Title Author Date

gaps in the fossil record De Bruycker, Gilbert Dec 30, 2007

Dear Sir,

At http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009557.html, I have read the article The Darwinian comedy continues.

In this article Lawrence Auster states "Anti-Darwinists such as myself reject Darwinism, first, because its most basic claims lack the most basic evidence--the fossil record--to support them. So, it's not an impossible standard that the Darwinians fail to live up to, it's the minimal standard that they fail to live up to. As Ann Coulter says in a brilliant passage in Godless, it's not that there are just some gaps in the fossil record, it's that the entire fossil record is a gap."

After having read this, I have sent him the message down below. I thought it might be interesting to know his response.
Since I am a layman I don't know how to reply. Could you help me with this?

Sincerely,
Gilbert De Bruycker

----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Auster
To: Gilbert De Bruycker
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: fossil record

I recommend you read the two chapters on evolution in Coulter's Godless. it is the most incisive discussion of the fossil gap I've seen, including the fraudulent way that Darwinians claim the gaps are being "closed" by the discovery of a single supposed transition form when there would need to be hundreds.

A Darwinian author told me that he thought Coulter's discussion was excellent and that he found nothing major to disagree with in it. He still believes in Darwinism; he holds out hope that new discoveries may yet save Darwinism. But he admits that as the evidence stands the anti-Darwinians have good arguments.

----- Original Message -----
From: Gilbert De Bruycker
To: lawrence.auster@att.net
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 8:04.a.m.
Subject: fossil record

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IICgaps.shtml

Misconception: "Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution."

Response: The fact that some transitional fossils are not preserved does not disprove evolution. Evolutionary biologists do not expect that all transitional forms will be found and realize that many species leave no fossils at all. Lots of organisms don't fossilize well and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not that common. So, science actually predicts that for many evolutionary changes there will be gaps in the record.
Also, scientists have found many transitional fossils. For example, there are fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their theropod dinosaur ancestors, and between whales and their terrestrial mammal ancestors.

read replies (1)
write a reply

Title Author Date

New essay at Talk Reason lamberthml@peoplepc.com Nov 21, 2007

It is so sad about Antony! He didn't understand the force of his own arguments!
I use the incoherence-ignostic argument at sites as a top argument against God.With it, I also use the Ockham.Either God makes n o sense or He has nothing to do! I also use the problem of Heaven.And I argue that as science shows casuality, not teleology, they contradict each other.Google morgan lynn lamberth.
Thanks for the fine articles!

Morgan -Lynn Griggs Lamberth[ skeptic griggsy]

write a reply Related Article(s):
Flew, Schroeder, Varghese: What a company!

Title Author Date

Evolution as science Brown, James Oct 16, 2007

Dear Talk Reason:

As a believer in the existance God, I have an observations of the Creation/Evolution debate: It seems like there should be a clarification
of some accusations on both sides.

Christians claim that evolution is not scientific because they believe it is false. I think their (and my) real point should be that the concepts of micro and macro evolution are, in fact, science, but that Darwinists are
wrong in asserting that such events actually happened.

Evolutionists claim that ID is a pseudoscience. I think their real point should be that the claims of ID are valid scientific objections to
evolution, but that they are wrong in asserting that God actually exists.

I am sick of Creationists, especially young earth ones, denying science on grounds that it contradicts the Bible (in my opinion it doesn't) and of Evolutionists denying valid scientific objections of ID on the grounds that it contradicts Atheism...

Does anybody on the other side of this agree?

Sincerely,
James Brown

read replies (2)
write a reply Related Article(s):
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Title Author Date

Kabbalah and Modern Cosmology Mark, Larry Nov 08, 2007

I have read about striking similarities between Kabbalah and the Big Bang and string theories, that indicate that the Medieval Kabbalists
"predicted" discoveries of modern physicists. See, e.g,, http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=life/science. Now, I get the impression that this article was poorly researched (I have trouble believing that Dr. Kaku really asks himself every morning how God created the universe), and it came from the Kabbalah Center.
I was just wondering if these ideas have been scrutinized by people who are not trying to promote a Kabbalist philosophy.

Thanks,

Larry

write a reply

Title Author Date

I can't believe Dembski chose Word Mutagenation!! Zachriel Oct 22, 2007

I was surprised to see Dembski claim that evolutionary algorithms were useless for finding words in sequence space. My Goodness! It's been three years since I created Word Mutagenation. I had almost forgotten. Take a look.

tml>I can't believe Dembski chose Word Mutagenation!!

write a reply Related Article(s):
Comments on active information

Previous | | Next