It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Raggedyman
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman
Again, you can't argue. You can't cite
I have (in these threads) repeatedly posted evidence. You just rely on logical fallacies to make your points.
Argue the science. You can't refute DNA, Fossils, etc. You attack the person.
I just read the whole article, you dare to use the fossil record and call it science
And yes, I do attack the person, if that person pretends they are something and they clearly don't know anything about what they are talking about
The fossil record and you want me to take you seriously
No real,scientist say the fossil record
No wonder I make fun of you
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.
Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.
For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning . The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]
“…our ability to classify both living and fossil species distinctly and using the same criteria, fit splendidly with creationist tenets.”
Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002), ‘A quahog is a quahog’, Natural History, vol.88 (7), 1979, pp. 18-26.
The great atheist and evolutionary propagandist, Dr. Richard Dawkins, actually admitted to the religious nature of evolutionary faith and the lack of fossil evidence for it.
“It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ... Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative.” [Emphasis added]
Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)
"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago.
originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Barcs
At what point do people just stop responding to the troll?.