The fossil record shows there never was evolution.

[alwight]

That sounds like faith.

There is currently no understanding of abiogenesis, so, de facto, Darwinism is faith based.

Abiogenesis is not a part of Darwinian evolution.
The geological column contains strata indicating periods of relatively rapid change and long static periods, the fact that evolution reflects that in PE, is no great surprise to me.

 

[Sonnet]

Abiogenesis is not a part of Darwinian evolution.

In a letter sent in 1871 to his friend, the English botanist and explorer Joseph D. Hooker, Charles Darwin imagines a small, warm pool where the inanimate matter would arrange itself into evolutionary matter, aided by chemical components and sufficient sources of energy.

The geological column contains strata indicating periods of relatively rapid change and long static periods, the fact that evolution reflects that in PE, is no great surprise to me.

Ok.

 

[alwight]

You first need to find one.

You are a transitional form.

 

[Elia]

Okay, but what is your response to the claim that the rock layers do not evidence a single catastrophic flood.

Bs"d

My response is that that claim is nonsense.

The book "Earth in Upheaval" shows very much and very strong proof for a world wide flood.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/21746106/Velikovsky-Earth-in-Upheaval

 

[Elia]

You are a transitional form.

Bs"d

And pigs can fly.

 

[Elia]

Abiogenesis is not a part of Darwinian evolution.

Bs"d

Without abiogenesis evolution doesn't get started.

The geological column contains strata indicating periods of relatively rapid change and long static periods, the fact that evolution reflects that in PE, is no great surprise to me.

What the fossil record shows, is STASIS, non-change, what you call "long static periods".

What it does not show, is "periods of rapid change". You might think that that is indicated, because you happen to believe in evolution, but the fossils surely don't show it.

"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground."

Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59

Robert E Ricklefs is an evolutionist and professor biology at the University of Missouri te St. Louis:
http://www.umsl.edu/~ricklefs

 

[Elia]

A single catastrophic world wide flood would leave a single layer of graded material, not layers.

Well, that is the argument anyway.

Bs"d

A very violent flood, streaming this way and that way, would leave multiple layers.

 

[Elia]

The fact is that evolution is not driven by a need to evolve or adapt, it is driven to evolve and adapt by the environment and by natural selection. If the environment remains unchanged then life soon settles down into a kind of balance where further adaption presents no advantage. Life can adapt quickly initially but also remain static while the environment does not change. Regular fossils are typically rare snapshots but fossils of life from when the environment was under change would be even rarer.

Bs"d

Meaning there is no proof for evolution in the fossil record whatsoever.

And that's why Gould made up PE, in order to give an explanation for the total lack of evolution in the fossil record, and to explain the everywhere present STASIS, non-change, in the record.

That simple fact is also recognized by Robert E Ricklefs, evolutionist and professor biology at the University of Missouri te St. Louis:

"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground."

Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59

Robert E Ricklefs is an evolutionist and professor biology at the University of Missouri te St. Louis:
http://www.umsl.edu/~ricklefs

 

[MichaelCadry]

Bs"d

And pigs can fly.

Dear Elia,

Yes, pigs can fly on planes, jets, helicopters, etc. Got to give them that!!

Much Love, In Jesus Christ,

Michael

 

[alwight]

Bs"d

Without abiogenesis evolution doesn't get started.

Life nevertheless began whatever you believe happened after that.

What the fossil record shows, is STASIS, non-change, what you call "long static periods".

What it does not show, is "periods of rapid change". You might think that that is indicated, because you happen to believe in evolution, but the fossils surely don't show it.

I actually said "relatively rapid change" and in geological terms that is still a long time compared to human lifetimes.

"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground."

Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59

Robert E Ricklefs is an evolutionist and professor biology at the University of Missouri te St. Louis:
http://www.umsl.edu/~ricklefs

Since Robert E Ricklefs is apparently an evolutionist perhaps you would like to cut and paste his evolutionary alternative model? Presumably you are not just carefully selecting anything arguably contradictory to generally accepted models?:nono:

 

[Lazy afternoon]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcomea it.

That says nothing about Jesus. It speaks of Gods Word, Gods light , Gods Spirit.

There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

Ok now John was witnessing of the light in Gods son.

The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.

Jesus was never the light which lighted everyone who came and comes into the world.

He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

Now the verses above speak of Jesus Christ after the event.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Then the verse above speaks of Jesus as revealed to the world at and after His baptism by John.

(John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ ”) Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

As John had declared.

LA

 

[Sonnet]

Bs"d

A very violent flood, streaming this way and that way, would leave multiple layers.

But surely not layers each of which contains similar material but different to the adjacent layer?

 

[Sonnet]

That says nothing about Jesus. It speaks of Gods Word, Gods light , Gods Spirit.



Ok now John was witnessing of the light in Gods son.


Jesus was never the light which lighted everyone who came and comes into the world.



Now the verses above speak of Jesus Christ after the event.



Then the verse above speaks of Jesus as revealed to the world at and after His baptism by John.



As John had declared.

LA

Two lights?

 

[Sonnet]

That says nothing about Jesus. It speaks of Gods Word, Gods light , Gods Spirit.



Ok now John was witnessing of the light in Gods son.


Jesus was never the light which lighted everyone who came and comes into the world.



Now the verses above speak of Jesus Christ after the event.



Then the verse above speaks of Jesus as revealed to the world at and after His baptism by John.



As John had declared.

LA

There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

Which light? The pronoun's referent is in v.4. John goes on to continue talking about the same light.

Wherefore would you attempt to make a distinction when it's not there?

 

[Sonnet]

That says nothing about Jesus. It speaks of Gods Word, Gods light , Gods Spirit.



Ok now John was witnessing of the light in Gods son.


Jesus was never the light which lighted everyone who came and comes into the world.



Now the verses above speak of Jesus Christ after the event.



Then the verse above speaks of Jesus as revealed to the world at and after His baptism by John.



As John had declared.

LA

Who was Jesus Christ?

 

[Lazy afternoon]

There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

Which light? The pronoun's referent is in v.4. John goes on to continue talking about the same light.

Wherefore would you attempt to make a distinction when it's not there?

It is the same light but first describing that light before describing the carrier of that light which light has filled the man Jesus and made Him to be indistinguishable from that light.

If you look at Rev.ch 21 you find that Jesus is the candlestick which bears the light, which is a poor description of Him for he is more than that by reason of His being filled with the fullness of the Father, where it is the Father who lighted every man who comes into the world, but not to the fullness.

LA

 

[alwight]

Bs"d

Meaning there is no proof for evolution in the fossil record whatsoever.

Scientific theories and science itself does not involve "proof", proof is for mathematics and whiskey.

And that's why Gould made up PE, in order to give an explanation for the total lack of evolution in the fossil record, and to explain the everywhere present STASIS, non-change, in the record.

That may be your opinion but given that fossils are never found in the "wrong" strata shall we concentrate on whether the geological column represents "Deep Time", great ages, or whether it was all laid down in one go?

If it were all in one go we would need to explain why fossils could ever became sorted into discrete strata.
If however there was geological "Deep Time" then what we need to do is explain exactly how new life forms evolved relatively rapidly at the beginning of new strata. However imo any relatively quickly evolving life is much less likely to leave behind fossils than those in a more static environment.

 

[Sonnet]

It is the same light but first describing that light before describing the carrier of that light which light has filled the man Jesus and made Him to be indistinguishable from that light.

If you look at Rev.ch 21 you find that Jesus is the candlestick which bears the light, which is a poor description of Him for he is more than that by reason of His being filled with the fullness of the Father, where it is the Father who lighted every man who comes into the world, but not to the fullness.

LA

The exact nature of the relationship between Christ and God remains a mystery - perhaps we can agree on that?

 

[Sonnet]

That may be your opinion but given that fossils are never found in the "wrong" strata

Another serious challenge to the Noachian Flood.

 

[alwight]

Another serious challenge to the Noachian Flood.

Clearly.