Evidence of Evolution?

[r3p...@gmail.com]

I'm actually quite tired of waiting for Peter to defend evolutionary claims that I have challenged in various threads. Invariably, for whatever reason, Peter fails to address in a timely fashion.

Concerning the famous equine sequence: Assuming the same equates to a prime example of faunal succession, I have a question for the Evolutionists. In your minds, how much does succession or the sequence contribute to the so called fact of evolution?

Ray

[John Harshman]

On 9/30/17 7:13 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

> Concerning the famous equine sequence: Assuming the same equates to a
> prime example of faunal succession, I have a question for the
> Evolutionists. In your minds, how much does succession or the
> sequence contribute to the so called fact of evolution?

Note that succession and sequence are not the same thing. I'd say that
most of the evidence for the fact of evolution comes from elsewhere, but
if all we had were the faunal succession, that would by itself be
adequate evidence for evolution. Why would a creator create species so
that similar ones appeared at similar times, so that the fauna of time X
resembled that of times X - 1 and X + 1 more than the faunas of time X -
1 and X + 1 resembled each other?

And why would fossil sequences look more an more like modern species as
we approach the present? Specifically, why does that horse sequence
beginn with tiny, 5-toed, shallow-toothed Hyracotherium and pass through
various intermediate stages before ending up at huge, 1-toed,
deep-toothed Equus?*

*Sequences are actually artificially assembled paths through what's
really a tree, but they do illustrate a point, and anyway, only one path
ends up with modern species.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 7:50:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/30/17 7:13 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Concerning the famous equine sequence: Assuming the same equates to a
> > prime example of faunal succession, I have a question for the
> > Evolutionists. In your minds, how much does succession or the
> > sequence contribute to the so called fact of evolution?
>

> Note that succession and sequence are not the same thing.Suc

The equine sequence is not an example of faunal succession? Will address the remainder of your message ASAP.

Ray

[Rolf]

<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2f2000d-1074-4d9d...@googlegroups.com...

> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 7:50:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/30/17 7:13 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Concerning the famous equine sequence: Assuming the same equates to a
>> > prime example of faunal succession, I have a question for the
>> > Evolutionists. In your minds, how much does succession or the
>> > sequence contribute to the so called fact of evolution?
>>
>> Note that succession and sequence are not the same thing.Suc
>
> The equine sequence is not an example of faunal succession? Will address
> the remainder of your message ASAP.
>
> Ray
>

Sigh.

Creationism will be here till hell freezes over.
I shudder at the prospect of spending eternity in heaven.

Rolf

[jillery]

Since you asked, IMO the "horse sequence" isn't the strongest single
piece of evidence for Evolution nowadays, which would be molecular
systematics, but it's still impressive. The fossil evidence of horse
evolution illustrates a radiation through time and geography of at
least a dozen genera, for which there are thousands of specimens.
Their appearance shows the perversity of denying the existence of
transitional forms.

As relevant, it's equally good evidence against Common Design. Equid
fossils didn't appear anywhere until about 55 mya, after the
extinction of the dinosaurs. They didn't appear de novo, but are
morphologically related to other odd-toed ungulates.

Modern horses (Equus) finally appeared about 5 mya, in North America,
from which they radiated into and throughout the Old World, which is a
good thing, since Equus went extinct in the New World as the last
glaciation drew to a close.

So if the horse "design" was good enough to survive so long in North
America, why did it take so long for a presumptive Designer to come up
with it? And to stop fiddling with it? Since modern horses did so
well in Eurasia once they got there, why did a presumptive Designer
take so long to put them there? Since modern horses now thrive in the
New World, why did a presumptive Designer make them go extinct there?
Since modern horses now thrive in Australia, why didn't a presumptive
Designer ever put them there?

Common Design offers no answers to these questions, except "Designer's
mysterious ways". OTOH Evolution does. Evolution is a good
explanation. Common Design is a bad explanation.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Ernest Major]

On 01/10/2017 04:16, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 7:50:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/30/17 7:13 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Concerning the famous equine sequence: Assuming the same equates to a
>>> prime example of faunal succession, I have a question for the
>>> Evolutionists. In your minds, how much does succession or the
>>> sequence contribute to the so called fact of evolution?
>>
>> Note that succession and sequence are not the same thing.Suc
>
> The equine sequence is not an example of faunal succession? Will address the remainder of your message ASAP.

If you remind yourself what a fauna is, one hopes that you will
understand that one or a few horse species at a particular location and
time is not a fauna in and of itself, and consequently a sequence of
horse species over time is not in and of itself a faunal succession.
Horses are parts of faunas, and the sequence of horse species over time
is part of a faunal succession.

>
> Ray
> --
alias Ernest Major

[Burkhard]

I once rode a horse called Flora. I suddenly felt the urge to share this
fact

[John Harshman]

On 9/30/17 8:16 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 7:50:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/30/17 7:13 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Concerning the famous equine sequence: Assuming the same equates to a
>>> prime example of faunal succession, I have a question for the
>>> Evolutionists. In your minds, how much does succession or the
>>> sequence contribute to the so called fact of evolution?
>>
>> Note that succession and sequence are not the same thing.Suc
>
> The equine sequence is not an example of faunal succession? Will address the remainder of your message ASAP.

Of course it is. It's a miniature example.

[jillery]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 14:45:34 +0200, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Her filly could have been called Floral Succession.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 6:25:05 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/30/17 8:16 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 7:50:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/30/17 7:13 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Concerning the famous equine sequence: Assuming the same equates to a
> >>> prime example of faunal succession, I have a question for the
> >>> Evolutionists. In your minds, how much does succession or the
> >>> sequence contribute to the so called fact of evolution?
> >>
> >> Note that succession and sequence are not the same thing.Suc
> >
> > The equine sequence is not an example of faunal succession? Will address the remainder of your message ASAP.
>
> Of course it is. It's a miniature example.

Yet in the very first sentence, in your very first reply, in this thread, did you not say the exact opposite? What am I missing here?

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 7:50:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

> On 9/30/17 7:13 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Concerning the famous equine sequence: Assuming the same equates to a
> > prime example of faunal succession, I have a question for the
> > Evolutionists. In your minds, how much does succession or the
> > sequence contribute to the so called fact of evolution?
>
> Note that succession and sequence are not the same thing. I'd say that
> most of the evidence for the fact of evolution comes from elsewhere, but
> if all we had were the faunal succession, that would by itself be
> adequate evidence for evolution.

My input here exists to show that the equine sequence perfectly encapsulates the illogical thinking of almost all Evolutionists.

> Why would a creator create species so
> that similar ones appeared at similar times, so that the fauna of time X
> resembled that of times X - 1 and X + 1 more than the faunas of time X -
> 1 and X + 1 resembled each other?

All John is saying is as follows: Discovery of gradation similarity clearly indicates that evolution has occurred. The preceding conveys a premise that assumes evolution has occurred if a sequence of closely similar species can be identified. In this context John asks why a Creator would create this way? As a student of Darwin I can tell you that Darwin asked the exact same question. Discovery of close similarity between species arouses the suspicion that evolution has occurred. But since the same is based on an assumption or premise, discovery of said phenomena does not mean evolution has occurred. At no time did Darwin CONCLUDE that evolution had indeed occurred based on close similarity between species. The reason he didn't is because at the time science already held each species created independently. And in Darwin's pre-1859 publications he published images of birds that appeared identical but were in fact four different species. The degree of similarity seen, almost identical, yet the conclusion for evolution was not made.

I do understand that said similarity does indicate evolution but since each species were held created the same does not constitute evidence that evolution has occurred. Darwin understood that too, a major component was missing in order to show that evolution had indeed occurred.

So we explain close similarity between species as a logical expectation of the work of one master Creator. Genesis says God saw that what He created was good, which implies He created a similar good thing, so on and so forth.

> And why would fossil sequences look more an more like modern species as
> we approach the present? Specifically, why does that horse sequence
> beginn with tiny, 5-toed, shallow-toothed Hyracotherium and pass through
> various intermediate stages before ending up at huge, 1-toed,
> deep-toothed Equus?*
>

John, I believe, is wondering out loud why living things in the past are observed to resemble living things in the present via connecting gradation? Why would a Creator create this way?----a way that screams evolution has occurred? Again, a very good question. I admit the observation that John alludes to exists, but again the observation is actually a premise or assumption that discovery of close gradating similarity means evolution has occurred. Assumptions and premises are not evidence. Darwin said, and here is the point, that evolution has only occurred if one can show HOW it occurred. Hence his title: On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection.

If the Evolutionist can prove that natural selection exists then Intelligence and design are refuted. But I know for a fact that natural selection does not exist because appearance of design exists, these are mutually exclusive, with said appearance based on observation, and selection wholly dependent on inference. Thus God chose to create closely similar species because its logical in view of the fact that tens of millions of species? have existed and gone extinct.

> *Sequences are actually artificially assembled paths through what's
> really a tree, but they do illustrate a point, and anyway, only one path
> ends up with modern species.

Ray

[jillery]

At no time, in any publication, did Darwin ever say species were
created. To suggest otherwise is simply a lie.

[John Harshman]

On 10/5/17 6:41 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 6:25:05 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/30/17 8:16 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 7:50:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/30/17 7:13 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Concerning the famous equine sequence: Assuming the same equates to a
>>>>> prime example of faunal succession, I have a question for the
>>>>> Evolutionists. In your minds, how much does succession or the
>>>>> sequence contribute to the so called fact of evolution?
>>>>
>>>> Note that succession and sequence are not the same thing.Suc
>>>
>>> The equine sequence is not an example of faunal succession? Will address the remainder of your message ASAP.
>>
>> Of course it is. It's a miniature example.
>
> Yet in the very first sentence, in your very first reply, in this thread, did you not say the exact opposite? What am I missing here?

Essentially, you are missing an ability to read and parse English sentences.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

He said it many times in different publications, which proves your astronomic ignorance.

Ray

[John Harshman]

On 10/5/17 8:03 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 7:50:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/30/17 7:13 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Concerning the famous equine sequence: Assuming the same equates to a
>>> prime example of faunal succession, I have a question for the
>>> Evolutionists. In your minds, how much does succession or the
>>> sequence contribute to the so called fact of evolution?
>>
>> Note that succession and sequence are not the same thing. I'd say that
>> most of the evidence for the fact of evolution comes from elsewhere, but
>> if all we had were the faunal succession, that would by itself be
>> adequate evidence for evolution.
>
> My input here exists to show that the equine sequence perfectly encapsulates the illogical thinking of almost all Evolutionists.

Your input exists. That much we can agree on.

>> Why would a creator create species so
>> that similar ones appeared at similar times, so that the fauna of time X
>> resembled that of times X - 1 and X + 1 more than the faunas of time X -
>> 1 and X + 1 resembled each other?
>
> All John is saying is as follows: Discovery of gradation similarity
> clearly indicates that evolution has occurred. The preceding conveys
> a premise that assumes evolution has occurred if a sequence of
> closely similar species can be identified. In this context John asks
> why a Creator would create this way? As a student of Darwin I can
> tell you that Darwin asked the exact same question. Discovery of
> close similarity between species arouses the suspicion that evolution
> has occurred. But since the same is based on an assumption or
> premise, discovery of said phenomena does not mean evolution has
> occurred. At no time did Darwin CONCLUDE that evolution had indeed
> occurred based on close similarity between species. The reason he
> didn't is because at the time science already held each species
> created independently. And in Darwin's pre-1859 publications he
> published images of birds that appeared identical but were in fact
> four different species. The degree of similarity seen, almost
> identical, yet the conclusion for evolution was not made.

In all that verbiage, you didn't answer the question.

> I do understand that said similarity does indicate evolution but
> since each species were held created the same does not constitute
> evidence that evolution has occurred. Darwin understood that too, a
> major component was missing in order to show that evolution had
> indeed occurred.

So, to restate, you refuse to accept evidence of evolution because you
refuse to accept evolution.

> So we explain close similarity between species as a logical
> expectation of the work of one master Creator. Genesis says God saw
> that what He created was good, which implies He created a similar
> good thing, so on and so forth.

No, that doesn't work. There's no reason why he should copy his previous
work in such a simple way. Why not, if he wanted to make a range of
trilobites, sprinkle them through time up to the present day, in no
particular order, rather than having each species and similar species
occupy a narrow range of time and stop completely at the end of the Permian?

>> And why would fossil sequences look more an more like modern species as
>> we approach the present? Specifically, why does that horse sequence
>> beginn with tiny, 5-toed, shallow-toothed Hyracotherium and pass through
>> various intermediate stages before ending up at huge, 1-toed,
>> deep-toothed Equus?*

> John, I believe, is wondering out loud why living things in the past
> are observed to resemble living things in the present via connecting
> gradation? Why would a Creator create this way?----a way that screams
> evolution has occurred? Again, a very good question. I admit the
> observation that John alludes to exists, but again the observation is
> actually a premise or assumption that discovery of close gradating
> similarity means evolution has occurred. Assumptions and premises are
> not evidence. Darwin said, and here is the point, that evolution has
> only occurred if one can show HOW it occurred. Hence his title: On
> The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection.

When did Darwin say this? Please cite and quote.

So you admit that you have no explanation for faunal succession.

> If the Evolutionist can prove that natural selection exists then
> Intelligence and design are refuted. But I know for a fact that
> natural selection does not exist because appearance of design exists,
> these are mutually exclusive, with said appearance based on
> observation, and selection wholly dependent on inference. Thus God
> chose to create closely similar species because its logical in view
> of the fact that tens of millions of species? have existed and gone
> extinct.

Please don't use the word "logical" in any sentence you type.

[John Harshman]

Ray, you can't just make assertions like that without backing them up.
Cite and quote.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

I made a point about ignorance directed at someone else. The original question, however, was ambiguous. Is the question referring to Darwin's view or the view of science and in what time frame? Ask a specific question then I will produce a quotation with a proper reference.

Ray

[D Feenstra]

Op zondag 1 oktober 2017 04:15:02 UTC+2 schreef r3p...@gmail.com:

> I'm actually quite tired of waiting for Peter to defend evolutionary claims that I have challenged in various threads. Invariably, for whatever reason, Peter fails to address in a timely fashion.
>
> Concerning the famous equine sequence: Assuming the same equates to a prime example of faunal succession, I have a question for the Evolutionists. In your minds, how much does succession or the sequence contribute to the so called fact of evolution?
>
> Ray

The evolution of the horse is based on multiple lines of evidence from multiple fields of study, where some evidence is indirect and some direct. While indirect evidence seems to creationists has mere guess work, it is in fact far more reliable than we presume. Many crimes are solved not based on direct observation either but on the preponderance of evidence leaning towards a certain conclusion.

Yes, we might assume that God created all of these creatures in a nested hierarchy at the same time, while they were buried in sequence, in for example, a single ctastrophic event (as young earthers tend to believe).

Or, we can invoke what the sciences say about the strata, the anatomy and the genetics of the horse compared to other extant animals.

When a 'sequence' of fossils are found that seem related it indeed does not mean they are related in a linear fashion. As you mentioned later on, 4 species of birds may look awfully similar, even though they are different species. But just because 4 types of birds across 4 species look similar, does not mean they're not related. This is a case of nested hierarchies where species share common ancestry. The existence of similar looking animals across species is more about rapid proliferation within a genus, rather than God creating 4 highly similar species.

Even within a similar species do we find plenty of variation to go around, such as Canis Lupus (Gray Wolf) and subsequent domesticated dogs; from great danes to chiauaua.

In the same vein as the birds, the equine fossils may not directly fall into the same lineage as the modern horse, as those fossils belong to populations acquiring their own mutations over time, but would represent anatomically various stages in horse evolution. To dismiss this is to dismiss the existence of a meter, but not the centimeters themselves, or to dismiss a color spectrum, but not the individual colors.

With one line of evidence, we cannot yet draw conclusions. Paleontology and geology however, give far more insight into the equine fossils found. Stratigraphy provides incredible insights into geologic deep time, which in turn is confirmed by multiple lines of evidence itself:
- multiple consistent radiometric dating methods of various points of the geologic column around the world,
-erosional unconformities,
-no particular order of sedimentary layers, the required environmental conditions to deposit many types of sediment,
-and the chemical limits in forming limestone and chalk.

It's in these strata where we find our equine fossils. Modern horse fossils are not found in strata where we find the extinct mesohippus. While specimens lower in the fossil record may appear higher, the reverse simply isn't seen unless the entire geologic column has slowly folded, which is also noticable because:
- the fossils appear upside down
- are next to geologic column in the correct order
- can still be radiometrically dated which confirm they're upside down

These fossil bearing strata not only show progression of populations over time, but also how they change. The deeper in the fossil record we go, the more and more modern animals dissapear, and the more they are replaced by extinct lineages, as well as fossils belonging to organisms which evolutionary theory predicted would occur if evolution were true.

__


Creationists love to bring up soft tissue for dinosaur fossils, but often ignore the important part:
- the dino collagen is nearly identical to modern bird collagen, as predicted by evolutionary theory.
- Many dinosaur species have evidence for feathers.
- Archeopteryx has older therapod features as well as modern bird features while finding itself in the late jurassic strata, whereas therapods first occur in the late triassic strata, which is again evidence for succession and evolution.

[John Harshman]

What did you mean by "he said it many times in different publications"
as a response to "at no time, in any publication, did Darwin ever say
species were created"? How is it possible to interpret that in any other
way than that you say Darwin said many times that species were created?
I await your quotations and references.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 9:45:02 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 10/5/17 6:41 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 6:25:05 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/30/17 8:16 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 7:50:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 9/30/17 7:13 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Concerning the famous equine sequence: Assuming the same equates to a
> >>>>> prime example of faunal succession, I have a question for the
> >>>>> Evolutionists. In your minds, how much does succession or the
> >>>>> sequence contribute to the so called fact of evolution?
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that succession and sequence are not the same thing.Suc
> >>>
> >>> The equine sequence is not an example of faunal succession? Will address the remainder of your message ASAP.
> >>
> >> Of course it is. It's a miniature example.
> >
> > Yet in the very first sentence, in your very first reply, in this thread, did you not say the exact opposite? What am I missing here?
>
> Essentially, you are missing an ability to read and parse English sentences.
>

JH: "Note that succession and sequence are not the same thing."

RM: "The equine sequence is not an example of faunal succession?

JH: "Of course it is. It's a miniature example."

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

I read your message. Hope you stick around.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

FACT: When Darwin was a Creationist he accepted species created.

Are we to believe persons who are involved in the Creation/Evolution debate do not know that Darwin, at one time in his adult life, was a Creationist?

Writing in the context of his college days, 1828-1831, Darwin says:

"I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible" (C. Darwin in N. Barlow "The Autobiography of Charles Darwin" 1958:57).

The above quote says while in college Darwin accepted Genesis direct creation.

"I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained----namely, that each species has been independently created----is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable" (C. Darwin "On The Origin" 1859:6; London: John Murray).

The above quote, written in what all secular scholars consider a prime example of a scientific text, has Darwin admitting that he too, at one time, accepted each species "independently created."

There are many more, but what's the point?

Ray

[John Harshman]

JH: Note that a drop of water and the ocean are not the same thing.

RM: A drop of water is not an example of the ocean?

[John Harshman]

Indeed, there is no point. In none of those quotes does Darwin say that
species were created. He says that he once believed it, which is not the
same thing at all.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Here, have a taste of your own medicine:

Your reply doesn't say that Darwin did not say species were created.

Ray

[John Harshman]

You aren't making sense. You said you had lots of quotes from Darwin
saying that species were created. You failed to produce any. And that's
my problem how?

[r3p...@gmail.com]

You denied the meaning of clear quotations that have Darwin saying he once was a Creationist who accepted direct creation. Any one can fact check.

You rightly believe that no Evolutionist reading these exchanges is going to call you on your brazen denials. I've always said if the Evolutionist would deny the uncomplicated, which they do quite often, as seen here in your denial of the Darwin quotations that say he accepted direct creation, then how much more would they misrepresent complicated scientific evidence?

Darwin was a Creationist. The same means he accepted direct creation until he became a convinced transmutationist.

I urge everyone to stay tuned to see a classic weasel response from your keyboard.

Ray

[John Harshman]

No, they mean that all right. But that isn't what you were supposed to
support.

> You rightly believe that no Evolutionist reading these exchanges is
> going to call you on your brazen denials. I've always said if the
> Evolutionist would deny the uncomplicated, which they do quite often,
> as seen here in your denial of the Darwin quotations that say he
> accepted direct creation, then how much more would they misrepresent
> complicated scientific evidence?

I rightly believe that no sane person reading these exchanges is going
to believe that those quotes support your original contention. "I once
believed in special creation" is quite different from "Species were
separately created".

> Darwin was a Creationist. The same means he accepted direct creation until he became a convinced transmutationist.

And yet you are unable to find any writings from his creationist period
to support your claim.

> I urge everyone to stay tuned to see a classic weasel response from your keyboard.

I doubt most people read anything you say or responses to it.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

This statement contradicts a statement you made above expressing agreement with the claim that Darwin accepted direct creation. Another SHEESH moment with you. I get the distinct feeling that you believe acceptance of direct creation is not equivalent to saying species were created. Am I correct?

Ray

[jillery]

Your comments above are the kind of >>stoopid<< remarks which happen
when you play your >>stoopid<< word games. When you originally said
Darwin wrote that species were separately created, you weren't
referring to Darwin's views as a youth, but after he had become a
known scientist. Even you couldn't be so >>stoopid<< as to claim his
opinions as a schoolboy would be credible support for anything you
might have to say.

OTOH the Wikipedia biography of Charles Darwin reproduces a page from
his B notebook dated 1837, when he was just 28, where he drew a tree
of branching descent of species.

So if you're going to stick to your original >>stoopid<< claim, then
you need to acknowledge the indisputable evidence that Darwin
dismissed the concept of separate creation right after he started his
scientific career.

Or you can continue to show just how >>stoopid<< are you and your
word games.

[D Feenstra]

I think a debate about Charles Dawin's personal beliefs is kind of useless really. Whether he accepted his own theory in the end or not does not change the fact that many evolutionary predictions, which any creation model could never conceive of, have been found to be true.

That would be the equivalent of saying that creation is wrong because a creationist became an evolutionist.

What matters is the evidence;
a) how it withstands scrutiny
b) and how the accumilation of facts affects the ability of a given theory to explain the accumilation of facts coherently and consistently.

[John Harshman]

You are not, as usual. But I grow weary of explaining.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <4387e514-30e3-494b...@googlegroups.com>,

D Feenstra <dennisf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think a debate about Charles Dawin's personal beliefs is kind of useless
> really.

This is certainly true (from a scientific standpoint at any rate --
biographers might have a different view).

However, I suspect that you will quickly discover that even more useless
is attempting any sort of debate with Ray.

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 10:25:48 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:

>> >> At no time, in any publication, did Darwin ever say species were
>> >> created. To suggest otherwise is simply a lie.

>> > He said it many times in different publications, which proves your astronomic ignorance.

>> Ray, you can't just make assertions like that without backing them up.
>> Cite and quote.

>I made a point about ignorance directed at someone else. The original question, however, was ambiguous. Is the question referring to Darwin's view or the view of science and in what time frame? Ask a specific question then I will produce a quotation with a proper reference.

Looks pretty clear to me; it was a specific reference to
Darwin's work. To recap (even though it's all right there
above), jillery wrote...

"At no time, in any publication, did Darwin ever say species
were created. To suggest otherwise is simply a lie"

....to which you replied, "He said it many times in different

publications, which proves your astronomic ignorance".

John then asked you to cite and quote the publications in
which Darwin wrote what you said he did.

Any single cite will do, but your "many times" sort of says
there was more than one, so at least two cites would be
required.

Or retract; up to you.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 15:39:34 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:

Hypothetical person #1: Note that grass and plants are not
the same thing.

Hypotherical person #2: Grass is not an example of plants?

Hypothertical person #1: Of course it is. It's a miniature
example.

Knowing that HP#1's first and second statements are both
correct, and are not opposites, would show an ability to

read and parse English sentences.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 16:21:21 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

Better example than mine...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 06:06:11 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by D Feenstra
<dennisf...@gmail.com>:

Well and succinctly stated. The problem is that many
fundamentalists believe that Darwin is a religious figure
and that evolutionary theory is a religion, and that
refuting his work necessarily refutes evolutionary theory.

[jillery]

On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 10:53:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 06:06:11 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by D Feenstra
><dennisf...@gmail.com>:
>
>>I think a debate about Charles Dawin's personal beliefs is kind of useless really. Whether he accepted his own theory in the end or not does not change the fact that many evolutionary predictions, which any creation model could never conceive of, have been found to be true.
>>
>>That would be the equivalent of saying that creation is wrong because a creationist became an evolutionist.
>>
>>What matters is the evidence;
>>a) how it withstands scrutiny
>>b) and how the accumilation of facts affects the ability of a given theory to explain the accumilation of facts coherently and consistently.
>
>Well and succinctly stated. The problem is that many
>fundamentalists believe that Darwin is a religious figure
>and that evolutionary theory is a religion, and that
>refuting his work necessarily refutes evolutionary theory.

Adding to your comment, many fundamentalists believe that refuting
evolutionary theory affirms their fundamentalism.

[jillery]

On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 10:43:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

As is typical of his word games, Ray cited a passage where Darwin
refers to his beliefs before he became a scientist. So Ray strikes
out two ways: 1) pedantically, Ray's cite doesn't say Darwin asserted
independent creation, but only that he once believed it, and 2)
Darwin's pre-scientist opinions aren't relevant to the context.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 10:43:43 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

Or, as is your usual tactic, ignore it and run away.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 17:13:37 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 10:53:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 06:06:11 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by D Feenstra
>><dennisf...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>I think a debate about Charles Dawin's personal beliefs is kind of useless really. Whether he accepted his own theory in the end or not does not change the fact that many evolutionary predictions, which any creation model could never conceive of, have been found to be true.
>>>
>>>That would be the equivalent of saying that creation is wrong because a creationist became an evolutionist.
>>>
>>>What matters is the evidence;
>>>a) how it withstands scrutiny
>>>b) and how the accumilation of facts affects the ability of a given theory to explain the accumilation of facts coherently and consistently.
>>
>>Well and succinctly stated. The problem is that many
>>fundamentalists believe that Darwin is a religious figure
>>and that evolutionary theory is a religion, and that
>>refuting his work necessarily refutes evolutionary theory.
>
>
>Adding to your comment, many fundamentalists believe that refuting
>evolutionary theory affirms their fundamentalism.

Agreed. Of course, that's their entire purpose.
Unfortunately for them, it exposes their two-value logic.

[John Stockwell]

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 8:15:02 PM UTC-6, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm actually quite tired of waiting for Peter to defend evolutionary claims that I have challenged in various threads. Invariably, for whatever reason, Peter fails to address in a timely fashion.
>

> Concerning the famous equine sequence: Assuming the same equates to a prime example of faunal succession, I have a question for the Evolutionists. In your minds, how much does succession or the sequence contribute to the so called fact of evolution?

Taxonomy (particularly modern DNA based taxonomy) and faunal succession are
laws describing the general pattern of all of biology, both living and extinct
biology. Both of these laws are explained by common descent.
Comparative DNA analysis would be sufficient to lead us to evolution,
even if there were no fossils.



>
> Ray

-John

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:42:45 -0700, the following appeared

OK, so "door #3" it is...

Sobeit.

[Rolf]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> skrev i melding
news:dmr1uc5t3vp99d8fi...@4ax.com...

Isn't it already implicit in the concept of the omnipotent and good god that
all he creates will be good, he is incapable of doing anything not good,
also because he already knows before creating someting whether it willl be
good or not.

That's why the ancients created God, they wanted something good to believe
in.

---
E-posten er sjekket for virus av AVG.
http://www.avg.com