7 Animals that are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes

[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.