Religion of Evolution

[UTEOTW]

I think it is obvious that the first quote is from the book and the second is from a letter to Mr. Theunissen.

Look, I have already put all your quotes in context and shown how they are not what the author intended. I was initially surprised that you went back to the Simpson quote since it was one of the easiest to see the problems with the way it was quoted. I was shocked that you went back to the rest of the quotes.

It seems apparent that you find no fault with the quotes. I have provided the context and demostrated what is wrong here. If you want to go on asserting that there is a problem, fine, do whatever you wish. All I can do is continue to put things in context and show where you are not quoting honestly. Since I have already done this once, I do not see the need to repeat over and over. If you come up with something new, let me know.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
??What failed about the horse series??

The reference to Eohippus is absolutely ludicrous. The whole “Horse Series” concept was completely thrown away by leading evolutionists starting in the 1950s!


The preeminent evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson believed that horses evolved. But, he was honest enough to admit that the “Horse Series” drawn up a couple of decades earlier, and propagated to this day in textbooks, was a fraud.

“The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature.”…

As already briefly noted, the famous “gradual reduction of the side toes” also is something that never happened…

In the history of the horse family there is no known trend that affected the whole family. …

(The evolution of the horse family, Equidae, is now no better known than that of numerous other groups of organisms, but it is still a classic example of evolution in action, and a very instructive example when correctly presented…)[/

Life of the Past, 1953, p. 119. [Emphasis added - ed.]

Other eminent evolutionists agreed with him.

“. . . some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information – what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.” Dr. David M. Raup, Evolutionist, Paleontologist and Curator of the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25. [Emphasis added - ed.]

“The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes[/b] from four-toed, fox-sized creatures, living nearly 50 million years ago, to todays much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.” Boyce Rensberger, Senior Editor of Science 80, in “Ideas on Evolution Going Through a Revolution Among Scientists,” Houston Chronicle, 5 November 1980, sec. 5, p. 15. [Emphasis added - ed.]

Worse still is that the greatest of evolutionary believing scientists admit that there are no such “series” of any kind found in the fossil bearing layers.

The late great spokesman for evolutionism, Dr. Stephen J. Gould, wrote:

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.

The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however, reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,”[/b] Natural History 86 (May 1977): p. 14. [Emphasis added - ed.]

George Gaylord Simpson wrote:

“This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes, both vertebrate and invertebrate.” Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107. [Emphasis added - ed.]

The late Dr. Colin Patterson (senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, wrote in a letter

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

. . . You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”[/b] 10 April 1979 [Emphasis added - ed.]

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"The salient point here is that the much touted series was nothing more than a "story". The SERIES SHOWED smooth transition. BUT NOW all admit that NOTHING OF THE KIND is supported by the data."

No, the salient point is that these guys were pointing out that the series is jerky and not smooth and your sources took that out of context to make it sound like they said that the series does not exist at all.

 

[UTEOTW]

Is all you know how to do is repeat yourself?

Do you think that if you repeat the same dishonest quote enough times that you can change it into an honest quote?

Do you really think that the reader can not see the dishonesty of such quoting?

Do you really expect us to believe that you can not see the difference between what you quoted and what they said in context?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:


i]Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists-- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.[/i]"

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1983, Norton, New York.

Suppose this atheist evolutionist could have been brought to his senses and turning from Junk Science - could have embraced the CREATOR who SAID He CREATED this world in SIX DAYS and rested on the SEVENTH day giving it to "mankind' as a memorial OF HIS LITERAL Creative act!!

What a huge difference it would have made to the "LATE" S. J Gould.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Is all you know how to do is repeat yourself?

Do you think that if you repeat the same dishonest quote enough times that you can change it into an honest quote?

Do you really think that the reader can not see the dishonesty of such quoting?

Do you really expect us to believe that you can not see the difference between what you quoted and what they said in context?

The quotes are all verbatim. The flaws they expose in evolutionism's junk science "does not please you". I understand that UTEOTW -- but it does not change the facts they point out.

Atheist Evolutionist who still believe in evolutionism confess to the "stories" they have been telling at times - and on those occassions I find it helpful to expose that dirty little secret (As S.J Gould calls it) to the light of day.

Surely you can understand why that is.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"Suppose this atheist evolutionist could have been brought to his senses and turning from Junk Science - could have embraced the CREATOR who SAID He CREATED this world in SIX DAYS and rested on the SEVENTH day giving it to "mankind' as a memorial OF HIS LITERAL Creative act!!

What a huge difference it would have made to the "LATE" S. J Gould."

Look at his own opinion of how he was quoted by people calling themselves Christian. He said they must have either been quoting decietfully by "design" or through "stupidity." Do you think that it lessened his chance of ever being reached for Christ by seeing the Christian that he had the most exposure to being so willing to misquote him that he found it "infuriating?"

This is the problem with YEC "science." It is built upon lies and deceit and has the potential to drive from Christianity believers and unbelievers alike.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"The salient point here is that the much touted series was nothing more than a "story". The SERIES SHOWED smooth transition. BUT NOW all admit that NOTHING OF THE KIND is supported by the data."

No, the salient point is that these guys were pointing out that the series is jerky and not smooth and your sources took that out of context to make it sound like they said that the series does not exist at all.

AS I said - it would be helpful to your case if you could at least allow yourself to see one of the glaring facts and respond to it directly rather than trying to "revise" what is already seen to be true, blatant and clear.

the SERIES that SHOWS smooth transition CAN NOT be "true" when the scientist DENY that any such thing exists as a SMOOTH TRANSITION SERIES.

How much more obvious can this be UTEOTW!!??

I can keep showing how obivous it is - but then what will you do? How is it helping you to pretend you don't notice an obvious point to respond to?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"The quotes are all verbatim. The flaws they expose in evolutionism's junk science "does not please you". I understand that UTEOTW -- but it does not change the facts they point out."

The quote may be verbatim but they are not accurate.

Could I not quote the Bible as saying "There is no God."

It is verbatim. It is not accurate however.

Same thing here. A correct quote does more than get all of the words correct. If the way the words are presented changes the meaning from the original, it is dishonest. It is obvious that these quotes do not mean the same thing in context as they do in the way you present them. That mean that they are not honest quotes.

Do you actually believe that the quotes mean the same thing was the context is added? Or do you admit that it changes the meaning?

 

[BobRyan]

"Suppose this atheist evolutionist could have been brought to his senses and turning from Junk Science - could have embraced the CREATOR who SAID He CREATED this world in SIX DAYS and rested on the SEVENTH day giving it to "mankind' as a memorial OF HIS LITERAL Creative act!!

What a huge difference it would have made to the "LATE" S. J Gould."

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Look at his own opinion of how he was quoted by people calling themselves Creationists.

It is pretty funny isn't it.??

It is as if he can not help but reveal the flaws in evolutionisms myths and fables EVEN while he is desperately attempting to shore it up!

Praise the Creator who IS trustworthy and whose "Account" of his OWN creation is Trustworthy and accurate right down to the SIX evenings and mornings.

And how sad for Gould that he never figured this out before life ended and the flames of the lake of fire are all that await his noble atheist efforts.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"AS I said - it would be helpful to your case if you could at least allow yourself to see one of the glaring facts and respond to it directly rather than trying to "revise" what is already seen to be true, blatant and clear.

the SERIES that SHOWS smooth transition CAN NOT be "true" when the scientist DENY that any such thing exists as a SMOOTH TRANSITION SERIES."

Finally progress. You are beginning to understand PE. Most change is not smooth and gradual. It comes in fits and spurts. Change does not have an endpoint in mind. It is just trying to make the organism more viable at that point in time. So you should not expect to find smooth gradual change in one direction. It should be uneven. It should sometimes go in one direction and then back in the other.

This WAS a change in thought way back when you are pulling the quotes from. But it is not what you are presenting it as. This is not an abandonemnt of the fossil record, it is recognizing it for what it is rather than what people expected many, many years ago.

 

[Brett]

And how sad for Gould that he never figured this out before life ended and the flames of the lake of fire are all that await his noble atheist efforts.

This sounds very much like "Believe in Creationism or go to hell!" ...

 

[UTEOTW]

"Look at his own opinion of how he was quoted by people calling themselves Creationists."

And now you misquote me, AGAIN.

I said "Christians" not "Creationists."

"And how sad for Gould that he never figured this out before life ended and the flames of the lake of fire are all that await his noble atheist efforts."

Yes. And while he must shoulder that for eternity, the people who so "infuriated" him through their dishonesty in the name of Christianity must also shoulder their share. How could things have been different if he had a different perception of Christians.

 

[The Galatian]

The reference to Eohippus is absolutely ludicrous. The whole “Horse Series” concept was completely thrown away by leading evolutionists starting in the 1950s!

Well let's see if we can test that idea.

Look here:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/images/hyracoskel.jpg

And here:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/images/oroh.gif

Two complete skeletons. Take a look and then tell us if you think these are different enough to be two kinds.

The preeminent evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson believed that horses evolved. But, he was honest enough to admit that the “Horse Series” drawn up a couple of decades earlier, and propagated to this day in textbooks, was a fraud.

In fact, by Simpson's time, paleontologist had discovered that there was not one line of horses, but many lines bushing out from a common ancestor. That was Simpson's observation.

But do take a look at those fossils and tell us what you think. Then we can go on.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

What if somebody said they wouldn't believe in the Bible because there was a big gap between the last of the prophets and the coming of the Christ?

That would make about as much sense.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Brett:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And how sad for Gould that he never figured this out before life ended and the flames of the lake of fire are all that await his noble atheist efforts.

This sounds very much like "Believe in Creationism or go to hell!" ... </font>[/QUOTE]The "point" is that the atheist evolutionist Gould never got the Creator's message and never took it to be "trustworthy".

Now he has died. So though you may choose to reject the creators "Account" as Gould did - surely you can not help but have sympathy for his poor deluded soul in rejecting the Words of his Creator - and thus the Gospel of his Creator.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

Gould was not, BTW, an atheist. He was an agnostic, and he was friendly with believers, his opinion being that no one could really say that there was no god.

Being raised in a Marxist family, and taught to distrust believers, I'd say he did rather well for himself.

Under "invincible ignorance", he might very well have been saved.

 

[BobRyan]

As I said - surely there is a Christian here who would sympathise with the problem Gould has now - as he faces the Creator only to find that God DID Create the World and everything in it, and man DID fall, and he (Gould) DID need to accept that the Creator is in fact REAL and also the Savior.


All the evolutionary beliefs will not help him now.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BOTH Agnostic and Atheist LIVE as if there is no God and they both AGREE that the Christian is wrong to CLAIM That he sees proof for God "clearly seen" in nature as Romans 1 claims. (See the thread Evolution vs the Gospel for full details on Romans 1 GET DETAILS HERE )

Where they differ is that the agnostic cautions with "but I could be wrong about this" while the Atheist insists "I can not possibly be wrong about this".

The lake of fire will not be able to taste the difference.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

On the other hand, despite what dedicated atheists and agnostics might claim, in fact evolution does not require one to be an atheist or an agnostic; it is perfectly possible to believe in God and even in Jesus and accept the fact of evolution. Why, I even manage to do that myself.