Creation vs. Evolution

[DFT_Dave]

I think that typically and consistently you choose to miss or ignore the point Dave.
You erroneously attempt to infer from Gould that an instantaneous appearance of a particular life form can be concluded from the study of geology, despite the vast time spans that geology actually portrays.
To my knowledge Darwin didn't even try specify how gradual, gradual actually must be, "gradual" is a relative, imprecise term.
You however, with your YEC agenda, choose to look down the wrong end of a telescope because actually you don't really want to see how gradual even rapid evolution can be.

Given that a whole environment can change very rapidly indeed or otoh it can remain steady for many thousands/millions of years, as often seen in geology as straight lines, it doesn't surprise me that the life within it responded very rapidly to environmental change or otoh remains largely unchanged if no particular change is called for.

There is no evidence at all that complex life forms can only be explained by a sudden instantaneous appearance, but there is plenty of evidence that life can respond very rapidly indeed when it has to. Any such rapid change would be highly unlikely to be evident from geology and its timescale.

Do you deliberately ignore my references?

I am not quoting from creation sources. What Gould means is clear in his own words. That Darwin believed in uniform and very gradual evolution is not an opinion.

That PE speeds up gradualism and is "bushy", not uniform, not linear, is also historically clear in contrast to Darwinism.

The theory of evolution is always dealing with paradoxes which as religious as it gets.

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

Do you deliberately ignore my references?

I am not quoting from creation sources. What Gould means is clear in his own words. That Darwin believed in uniform and very gradual evolution is not an opinion.

That PE speeds up gradualism and is "bushy", not uniform, not linear, is also historically clear in contrast to Darwinism.

The theory of evolution is always dealing with paradoxes which as religious as it gets.

--Dave

Darwin thought that evolution took millions of years and was somewhat gradual at all hierarchical levels. Gould thinks evolution took billions of years, and while gradual on most levels exhibits PE at species level.

So Darwin didn't know everything in the 19th century, and the theory has developed as new evidence and insight comes along. Well done for spotting the bleeding obvious.

Why do you think PE is not Evolution? PE is just a small refinement after a long line of refinements, and more refinements will come in the future. Continual improvement is the mark of science. It is dogmatic creationism that doesn't tolerate revisions in the light of evidence.

 

[MichaelCadry]

You guys,

I already told you how we find man's bones before our OWN Adam and Eve. There is no YEC. It's OLD EC. Man has been formed more than once since the first Adam was created by God in Genesis chapter one. OUR Adam was formed by the Lord God tons of years after the first Adam was created by God. Don't you get it? If the Lord God could wipe the earth clean, except for Noah and his family, what makes you SO SURE that He didn't do it before. How do you think the dinosaurs, and even cavemen, were erased from the earth before our OWN Adam was formed. It is written, "and He called THEIR name Adam, in the day THEY were created."

Do you want more info?

God Bless This Generation And All Of You Who Seek The Truth!!

Michael

 

[alwight]

Do you deliberately ignore my references?

I am not quoting from creation sources. What Gould means is clear in his own words. That Darwin believed in uniform and very gradual evolution is not an opinion.

That PE speeds up gradualism and is "bushy", not uniform, not linear, is also historically clear in contrast to Darwinism.

The theory of evolution is always dealing with paradoxes which as religious as it gets.

--Dave

I think you typically ignore, one way or another, most issues I may comment on so let's not start accusing me of deliberately ignoring your reference here. This is simply another one of your ways of not responding honestly to what I posted, I think because you can't.
You are imo hoping to show paradox where there is none simply because such a smokescreen would be best you can do.

I think also you should simply concede now that Gould has never provided you with any evidence of an instantaneous appearance of any form of life and that PE is simply a later refinement of what Darwin originally had in mind.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Don't you see how it is written that Gen 6:6, 6:7, "And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth..." Now, See Gen. 6:11, "The earth ALSO was corrupt before GOD." It was corrupt by the Lord and by God. That's why it says also. Now don't you think God or the Lord God could have destroyed all of the dinosaurs and cavemen off of the earth without even leaving any humans on earth, and FORM a new man on the earth and woman?? The earth has had more going on with it than any one of you know.

TO THOSE WHO SEEK THE TRUTH!!

Michael

 

[DFT_Dave]

:nono:

You seem to be a compulsive liar. Your statement is so blatantly false, I don't know how you have the affront to repeat such nonsense.

Here is the rest of my argument.

"In biology, saltation (from Latin, saltus, "leap") is a sudden change from one generation to the next, that is large, or very large, in comparison with the usual variation of an organism. The term is used for nongradual changes (especially single-step speciation) that are atypical of, or violate gradualism - involved in modern evolutionary theory...Saltation was originally denied by the 'modern synthesis' school of neo-Darwinism which favoured gradual evolution--Wiki"

Gould:

"I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism. I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

"It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

Gould and Eldredge reject Darwinian slow gradualism that is not seen in the rocks for rapid gradualism that is not seen in the rocks either. "Rapid gradualism", that's an oxymoron.​

Gradualism is gradualism regardless of how fast it progresses.

Saying we should reject gradualism and accept saltationism would have made sense but it is incompatable with the "modern synthesis".

Gradualism = evolution

If saltationism is not evolution then gradualism is, and to say gradualism is not seen in the rocks is no different than saying evolution is not seen in the rocks, by definition.

If a more rapid gradualism is also not seen in the rocks than, again, evolution is not seen in the rocks.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I think you typically ignore, one way or another, most issues I may comment on so let's not start accusing me of deliberately ignoring your reference here. This is simply another one of your ways of not responding honestly to what I posted, I think because you can't.
You are imo hoping to show paradox where there is none simply because such a smokescreen would be best you can do.

I think also you should simply concede now that Gould has never provided you with any evidence of an instantaneous appearance of any form of life and that PE is simply a later refinement of what Darwin originally had in mind.

The point is the fossils evidence is not there for either slow or rapid gradualism, which is evolution.

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

Here is the rest of my argument.

"In biology, saltation (from Latin, saltus, "leap") is a sudden change from one generation to the next, that is large, or very large, in comparison with the usual variation of an organism. The term is used for nongradual changes (especially single-step speciation) that are atypical of, or violate gradualism - involved in modern evolutionary theory...Saltation was originally denied by the 'modern synthesis' school of neo-Darwinism which favoured gradual evolution--Wiki"

Gould:

"I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism. I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

"It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

Gould and Eldredge reject Darwinian slow gradualism that is not seen in the rocks for rapid gradualism that is not seen in the rocks either. "Rapid gradualism", that's an oxymoron.​

Gradualism is gradualism regardless of how fast it progresses.

Saying we should reject gradualism and accept saltationism would have made sense but it is incompatable with the "modern synthesis".

Gradualism = evolution

If saltationism is not evolution then gradualism is, and to say gradualism is not seen in the rocks is no different than saying evolution is not seen in the rocks, by definition.

If a more rapid gradualism is also not seen in the rocks than, again, evolution is not seen in the rocks.

--Dave

PE is not saltationism, since PE requires small changes from generation to generation: rapid but tiny, graduated changes. It is saltationism that has been rejected by the modern synthesis, with PE, if true, a full part of neo-darwinian evolutionary hypotheses.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_%28biology%29#Use_by_creationists

Saltation:

Use by creationists

Some creationists have associated Goldschmidt's "hopeful monsters" with the theory of punctuated equilibrium, as proposed by Eldredge and Gould.[53] Punctuated equilibrium differs from hopeful monsters in that the former acts on populations rather than individuals, is theoretically more gradual (which proposes to take 50,000 to 100,000 years), functions by the evolution of reproductive isolation (through mechanisms such as allopatric speciation), and the latter says nothing of stasis. Creationists such as Luther Sutherland claim that both theories inadvertently appeal to the absence of fossil evidence for evolution and thereby undermining the theory of Darwinian evolution. This predicament is used by creationists to argue that "there are no transitional fossils." Paleontologists such as Niles Eldredge, Stephen Jay Gould, and Steven M. Stanley avoid this by explaining that transitional forms may be rare between species, but "they are abundant between larger groups",[54] and none of these paleontologists support Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" hypothesis.


​

PE takes 50 000 to 100 000 years to produce speciation, unlike saltation's single generation changes, so it is remarkably gradualist in its behaviour.

 

[MichaelCadry]

You're just not digging deep enough. The earth was corrupt before the Lord and ALSO before God. Two different entities, though One in Spirit. Do you understand now?

Michael

 

[alwight]

The point is the fossils evidence is not there for either slow or rapid gradualism, which is evolution.

--Dave

I disagree. Given that the entire geological column represents the passage of time and is also evidence of the many different environments then it does clearly show, by all the varieties of specific fossils within, snapshots from many different ages, and thus afaic the general direction of evolution from early fractal based life-forms to far more complex ones with new, different or developing key features.

But is evolution always clear from individual strata that gradual change was happening?
No, perhaps not always, but major change is not a requirement for Darwinian evolution in a steady environment.

What you do imo Dave is to ignore the general direction of evolution from say the pre-Cambrian through all the ages and strata and restrict the view to where you have concluded that evolution actually in action is perhaps rather more difficult to conclude.

However we actually don't need that particular evidence to be reasonably sure that evolution will and does happen, there are many other ways we can reasonably conclude that.

 

[DFT_Dave]

PE is not saltationism, since PE requires small changes from generation to generation: rapid but tiny, graduated changes. It is saltationism that has been rejected by the modern synthesis, with PE, if true, a full part of neo-darwinian evolutionary hypotheses.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_%28biology%29#Use_by_creationists

Saltation:

Use by creationists

Some creationists have associated Goldschmidt's "hopeful monsters" with the theory of punctuated equilibrium, as proposed by Eldredge and Gould.[53] Punctuated equilibrium differs from hopeful monsters in that the former acts on populations rather than individuals, is theoretically more gradual (which proposes to take 50,000 to 100,000 years), functions by the evolution of reproductive isolation (through mechanisms such as allopatric speciation), and the latter says nothing of stasis. Creationists such as Luther Sutherland claim that both theories inadvertently appeal to the absence of fossil evidence for evolution and thereby undermining the theory of Darwinian evolution. This predicament is used by creationists to argue that "there are no transitional fossils." Paleontologists such as Niles Eldredge, Stephen Jay Gould, and Steven M. Stanley avoid this by explaining that transitional forms may be rare between species, but "they are abundant between larger groups",[54] and none of these paleontologists support Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" hypothesis.

​

PE takes 50 000 to 100 000 years to produce speciation, unlike saltation's single generation changes, so it is remarkably gradualist in its behaviour.

A transitional form between larger groups is fossil cherry picking.

This is where theory is the driver and any piece of fossil bone that looks like it fits the preconceived idea of what a transitional form might look like becomes a passenger.

These so called transitions are in reality the diversity within kinds that are the stasis of the fossil record of very little if any change.

This is another example of having it, irrefutably, both ways, evolution is rapid and slow.

We have diversity today. My son is not an exact copy of me or his mother, my son has not evolved from us.

There are children today who have been, sadly, born with genetic mutations. They have not evolved from their parents either.

Diversity and mutations in the fossil record are no more evidence of evolution than diversity and mutations are today.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

What is the difference between non-evolving characteristics in a gene pool and evolving characteristics?

--Dave

 

[Hedshaker]

So, in summery we have = Evolution is factual compliments all the evidence.

Creationism = complete bolux

 

[intojoy]

The problem I have with the creationist is that the creationist in his mind has seen fit to use the book of Genesis in a way in which Genesis was not primarily given to us in what we are supposed to learn from the book of Genesis.

Satan has gotten himself a double header with this one. Fist off he's got the world believing a lie - evolution. Secondly he's gotten Christians to ignore the primary focus of the book of Genesis. IMO its a waste of my time debating evolutionists. I have no desire whatsoever to win the debate because I have been completely persuaded by scripture that God spoke and we appeared. There are those who struggle to take this on faith? It is not my problem, they can take it up with God themselves. Later.

To let you know how I feel, speaking to my brothers and sisters in Christ and Christ in you all, take for example king David. In what way do you suppose David taught the book of Genesis during his mid week bible studies ( If threats what he had or called them)? Since the theory of evolution was non existent, what was the study about?

To be gracious to you and to your labor of love in arguing against evolution, I would concede that David himself would give you his amen in your use of Genesis because of the spiritual battle going on in our day and time. But think about what spiritual battle he had during his own day and think on how the book of Genesis would be used by him to argue:

Jehovah is God
Israel is a chosen people
The world and its false gods are to be condemned and rejected.

I would that there were a thread dedicated to the study of Genesis that completely ignores the evolutionary theory and focuses on Genesis as it was originally given!

 

[alwight]

...IMO its a waste of my time debating evolutionists. I have no desire whatsoever to win the debate because I have been completely persuaded by scripture that God spoke and we appeared...

...I would that there were a thread dedicated to the study of Genesis that completely ignores the evolutionary theory and focuses on Genesis as it was originally given!

As an "evolutionist" I can happily accept Genesis as allegory but if you have simply presupposed that Genesis is a factual narrative and true in all respects, and that God spoke a man into existence fully formed then you are surely a Young Earth Creationist whether you want to argue with "evolutionists" or not.

 

[doloresistere]

As an "evolutionist" I can happily accept Genesis as allegory but if you have simply presupposed that Genesis is a factual narrative and true in all respects, and that God spoke a man into existence fully formed then you are surely a Young Earth Creationist whether you want to argue with "evolutionists" or not.

Yes, He is a YEC; he just thinks it is wrong to try and argue about it or only get a young earth out of the book of Genesis when it is much more than that.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Creation science presupposes that an "intelligent supernatural Being" created nature and everything whole and complete to reproduced after their kind just as we see life today. The fossil record confirms this.

Do you suppose Evolution predicts incomplete or partial lifeforms?

 

[MichaelCadry]

DFT_Dave, 6days, and yes, Alwight are some of my favorite people on this TOL site. Don't forget JosephR, Eeset, and elisabeth e. You are all awesome in my book and surely you have a place in God's Heart and where you will go when you die. I know Alwight is 'atheist' but barely. He has too much love inside of him to be a true atheist. I love him, regardless, as I do all of you. You are ALL LOVEABLE PEOPLE! That's what is most important, isn't it? God is LOVE in spirit. If you have Love, you have God, for they are one and the same. Now, if you don't have real or true love, than that is a different story. But I've seen real love in each of you, and also others on this site. All I can say is "CONGRATULATIONS"!!!

In God's Name,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

You guys,

You all ignored my post here. Why do you do this to me? It has a place here under the subject: Creation. So I'm not off-topic. There is no YEC. Don't you think that God has been busy with others things rather than just the 6,000 past years on the earth?? He's been busy with this earth and our galaxy to say the least for billions of years. Our Adam was not the first man on earth. I already told you how we find man's bones before our OWN Adam and Eve. There is no YEC. It's OLD EC. Man has been formed more than once since the first Adam was created by God in Genesis chapter one. OUR Adam was formed by the Lord God tons of years after the first Adam was created by God. Don't you get it? If the Lord God could wipe the earth clean, except for Noah and his family, what makes you SO SURE that He didn't do it before. How do you think the dinosaurs, and even cavemen, were erased from the earth before our OWN Adam was formed. It is written, "and He called THEIR name Adam, in the day THEY were created."

Do you want more info?

God Bless This Generation And All Of You Who Seek The Truth!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Why are you YECs!! Why are you ATHEISTS!! DON'T THROW YOUR LIVES AWAY AND GIVE UP JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE BEING CONFUSED. The devil is the master of confusion.

Michael