?

Sure. I might not give him a lift to the polls, though. He'd have to get there all on his own.

Not the abstract philosophical point that it's great people can voice their opinions, but the fact they really thought the President was a Lizard Person and they should act on that information?

"Act on?" Now you really are moving the goal posts. What do you mean by 'act on?'

Would you encourage a blind person to go jogging alone near a busy intersection? How many bad ideas do you actually think are great?

"Encourage?" Moving the goal posts again. However, if a blind person wants to jog near a busy intersection, I have no right to stop him even if I think it's for his own good. I can offer to jog with him. I can watch to see that he knows what he is doing. I can do what I can do to fix it so that he CAN run where he wants to run.

BTW, I do know blind joggers who go running...even near busy intersections. That's why they have canes and dogs, so that they can do such things.

I am rather intrigued, though, by your example.

Let babies wander into wood chippers? There are trillions of bad ideas - and you are champion for all of them?

Wow. Now THAT'S equivocation, likening a baby 'wandering into woodchippers" with allowing people their own religious beliefs that don't agree with yours. Are you really trying to say that a baby in a wood chipper is in the same classification as allowing someone to believe in literal biblical creationism?

Really?

Or, again, do you use discretion? I suggest Creationism is a bad idea that shouldn't be encouraged - like making kool aid from anti-freeze, or sharing heroin needles.

OK, so don't encourage it. However, you are going beyond 'not encouraging it."

Take the blind jogger: There is a huge difference between not encouraging him to 'go for a jog by the freeway' and forcibly preventing him from doing so.

I get your point, but it is so over reaching it's meaningless. Clearly you don't think ALL bad ideas should be celebrated.

MY point is 'overreaching?' Goodness. That's funny.

Yet, your position is that at least some bad ideas - ones that you feel are OK - should be allowed.

They all should...because there's nothing we can do to prevent bad ideas. They are, after all, ideas. You know, thoughts and beliefs.

What we need to be careful of are those who promote their 'bad ideas' to the physical detriment of those who disagree with them. Literal Biblical creationism does not do that.

I can think of other bad ideas, more politically correct ones, that do cause physical harm to those who disagree, and I find that many who share your opinion of religious beliefs you don't like are perfectly happy to impose those ideas (the ones they like) on others.

It's a world of 'I'm right so I can make you change your mind," and "you are wrong, so you can't make me do or think anything I don't want to." The difference is only in who holds what opinion.


Y

ou are making the distinction based on personal preference like me, I'm just being specific about 1 dumb idea: Creationism.

It's a dumb idea. Agreed. My problem is what you want to do about it.

[Ooberman]

What do I want to do about it? What have I said that's problematic? Perhaps you are reading into my posts too much?

What do you think should be done about bad ideas? Same thing as good ideas? Clearly, there is a difference, no?

Think of a bad idea - like female genital mutilation. What would you do about it? Celebrate it? Bless the stupid people who practice it? Congratulate them on their quirkiness?





edit:

So, Genocide. That's a bad idea, right?


Here is your response:

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.

Infanticide?

But their wrong headedness is valuable. We NEED them. ....

I love 'em.
I celebrate 'em.

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

Honor killing?

But their wrong headedness is valuable. We NEED them. ....

I love 'em.
I celebrate 'em.

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

Do I make my point?

[dianaiad]

What do I want to do about it? What have I said that's problematic? Perhaps you are reading into my posts too much?

What do you think should be done about bad ideas? Same thing as good ideas? Clearly, there is a difference, no?

Think of a bad idea - like female genital mutilation. What would you do about it? Celebrate it? Bless the stupid people who practice it? Congratulate them on their quirkiness?

There you go again, equating something that causes physical harm to those who do not agree (or who are not capable of disagreeing, like children) with the idea of literal biblical creationism.

Am I reading too much into your posts? You keep equating biblical literal creationism, the IDEA, with things that most people would agree MUST be stopped, or prevented, by outside intervention.

Yes, we need to stop forced genital mutilation.
Yes, we should keep babies out of shredders.
Yes, it's probably a bad idea to tell a blind man to run next to a busy intersection. These are, in general, considered to be bad things, and downright illegal.

.........and you are putting a belief in literal biblical creationism in the same category as these?

No, I don't think I"m reading too much into your posts.

[Ooberman]

What do I want to do about it? What have I said that's problematic? Perhaps you are reading into my posts too much?

What do you think should be done about bad ideas? Same thing as good ideas? Clearly, there is a difference, no?

Think of a bad idea - like female genital mutilation. What would you do about it? Celebrate it? Bless the stupid people who practice it? Congratulate them on their quirkiness?

There you go again, equating something that causes physical harm to those who do not agree (or who are not capable of disagreeing, like children) with the idea of literal biblical creationism.

Am I reading too much into your posts? You keep equating biblical literal creationism, the IDEA, with things that most people would agree MUST be stopped, or prevented, by outside intervention.

Yes, we need to stop forced genital mutilation.
Yes, we should keep babies out of shredders.
Yes, it's probably a bad idea to tell a blind man to run next to a busy intersection. These are, in general, considered to be bad things, and downright illegal.

.........and you are putting a belief in literal biblical creationism in the same category as these?

No, I don't think I"m reading too much into your posts.

I am, I think, clearly pointing out that Creationism is a bad idea in that it has no reason or basis.

Genocide is great - if the other society is truly horrific.
Infanticide may, in some rare case or two, may be a good idea.

The point is Creationism has no value - just as those other bad ideas. You can claim it does, just as a person claiming gential mutilation (male or female) has a value. But saying it doesn't make it so.

I am using extreme examples to show you there is some level of discretion in deciding which is a good or bad idea.

Once, however, we establish something is a bad idea, it means, de facto, it has no place in reasonable discussions - like forming public policy.

I don't think eradicating Creationism is possible, and we shouldn't try. But, eradicating Creationism from entering into science class, policy formation, or even debate forums is a good idea. Creationism is a waste of time. It's a dumb idea. It's as dumb as genital mutilation, and maybe even more harmful - but I am not arguing that. I am simply pointing out dumb ideas are dumb to think about. They are a waste of time to consider.

While your position is:

But their wrong headedness is valuable. We NEED them. ....

I love 'em.
I celebrate 'em.

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

We NEED them? Really? Don't we need good ideas - and sometimes bad ideas are a pathway to good ideas - but that's not the same as saying we need bad ideas.

We need good ideas. It starts with ideas. Once an idea is judged "bad" we no longer need it.

We NEED GOOD IDEAS, not BAD ideas. It seems axiomatic.

[dianaiad]

We need good ideas. It starts with ideas. Once an idea is judged "bad" we no longer need it.

Judged by whom?

We NEED GOOD IDEAS, not BAD ideas. It seems axiomatic.

I would really like to know how one arranges things so that nobody thinks of anything but good ideas,

[Ooberman]

Di, you edited out some rather powerful points, don't you agree? I'd like you to address them head on.


And, you seem to readily judge some ideas as Bad - what governing authority did you use? Are you incapable of judging what is good or bad?

Is it only when you don't want people to judge ideas that it's a bad idea? But when you judge them, it's OK?

What do you mean be "bad idea"? What judgment do you use?

[dianaiad]

Di, you edited out some rather powerful points, don't you agree? I'd like you to address them head on.

What, address each and every example that you have given, individually, and defend them?

No...I don't think so. I handled all of them with the 'equivocation' comment. There is a huge difference between an idea with which you disagree, and a practice that physically harms those who don't agree with it.

They. are. not. in. the. same. category. It doesn't matter what individual practice you mention, whether it is infanticide, or genital mutilation, or babies in shredders, or pushing blind people into traffic; every one of those is about doing harm to someone who doesn't agree with it, or who can't freely make a decision.

BTW, voting in a creationist does NOT fall into the above category, either, since it can be assumed that if the creationist was elected, the folks who put him or her into office understood that this might affect decisions, policy-making and legislation. That would be rather the point.

As in...since when does your vote, because you don't believe in creationism, trump the vote of the guy who does?

And, you seem to readily judge some ideas as Bad - what governing authority did you use? Are you incapable of judging what is good or bad?

Is it only when you don't want people to judge ideas that it's a bad idea? But when you judge them, it's OK?

What do you mean be "bad idea"? What judgment do you use?

Of course I judge some ideas as bad. Nor do I have a problem with you judging ideas as bad. The quarrel I have with you is what you are intimating should be done about 'em.

Perhaps you could be more clear about that. What DO you think that we...those who do not accept literal biblical creationism (and yes, 'we' includes me) do about those who believe in this?

[Ooberman]

Di, you edited out some rather powerful points, don't you agree? I'd like you to address them head on.

What, address each and every example that you have given, individually, and defend them?

No...I don't think so. I handled all of them with the 'equivocation' comment. There is a huge difference between an idea with which you disagree, and a practice that physically harms those who don't agree with it.

There are differences. One harms people physically, the other harms people in other ways.

That is, there is a difference between these bad ideas:

1. Physical abuse
2. Mental or verbal abuse

Are you suggesting the latter is unimportant because people don't agree?

They. are. not. in. the. same. category. It doesn't matter what individual practice you mention, whether it is infanticide, or genital mutilation, or babies in shredders, or pushing blind people into traffic; every one of those is about doing harm to someone who doesn't agree with it, or who can't freely make a decision.

They are in the single category of "BAD IDEAS".

"Bad" is the operating word. It's the important word.

Surely your only concern about ideas isn't whether or not it physically harms someone? What about ideas that rob wealth from people? Or undermine self-confidence?

BTW, voting in a creationist does NOT fall into the above category, either, since it can be assumed that if the creationist was elected, the folks who put him or her into office understood that this might affect decisions, policy-making and legislation. That would be rather the point.

We agree Creaetionism is a bad idea - wouldn't any policy based on it be, more likely, a bad idea?

I submit Creationism and other anti-science policies are bad ideas and within the set of bad ideas I am talking about.

As in...since when does your vote, because you don't believe in creationism, trump the vote of the guy who does?

It doesn't. All votes = 1. That's why I think it's so important to have bad ideas eradicated from our thinking.

We can't stop people from having bad ideas, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Especially when people can vote for ridiculous ideas like keeping slavery, keeping women from voting, etc.

Of course I judge some ideas as bad. Nor do I have a problem with you judging ideas as bad. The quarrel I have with you is what you are intimating should be done about 'em.

You asked me by whose authority I judged ideas. I answered.

Again, what do you think I think should be done about bad ideas?

Perhaps you could be more clear about that. What DO you think that we...those who do not accept literal biblical creationism (and yes, 'we' includes me) do about those who believe in this?

"in this" do you mean Creationism?

I think we should encourage people to learn the facts. Education. Dissuade people from teaching bad ideas.

including:
1. Ignoring the topic on forums when someone wants to debate it.
2. Refusing to teach it in schools.
3. Killing people who profess to believe it.. (is that what you wanted me to say?)
4. Teaching the Bible in mythology classes.

Essentially, think of how we should approach people who would have use believe in Big Foot. Ridicule, marginalize and ignore the idea - but not the person.

Love the person, not the bad idea. Help the person rid himself or herself of the bad idea through various means so that person can contribute gainfully in life where appropriate. (For example, voting for people who have proven methods to cure social ills, not who rely on magic and supernaturalism).

They can believe what they want, sure, but clearly our society works better if ideas are better than bad.

Do you agree?

[dianaiad]

....

I think we should encourage people to learn the facts. Education. Dissuade people from teaching bad ideas.

OK....depending of course on how fare 'we' are allowed to go with that....

including:
1. Ignoring the topic on forums when someone wants to debate it.

You mean 'we' as in all of us, and have that decree enforced? Like CARM will not allow any positive statement about non-fundamentalist belief systems on their forum?

Should the moderators refuse to allow creationists to express their opinions and defend their positions?

............or are you speaking of 'we,' as in you...that you, personally, should ignore this? Because, frankly, I already do. pretty much.

2. Refusing to teach it in schools.

OK...as an online teacher who is control of my own curriculum, I don't teach it myself. Of course, since I teach English and composition, that doesn't mean much...

Do you mean that we should, through legal or forcible means, ensure that creationism isn't taught in any school, no matter who owns it and what the parents want? What about homeschoolers? Are you proposing an 'education police' that will monitor such things in home school situations?

3. Killing people who profess to believe it.. (is that what you wanted me to say?)

Actually, that's already been tried. It was messy and lowered the world population by a fairly significant percentage. I don't get your point here. Why should I "want" you to say such a thing? Do you mean it? Is that really one of the options you propose?

All I 'want' is for you to be specific about what should be done, by you and by society, about the idea of literal biblical creationism and those who believe in it. I mean, your real honest thoughts about that.

4. Teaching the Bible in mythology classes.

Actually, that's a good idea. It should be taught somewhere. Religious teaching should be outside of the public school classroom. Wait. Isn't that the law now?

Y'know, I like it. I really like the idea of the bible being taught in mythology classes. The problem is, few grade and high schools offer mythology classes, and I have a problem with restricting what can be taught, and how, to college students since they have the choice as to what classes to take.

Essentially, think of how we should approach people who would have use believe in Big Foot. Ridicule, marginalize and ignore the idea - but not the person.

Love the person, not the bad idea. Help the person rid himself or herself of the bad idea through various means so that person can contribute gainfully in life where appropriate. (For example, voting for people who have proven methods to cure social ills, not who rely on magic and supernaturalism).

They can believe what they want, sure, but clearly our society works better if ideas are better than bad.

Do you agree?

Sure. I don't vote for literal biblical creationists either, if they make that issue part of their platform. In fact, I don't vote for anybody who makes religion (either pro or con) part of his or her platform.

All I'm trying to do here is to nail down just how far you feel society is justified in going in order to enforce the ideas you agree with.