Creation vs. Evolution

[gary-ramey]

Interesting, creationists in particular do not usually have a problem ignoring overwhelming evidence.

Look evolution says things happen slowly over time. The problem is you don't have a fossil record to support this. What you have is one species, then another. So either major adaptations took place rapidly, or they don't but you can't have it both ways. If you have large scale adaptations, then shouldn't we at least have witness one in the animal kingdom in written history?

 

[gary-ramey]

Hardly.
He has been called out several times in this thread for posting something copied and not citing a source. If he actually wrote that, I will appologize. I doubt I'll have to.

Sorry but its like calling someone out for spelling or grammar mistakes. If he were publishing a paper on it, I think we could then get upset if the proper credit wasn't also published but on here we all routinely cut and paste without giving the author credit.

 

[Robert Phillips]

Comparing plagiarism to calling out spelling and grammar mistakes is laughable. Based on your logic, that is hardly surprising though.
Most of the posters here cite sources for their cut and paste. Thedivingpreacher likes to pass it off as his own words. That is plagiarism.

Sorry but its like calling someone out for spelling or grammar mistakes. If he were publishing a paper on it, I think we could then get upset if the proper credit wasn't also published but on here we all routinely cut and paste without giving the author credit.

 

[gary-ramey]

Comparing plagiarism to calling out spelling and grammar mistakes is laughable. Based on your logic, that is hardly surprising though.
Most of the posters here cite sources for their cut and paste. Thedivingpreacher likes to pass it off as his own words. That is plagiarism.

I didn't mean to be flippant. While you're argument has some merit, I think you must look at it in context with the type of forum its being used in. I too get intellectually lazy when copying some material. I think your topic could start another interesting thread which would offer some diverse opinions.

 

[gary-ramey]

BTW, for anyone interested, here's a link to a great book. Controversial, yes but nonetheless thought provoking. If you want to understand what I believe, this book defines quite a bit of it. If you like, you can even read the rebuttal on talkorigins but I'd encourage you to read the book first. Icons of Evolution - Evolution, Darwinism, Darwin, Neo-Darwinism, Natural selection, Science education, Biology textbooks, Textbook errors

 

[deco_martini]

BTW, for anyone interested, here's a link to a great book. Controversial, yes but nonetheless thought provoking. If you want to understand what I believe, this book defines quite a bit of it. If you like, you can even read the rebuttal on talkorigins but I'd encourage you to read the book first. Icons of Evolution - Evolution, Darwinism, Darwin, Neo-Darwinism, Natural selection, Science education, Biology textbooks, Textbook errors

You realize that book is by an Aids denier?

And you can read all about the many factual errors in Wells book:
Icons of Evolution FAQs

Mind you, where there are legitimate errors in textbooks, there is something called "errata". Many teachers can even download the latest errata for their classroom texts. There is a process in place to fix this already. Errors related to evolutionary biology can be handled the same as any other error.

Wells seems to think that an error means the subject itself is wrong or should be thrown out. This isn't the work of a scientific mind. Its the work of a zealot. (An Aids denying bigot no less).

 

[deco_martini]

Look evolution says things happen slowly over time. The problem is you don't have a fossil record to support this. What you have is one species, then another. So either major adaptations took place rapidly, or they don't but you can't have it both ways. If you have large scale adaptations, then shouldn't we at least have witness one in the animal kingdom in written history?

There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
Source: CC200: Transitional fossils

 

[deco_martini]

Only after milking every ounce of attention out of it then the retraction is usually done quietly with no fanfare.

From the outset, there were scientists who expressed scepticism about the Piltdown find. G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together." In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.

Source: Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Soggy]

I too get intellectually lazy when copying some material.

No! Say it isn't so!

 

[lamont]

What you don't realize and which I have mentioned several times is that much of this work comes from the scholarly believers. They are the ones who dated the biblical gospels as being written by much later than the time of Christ and thus not being historical accounts.

And here's a whole book, by a Christian, on the scholarly/historical issues with the bible:

Amazon.com: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus): Bart D. Ehrman: Books

Jesus did not write the King James Bible in English.