7 Animals that are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes

[Faith No More]

Speaking of the fossil record, how do creationists explain that? Do they really believe god made it that way to test their faith or do they have a natural explanation for it?

[Zen Badger]

Speaking of the fossil record, how do creationists explain that? Do they really believe god made it that way to test their faith or do they have a natural explanation for it?

And don't forget molecular genetics, which almost makes the fossil record redundant.

Though the fossil record was one of the first hints that the world is vastly older than 6000 years.

BTW SW, how do you explain mitochondria?

And all of your bullshit will not change the fact that ALL of the evidence in ALL of the natural sciences shows the Earth and the Universe to be much, much older than your fairy tales believe.

[Jaysyn]

It's formal logic. If your argument has the same form as the two invalid arguments (which I demonstrated it does) it is by definition invalid. Remember, it is the structure of the argument that makes it invalid, not the content. The fossil record argument is structured the exact same way, so adding up two invalid logical arguments doesn't somehow give you a valid argument.

You're a rules-lawyer grasping at straws to keep your argument relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Napoléon]

Oh my days Statler, you are moron.

Oh my days, is English your first language? I hope not.

Care to show how you are not indeed violating formal logic? I doubt you can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech

^ a little tip for you when dealing with other human beings.

[Doubting Thomas]

What!? I go through all that trouble showing you how you are violating formal logic

No you didn't. You posted two false arguments and tried to equate the fact that natural selection is part of evolutionary theory with them, while ignoring the fact that there's other evidence to back up evolutionary theory, such as the fossil record.

and then you have the nerve to call me "willfully stupid" when you are the one who just ignored my argument?

What you are arguing, using your Bill Gates example:

1. If Bill Gates owned Fort Knox, he would be rich
2. Bill Gates doesn't own Fort Knox.
3. Therefore, Bill Gates isn't rich.

You're totally ignoring other evidence. This is why you are willfully stupid.

Ya ever hear the saying, "Never argue with an idiot?" Well I have, and I'm going to heed that advice.

Good grief, just when I think I have seen it all on this board.

Who the fuck are you, Charlie Brown? Well if you don't like what you see here, you could always leave.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Speaking of the fossil record, how do creationists explain that? Do they really believe god made it that way to test their faith or do they have a natural explanation for it?

---

That’s a fair enough question. I will give you a few points to at least consider.

1. Common Descent would require millions of transitional forms because each unique structure would have to be constructed by natural selection acting on numerous generations of organisms (there are over 50,000 biological indicators between whales and land mammals alone). All the fossil record contains is a handful of highly disputed “transitional forms”. So in this regard the fossil record actually supports the creation position.

2. The fossil record is interpreted assuming evolution (common descent) happened, so to use it to support evolution is circular. Many secularists even see this problem. "Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." - Dr. Ronald West (Kansas State University).

3. The fossil record demonstrates not so much a simple to complex history of life, but rather a record of how different organisms were buried which in no way is inconsistent with the creation position. Many of the supposedly “simple” organisms have been shown to be just as complex as many of the supposed “complex” organisms at a genetic level.

4. Lastly, many illustrations that unfortunately appear in textbooks are a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Many are just artist interpretations of what the organism looked like or are conveniently arranged in an order that does not represent how they are found in the column (i.e. Horse evolution).

---

BTW SW, how do you explain mitochondria?

---

What about them?

---

You're a rules-lawyer grasping at straws to keep your argument relevant to the discussion at hand.

---

Classical logic is a crucial tool for discerning truth, so I am a bit perplexed as to why you say I am “grasping at straws” when I appeal to it. If you can’t formulate your argument in a way that is logically valid, then perhaps it’s not the world’s greatest argument.

[Zen Badger]

2. The fossil record is interpreted assuming evolution (common descent) happened, so to use it to support evolution is circular. Many secularists even see this problem. "Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." - Dr. Ronald West (Kansas State University).

Dr Ron West?

Here is the complete quote.....

Boundary conditions are the limits within which the theory is applicable..
Thus there does not seem to be any compartmentalization of attitudes as
Scott suggests; evolutionary theory deals with biology in the present, and
uniformitarianism permits the use of present processes to explain past
events. The concept of uniformitarianism does not enter the picture until
the attempt is made to use evolutionary theory (biological present) to
explain the fossils record (paleobiological past). Contrary to what most
scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of
evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to
interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular
reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory. When an
effort is made to explain the fossil record (whether it be taxonomic
differences or changes in response to ecological factors) in terms of
Darwinian evolution the concept of uniformitarianism is essential, for it
allows us to use the present to explain the past. This should be its main
purpose, to allow us to reconstruct the past on the basis of a theory or
theories founded on nonhistoric events." [Ronald R. West, "Paleoecology and
Uniformitarianism", The Compass of Sigma Gamma Epsilon, Vol. 45, No. 4, May
1968, p. 216]

And a bit of commentry on that quote

It seems here that West was correctly pointing out circular reasoning, but
it is not against the theory of evolution. His argument is that
uniformitarianism should be used to explain the fossil record using the
Darwinian theory. He does not imply that the Darwinian theory is wrong, or
how data is forced into an evolutionary framework. Creationists argue
against the concept of Uniformitarianism, something West supports and
explains in this article. Uniformitarianism falsifies many of the claims
made by creationists concerning their literal interpretation of the Book of
Genesis."

And the site it is from http://www.digisys.net/users/hoppnrmt/tr...ossils.htm

Don't quote mine real scientists SW, you will get caught out.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

What you are arguing, using your Bill Gates example:

1. If Bill Gates owned Fort Knox, he would be rich
2. Bill Gates doesn't own Fort Knox.
3. Therefore, Bill Gates isn't rich.

You're totally ignoring other evidence. This is why you are willfully stupid.

---

Yeah maybe not replying is the best thing you could do since it is obvious that you don’t have the foggiest idea about how classical logic works. First of all, the Bill Gates example was not my example, I was very clear it was an example used by Wikipedia. Secondly, I am well aware it is a bad argument, that’s the whole point of it. It’s an argument set up in the improper logical form of affirming the consequent, which just happens to be the exact same logical form this evolutionary article uses. They are both bad arguments for the same exact reason. So I suggest you refrain from calling me willfully stupid until you at least hold a basic working knowledge of classical logic because right now it makes you look really silly. Fair enough?

---

Dr Ron West?

Here is the complete quote.....

Boundary conditions are the limits within which the theory is applicable..
Thus there does not seem to be any compartmentalization of attitudes as
Scott suggests; evolutionary theory deals with biology in the present, and
uniformitarianism permits the use of present processes to explain past
events. The concept of uniformitarianism does not enter the picture until
the attempt is made to use evolutionary theory (biological present) to
explain the fossils record (paleobiological past). Contrary to what most
scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of
evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to
interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular
reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory. When an
effort is made to explain the fossil record (whether it be taxonomic
differences or changes in response to ecological factors) in terms of
Darwinian evolution the concept of uniformitarianism is essential, for it
allows us to use the present to explain the past. This should be its main
purpose, to allow us to reconstruct the past on the basis of a theory or
theories founded on nonhistoric events." [Ronald R. West, "Paleoecology and
Uniformitarianism", The Compass of Sigma Gamma Epsilon, Vol. 45, No. 4, May
1968, p. 216]

And a bit of commentry on that quote

It seems here that West was correctly pointing out circular reasoning, but
it is not against the theory of evolution. His argument is that
uniformitarianism should be used to explain the fossil record using the
Darwinian theory. He does not imply that the Darwinian theory is wrong, or
how data is forced into an evolutionary framework. Creationists argue
against the concept of Uniformitarianism, something West supports and
explains in this article. Uniformitarianism falsifies many of the claims
made by creationists concerning their literal interpretation of the Book of
Genesis."

And the site it is from http://www.digisys.net/users/hoppnrmt/tr...ossils.htm

Don't quote mine real scientists SW, you will get caught out.

---

Real scientists? That’s funny. Did I misquote him or say the quote said something it didn’t? Nope, I never said West was trying to prove Darwinian Theory wrong. I think it’s funny you had to look to an evolutionist to try and explain his quote to you. It’s quite obvious he is saying that the principles used to interpret the fossil record are based off of Darwinian assumptions, so using the fossil record to support Darwinism as you have tried to do several times is completely circular. I think the West quote is pretty clear, even though the biased commentary from a Darwinian website seems to try to sugar coat it a bit, which is expected.

[Doubting Thomas]

So I suggest you refrain from calling me willfully stupid until you at least hold a basic working knowledge of classical logic because right now it makes you look really silly. Fair enough?

I'll refrain from calling you willfully stupid just as soon as you demonstrate a basic working knowledge of evolutionary theory.

[Statler Waldorf]

So I suggest you refrain from calling me willfully stupid until you at least hold a basic working knowledge of classical logic because right now it makes you look really silly. Fair enough?

I'll refrain from calling you willfully stupid just as soon as you demonstrate a basic working knowledge of evolutionary theory.

I taught evolutionary biology and was the highest achieving student in my advance evolutionary biology class in university; I think I have a working knowledge of the theory thank you. You just don't want to admit that silly articles like this really don't add any logical support to the theory.