Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[daws101]

Daws didn't you claim to have an engineering degree but yet you had to look up the term Polar spherical triangle ?if you had an engineering degree you would have taken Trigonometry and would have been familiar with the term. However you would have still not known the chemical Molecule because I don't think you would of had Biochemistry.

Anyways you should have done what Hollie did and avoided it like the plague.

too many meds at dinner ?
this answer has nothing to do with the statement.
and no slapdick I never "claimed" an engineering degree because I have one!
as always you're making false assumptions.
I looked up Polar spherical triangle because I'd never seen it used in a chemistry context.
btw you've not produced it yet.
I'm highly familiar with Polar spherical triangle in a design context.
so once again in your quest to find fault with others the fault is in you.

You're contradicting yourself. If you knew what it was why couldn't you point out the picture of the molecule that was is in that form ?

another false assumption!
It's not that I couldn't point out the picture ..I chose not too.
I will not be "tested" by you in any manner.

 

[Hollie]

Pure comedy gold.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6668480-post14186.html

Hollie punctuated equilibrium refutes gradualism it is stasis in the fossil record.

In other words organisms appear to have suddenly appeared not that they gradually evolved over a large time span that your theory say's happened.

I ask you what theory of evolution do you believe lol ?

another so what statement by Ywc ... misrepresented by some creationists to portray Darwinism as a "theory in crisis."

This was a tactic of evasion and slithering by ywc.

He challenged me to post evidence of his lies and falsified creationist "quotes". After posting about half a dozen, he tried desperately to change the topic.

 

[Vandalshandle]

My grandmother, who was born around the turn of the 20th century, always made sure that a knife was placed uder the birthing bed of any woman having a baby, because it would "cut the birthing pains". She was absolutely positive of this, and I am sure that she went to her grave in her late 80's believing it, just like she believed that God frequently spoke to Oral Roberts, and told him to tell her to send her money to him.

One is superstition and the other is gullibility. Both are strong evidence of human spiritual connection. If humans were not spiritually moved by something, they simply wouldn't be gullible enough to send Oral Roberts money, or believe in knives under the beds, etc. They would be able to see through Oral and wouldn't see any physical evidence that knives were of value under the bed. You think that examples like this, somehow 'disprove' god or spiritual belief, because they are absurd examples, designed to poke fun.... but they are examples, and you found them. Examples of humans practicing their deeply-held spiritual beliefs.

No argument, humans spiritual connection is sometimes misplaced. After all, there are humans in this thread who appear to have adopted science as their spiritual bedrock. If it doesn't conform to their peer-reviewed dogma, it can't be possible, and those who dare to challenge conventional wisdoms are chortled and hooted down as kooks.

Not at all, Boss. One man's superstition is another man's faith. My X wife was a Christian, and thouroughly believed that her parents and late husband were speaking to her in her sleep.

The only difference between my grandmother's knife, and mainstream Christianity is that one was passed down by oral tradition, and one was passed down through ancient scrolls. We can all rest easier today, because the Aztecs, who sacrificed hundreds of thousands of people to their gods, had no scrolls.

 

[daws101]

Hollie punctuated equilibrium refutes gradualism it is stasis in the fossil record.

In other words organisms appear to have suddenly appeared not that they gradually evolved over a large time span that your theory say's happened.

I ask you what theory of evolution do you believe lol ?

another so what statement by Ywc ... misrepresented by some creationists to portray Darwinism as a "theory in crisis."

This was a tactic of evasion and slithering by ywc.

He challenged me to post evidence of his lies and falsified creationist "quotes". After posting about half a dozen, he tried desperately to change the topic.

with another false statement.

 

[Boss]

OK, I understand better the kind of person you are based on your actions here.

No you don't. You are making assumptions about what kind of person you think I am, based on your perceptions and interpretations of what I have posted here. You don't know me, you don't know the first thing about me, and that is the beauty of anonymous message boards. I can be any way I please, and you can perceive me any way you please.

You hold yourself in the highest esteem and can do no wrong. Look, I get it. Hollie and daws alone are the bad guys, and you're, like, totally not a part of the problem at all. That, and you're willing to double down on your immature finger-pointing while refusing to take responsibility for your own actions. You may be right about Hollie and daws. You may not. But, don't pretend your own crap doesn't stink, either.

You should turn off avatars if they are going to make you develop irrational assumptions about people's personalities. Yeah, I know Kelsey Grammar plays characters who hold themselves in highest esteem and can do no wrong, but I am not a Kelsey Grammar character. It's just an avatar I picked to fit my moniker, Boss.

I get what you are doing here, don't think I can't see it. You are playing the "moderator" role... pretending to be in the middle, like a referee or judge, to sort out who is right and wrong, and make a somewhat more sophisticated and rational evaluation than the rest of us. Unfortunately, the thread topic isn't related to personalities, it doesn't matter what kind of person you think I am, or what kind of person Hollie and daws are. At the end of the day, the OP argument stands and has not been refuted. Oh... and my crap definitely stinks!

All you're doing is screaming "It's them! It's them! Don't look at me! It's them! Look at the disbelievers!!!"

No I'm not. Again, this is your warped perspective and misinterpretation. I'm not going to sit here like a pinata and not respond to relentless personal attacks and lies. When someone lies about something I've said, I am going to point that out, and I may use a rather harsh tone, because I don't like being lied about. Pull your head out of your ass and read the OP, then read the pathetic attempts made to argue against the OP. I don't want you to "look at the disbelievers," I want you to evaluate the argument in the OP, and have a rational discussion with me about that, but you seem compelled to defend Hollie and daws, who have done nothing but antagonize and try to derail the thread, amid a barrage of insults and condescension.

Please. Stop. You three have been less than civil during your discussion of this issue, which has been beaten into oblivion. If I didn't know better, you three are using this topic as a way to take petty & personal swipes at each other. And what really galls me is that you still refuse to acknowledge how annoying your personal and indirect swipes were at your enemies when I simply said: "I've seen this debate continue for well over a decade... and it doesn't seem like it will ever reach a definitive resolution.."

YOU please stop! I certainly didn't post this thread so I could take pot shots at Hollie and daws, whom I didn't even realize existed when I posted the thread! All I did, was explain to you why this debate continues, and will always continue. Yeah, I am going to take some personal swipes at people who have repeatedly LIED about what I've said, misconstrued things I've said, accused me of things without basis, and continue to behave like petulant brats. That does not diminish the thread OP or my argument one little bit.

It's stupid how you then used that as a canvas to take your stupid little potshots at them, and then when it's pointed out how unsporting that is you actually try to defend your actions as if you think I won't see right through you. If you were wise, you would have responded to my actual comment with something that actually pertains to what I said, instead of repeatedly smearing them as if that'd pass as some sort of half-assed response to me. I make a comment about the immortality of lemonade, and you use it to say how dislikeable and dubious certain others are. That's essentially what you've done, and it's both annoying and amusing in the strangest way, especially considering your inability to admit when you've made mistakes. Leave your personal crap out of it if you're going to respond to an on-topic comment.

Nothing I said about them was untrue. Unsporting? There is no "sport" here! Do you think we are engaged in some epic debate, where both sides are presenting reasonable and rational viewpoints? We have my OP argument, which I have defended, and we have Hollie and daws doing everything they can think of to denigrate me, insult me, ridicule me, attack me, lie about me, distort what I've said, etc. They have presented absolutely NO evidence to support their suppositions, they just pour on more insults and insist they've proven me wrong. You think that is "sporting?" Maybe you should get a job refereeing for the WWE.

I don't give a good goddamn WHAT you see, jackass. It's not my problem what your ignorant closed-minded ass sees and doesn't see. You must apparently believe YOU are GOD, judging by your self-aggrandizement.

wrong again ! my mind is open and it perceives that you are selling snake oil.

Look at you. You're all arguing like butthurt, angry children who are mad that they can't get their ways. Gee, youwerecreated, you're making laconic people look bad. Look at little miss Hollie, all sarcastic and wound up. Boss, with his superiority complex, argues with the self-righteousness of an angry Frasier Crane. And daws, for all you intellectual bluster you'd think you'd work on your spelling and grammar.

My comment wasn't an argument, it was a statement. I stand by it. Again, I suggest you turn off avatars if it causes you to assume the person posting is the person in the avatar. I'm not Frasier Crane.

You've turned this discussion into nothing more than your petty little sandbox where you can attack and snipe the other children because you think you can. This isn't about you. It's not about your personal vendettas, your butthurt prescriptions, or your need to beat your opponents into submission. It's about whether there's definitive proof that God exists. You want a serious discussion with a lot of thought and an equal amount of respect and civility? Clean up your messes, and get back to me when you're ready to actually converse on God like grownups.

This is MY thread, I started it, I can do whatever the hell I want to with it. I've not turned anything into anything, I stated in the OP that some people can't accept spiritual evidence, and there has been plenty of examples in this thread to prove that point correct. I have defended my argument whenever it has been challenged, but frankly, Hollie and daws have offered the least challenge to the OP of anyone here. If you've read any of this massive thread at all, you understand that. I've already pointed out to you, they have NO intention of engaging a reasonable rational debate on the topic, they are here to denigrate, ridicule, insult, mock, make fun of religion and religious people, and further enable their disbelief. Daws has single-handedly posted reams of superfluous nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic, in an attempt to flood the thread so no one can have a conversation. I guess you must interpret that as "sporting and rational," while me calling him out for his dishonest tactics, is "petulant and childish."

I've BEEN ready to converse like a grown up on the topic, when are you going to start?

 

[daws101]

 

[Boss]

My grandmother, who was born around the turn of the 20th century, always made sure that a knife was placed uder the birthing bed of any woman having a baby, because it would "cut the birthing pains". She was absolutely positive of this, and I am sure that she went to her grave in her late 80's believing it, just like she believed that God frequently spoke to Oral Roberts, and told him to tell her to send her money to him.

One is superstition and the other is gullibility. Both are strong evidence of human spiritual connection. If humans were not spiritually moved by something, they simply wouldn't be gullible enough to send Oral Roberts money, or believe in knives under the beds, etc. They would be able to see through Oral and wouldn't see any physical evidence that knives were of value under the bed. You think that examples like this, somehow 'disprove' god or spiritual belief, because they are absurd examples, designed to poke fun.... but they are examples, and you found them. Examples of humans practicing their deeply-held spiritual beliefs.

No argument, humans spiritual connection is sometimes misplaced. After all, there are humans in this thread who appear to have adopted science as their spiritual bedrock. If it doesn't conform to their peer-reviewed dogma, it can't be possible, and those who dare to challenge conventional wisdoms are chortled and hooted down as kooks.

Not at all, Boss. One man's superstition is another man's faith. My X wife was a Christian, and thouroughly believed that her parents and late husband were speaking to her in her sleep.

The only difference between my grandmother's knife, and mainstream Christianity is that one was passed down by oral tradition, and one was passed down through ancient scrolls. We can all rest easier today, because the Aztecs, who sacrificed hundreds of thousands of people to their gods, had no scrolls.

There is a HUGE difference between superstitious belief and spirituality. While superstitious beliefs can indeed manifest themselves through spirituality, and in fact, are the result of spirituality to some degree, they do not define human spirituality. They are compelling evidence that humans do spiritually connect to something, which causes such beliefs. This is not to say their beliefs are validated, but the reason they exist is human spirituality.

You mentioned the Aztecs, and we could mention all kinds of ancient cultures we've discovered around the world, and how they practiced human spirituality. Does it not seem the least bit curious to you, that we find evidence of human spirituality everywhere, when humans had no perceivable knowledge of other cultures? Isn't it strange they all had these similar rituals of worshiping something greater than self, yet had no awareness of other cultures doing the same thing elsewhere? How can you rationally explain this? Well, I suppose we could imagine that all humans came from the same place, and simply carried this practice with them to various lands, but then... what does that tell us about this attribute? Cultures, customs, beliefs, all changed, but what remained above and beyond anything else, was the human spiritual connection... spirituality. Important? Not important? What does the rational mind tell us?

Now, superstitions do often find their way into religions, which are manifestations of human spirituality. I don't profess to know a lot about Christianity, but I believe the message brought by Jesus to the followers of Christianity, specifically dispelled a lot of superstitious beliefs which had been incorporated into the Jewish religion. But again, my point is simple, even what you interpret as superstitious, is evidence of human spiritual connection. That's the important detail you need to take away here. Regardless of the validity of beliefs in specific, they all entail a strong human spiritual connection to something. That is a fact that is hard to dispute.

 

[Boss]

Is THIS "unsporting" Wake? Or what you would consider "rational and reasonable discourse?"

How about showing some consistency, and chastise daws like you did me, for being "unsporting?"

 

[daws101]

One is superstition and the other is gullibility. Both are strong evidence of human spiritual connection. If humans were not spiritually moved by something, they simply wouldn't be gullible enough to send Oral Roberts money, or believe in knives under the beds, etc. They would be able to see through Oral and wouldn't see any physical evidence that knives were of value under the bed. You think that examples like this, somehow 'disprove' god or spiritual belief, because they are absurd examples, designed to poke fun.... but they are examples, and you found them. Examples of humans practicing their deeply-held spiritual beliefs.

No argument, humans spiritual connection is sometimes misplaced. After all, there are humans in this thread who appear to have adopted science as their spiritual bedrock. If it doesn't conform to their peer-reviewed dogma, it can't be possible, and those who dare to challenge conventional wisdoms are chortled and hooted down as kooks.

Not at all, Boss. One man's superstition is another man's faith. My X wife was a Christian, and thouroughly believed that her parents and late husband were speaking to her in her sleep.

The only difference between my grandmother's knife, and mainstream Christianity is that one was passed down by oral tradition, and one was passed down through ancient scrolls. We can all rest easier today, because the Aztecs, who sacrificed hundreds of thousands of people to their gods, had no scrolls.

There is a HUGE difference between superstitious belief and spirituality. While superstitious beliefs can indeed manifest themselves through spirituality, and in fact, are the result of spirituality to some degree, they do not define human spirituality. They are compelling evidence that humans do spiritually connect to something, which causes such beliefs. This is not to say their beliefs are validated, but the reason they exist is human spirituality.

You mentioned the Aztecs, and we could mention all kinds of ancient cultures we've discovered around the world, and how they practiced human spirituality. Does it not seem the least bit curious to you, that we find evidence of human spirituality everywhere, when humans had no perceivable knowledge of other cultures? Isn't it strange they all had these similar rituals of worshiping something greater than self, yet had no awareness of other cultures doing the same thing elsewhere? How can you rationally explain this? Well, I suppose we could imagine that all humans came from the same place, and simply carried this practice with them to various lands, but then... what does that tell us about this attribute? Cultures, customs, beliefs, all changed, but what remained above and beyond anything else, was the human spiritual connection... spirituality. Important? Not important? What does the rational mind tell us?

Now, superstitions do often find their way into religions, which are manifestations of human spirituality. I don't profess to know a lot about Christianity, but I believe the message brought by Jesus to the followers of Christianity, specifically dispelled a lot of superstitious beliefs which had been incorporated into the Jewish religion. But again, my point is simple, even what you interpret as superstitious, is evidence of human spiritual connection. That's the important detail you need to take away here. Regardless of the validity of beliefs in specific, they all entail a strong human spiritual connection to something. That is a fact that is hard to dispute.

I would agree that the belief is hard to dispute, as to what "spirituality" actually is ,is extremely disputable ..

 

[Wake]

Is THIS "unsporting" Wake? Or what you would consider "rational and reasonable discourse?"

How about showing some consistency, and chastise daws like you did me, for being "unsporting?"

You ought to reread my post, Boss. All four of you have been unsporting, with your personal snipes and uncivil behavior towards one another.

I'm waiting for you four to act like civil adults. Otherwise, I have no interest in having a discussion on my favorite topic here... because you four have turned it into your own boxing arena.

It's sort of tough to have an adult conversation with people when quite a few of those same people are like children having their little tantrums. Grow up, stop attacking each other, and show some self-control.

 

[daws101]

Is THIS "unsporting" Wake? Or what you would consider "rational and reasonable discourse?"

How about showing some consistency, and chastise daws like you did me, for being "unsporting?"

it's highly sporting considering the whiney tone of :

"This is MY thread, I started it, I can do whatever the hell I want to with it. I've not turned anything into anything, I stated in the OP that some people can't accept spiritual evidence, and there has been plenty of examples in this thread to prove that point correct. I have defended my argument whenever it has been challenged, but frankly, Hollie and daws have offered the least challenge to the OP of anyone here. If you've read any of this massive thread at all, you understand that. I've already pointed out to you, they have NO intention of engaging a reasonable rational debate on the topic, they are here to denigrate, ridicule, insult, mock, make fun of religion and religious people, and further enable their disbelief. Daws has single-handedly posted reams of superfluous nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic, in an attempt to flood the thread so no one can have a conversation. I guess you must interpret that as "sporting and rational," while me calling him out for his dishonest tactics, is "petulant and childish."

I've BEEN ready to converse like a grown up on the topic, when are you going to start?"-boss.

 

[Wake]

How about showing some consistency, and chastise daws like you did me, for being "unsporting?"

Hell, I shouldn't have to chastise you guys. All of you are presumably adults, and should know that it's not nice to call other people names.

 

[daws101]

How about showing some consistency, and chastise daws like you did me, for being "unsporting?"

Hell, I shouldn't have to chastise you guys. All of you are presumably adults, and should know that it's not nice to call other people names.

too true...for my part I'm just playing to the house.

 

[Hollie]

One is superstition and the other is gullibility. Both are strong evidence of human spiritual connection.

That was a lot of pontificating trying to rescue a bankrupt argument. You succeeded in making superstition, gullibility and "spiritual connection" indistinguishable from one another.
People having "spiritual connections" to Zeus and the Greek gawds, jinn, Leprechauns, spirits, spooks, or any previously asserted gawds share a common thread: they're all asserted by those who have a vested interest in self-promotion.

Fear is a common tactic used to coerce behavior. The installation of fear via threats of punishnent from angry gawds, spirits, etc., has been the history of religious belief. There is nothing that separates the fear and superstition surrounding the Greek gawds from your gawds.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie punctuated equilibrium refutes gradualism it is stasis in the fossil record.

In other words organisms appear to have suddenly appeared not that they gradually evolved over a large time span that your theory say's happened.

I ask you what theory of evolution do you believe lol ?

another so what statement by Ywc ... misrepresented by some creationists to portray Darwinism as a "theory in crisis."

This was a tactic of evasion and slithering by ywc.

He challenged me to post evidence of his lies and falsified creationist "quotes". After posting about half a dozen, he tried desperately to change the topic.

You and daws do not have a clue.

Punctuated equilibrium


Definition

noun

A theory that describes an evolutionary change happening rapidly and in brief geological events in between the long periods of stasis (or equilibrium). The theory is based on the stasis in fossil records, and when phenotypic evolution occurs, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation.


grad·u·al·ism

/ˈgrajo͞oəˌlizəm/



Noun


1.A policy of gradual reform rather than sudden change or revolution.
2.The hypothesis that evolution proceeds chiefly by the accumulation of gradual changes (in CONTRAST to the punctuationist model).

Learn your theories so you don't continue to make a fool of yourself. The only thing they have in common is that evolution took a long time.

Now why was the theory of punctuated Equilibrium brought forth ? well because of the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Pure comedy gold.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6668480-post14186.html

Hollie punctuated equilibrium refutes gradualism it is stasis in the fossil record.

In other words organisms appear to have suddenly appeared not that they gradually evolved over a large time span that your theory say's happened.

I ask you what theory of evolution do you believe lol ?

another so what statement by Ywc ...
there is no evidence linking punctuated equilibrium to creationism.
punctuated equilibrium does not refute gradualism:the actual differences between the various evolution theorists were not as large as they were made to appear. Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.

Misconceptions

Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with quantum evolution, saltationism, catastrophism, and with the phenomenon of mass extinction, and is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism. It is actually more appropriately understood as a form of gradualism (in the strict and literal sense of biological continuity). This is because even though the changes are considered to be occurring relatively quickly (relative to the species geological existence), changes are still occurring incrementally, with no great changes from one generation to the next. This can be understood by considering an example: Suppose the average length of a limb on a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches, a large amount) over 70,000 years (a geologically short period of time). If the average generation is seven years, then the given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. Thus, on average, the limb grows at the minute, gradual rate of only 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000 generations).

Punctuated Equilibrium is frequently contrasted with phyletic gradualism, though critics, notably Richard Dawkins, have argued that phyletic gradualism is merely a straw man. Eldredge and Gould's advocacy of the theory brought punctuated equilibrium much attention, especially since they phrased it in terms that made it appear to be a radical re-thinking of evolutionary theory. The resulting debate stirred up in evolutionary circles was misrepresented by some creationists to portray Darwinism as a "theory in crisis." Some detractors among evolutionary biologists wryly termed punctuated equilibrium "evolution by jerks." (It is now sometimes referred to by the slang "punk eek," with no negative connotations implied.) The actual differences between the various evolution theorists were not as large as they were made to appear. Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.
PALEAUTONOMY.COM: Evolution - Punctuated Equilibrium

liar liar pants on fire!

You are so ignorant.

Punctuated equilibrium


Definition

noun

A theory that describes an evolutionary change happening rapidly and in brief geological events in between the long periods of stasis (or equilibrium). The theory is based on the stasis in fossil records, and when phenotypic evolution occurs, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation.


grad·u·al·ism

/ˈgrajo͞oəˌlizəm/



Noun


1.A policy of gradual reform rather than sudden change or revolution.
2.The hypothesis that evolution proceeds chiefly by the accumulation of gradual changes (in CONTRAST to the PUNCTUATIONIST model).

Learn your theories so you don't continue to make a fool of yourself. The only thing they have in common is that evolution took a long time.

 

[Hollie]

another so what statement by Ywc ... misrepresented by some creationists to portray Darwinism as a "theory in crisis."

This was a tactic of evasion and slithering by ywc.

He challenged me to post evidence of his lies and falsified creationist "quotes". After posting about half a dozen, he tried desperately to change the topic.

You and daws do not have a clue.

Punctuated equilibrium


Definition

noun

A theory that describes an evolutionary change happening rapidly and in brief geological events in between the long periods of stasis (or equilibrium). The theory is based on the stasis in fossil records, and when phenotypic evolution occurs, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation.


grad·u·al·ism

/ˈgrajo͞oəˌlizəm/



Noun


1.A policy of gradual reform rather than sudden change or revolution.
2.The hypothesis that evolution proceeds chiefly by the accumulation of gradual changes (in CONTRAST to the punctuationist model).

Learn your theories so you don't continue to make a fool of yourself. The only thing they have in common is that evolution took a long time.

Now why was the theory of punctuated Equilibrium brought forth ? well because of the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

There is no lack of transitional fossils. This boilerplate creationist claim has been refuted many times.

Your creation ministries have an agenda that strives to keep you ignorant and uninformed


Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

 

[Youwerecreated]

Pure comedy gold.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6668480-post14186.html

Hollie punctuated equilibrium refutes gradualism it is stasis in the fossil record.

In other words organisms appear to have suddenly appeared not that they gradually evolved over a large time span that your theory say's happened.

I ask you what theory of evolution do you believe lol ?

another so what statement by Ywc ...
there is no evidence linking punctuated equilibrium to creationism.
punctuated equilibrium does not refute gradualism:the actual differences between the various evolution theorists were not as large as they were made to appear. Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.

Misconceptions

Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with quantum evolution, saltationism, catastrophism, and with the phenomenon of mass extinction, and is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism. It is actually more appropriately understood as a form of gradualism (in the strict and literal sense of biological continuity). This is because even though the changes are considered to be occurring relatively quickly (relative to the species geological existence), changes are still occurring incrementally, with no great changes from one generation to the next. This can be understood by considering an example: Suppose the average length of a limb on a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches, a large amount) over 70,000 years (a geologically short period of time). If the average generation is seven years, then the given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. Thus, on average, the limb grows at the minute, gradual rate of only 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000 generations).

Punctuated Equilibrium is frequently contrasted with phyletic gradualism, though critics, notably Richard Dawkins, have argued that phyletic gradualism is merely a straw man. Eldredge and Gould's advocacy of the theory brought punctuated equilibrium much attention, especially since they phrased it in terms that made it appear to be a radical re-thinking of evolutionary theory. The resulting debate stirred up in evolutionary circles was misrepresented by some creationists to portray Darwinism as a "theory in crisis." Some detractors among evolutionary biologists wryly termed punctuated equilibrium "evolution by jerks." (It is now sometimes referred to by the slang "punk eek," with no negative connotations implied.) The actual differences between the various evolution theorists were not as large as they were made to appear. Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.
PALEAUTONOMY.COM: Evolution - Punctuated Equilibrium

liar liar pants on fire!

Quote from your link.

"Thus punctuated equilibrium contradicts some of Darwin's ideas regarding evolution, but accords with others."

 

[Youwerecreated]

So which theory do you believe ?

 

[Boss]

One is superstition and the other is gullibility. Both are strong evidence of human spiritual connection.

That was a lot of pontificating trying to rescue a bankrupt argument. You succeeded in making superstition, gullibility and "spiritual connection" indistinguishable from one another.
People having "spiritual connections" to Zeus and the Greek gawds, jinn, Leprechauns, spirits, spooks, or any previously asserted gawds share a common thread: they're all asserted by those who have a vested interest in self-promotion.

Fear is a common tactic used to coerce behavior. The installation of fear via threats of punishnent from angry gawds, spirits, etc., has been the history of religious belief. There is nothing that separates the fear and superstition surrounding the Greek gawds from your gawds.

What you don't seem to realize here, is you keep pointing to things which strongly indicate a vociferous human connection to spirituality. You continue to want to indicate this attribute is rooted in "fears" but whenever we examine the rest of nature, we see no such evidence these fears exist or are rational. The truth is, these "fears" come from our ability to spiritually connect, and that is why there are no other examples present in nature. You've simply reversed this around, so that our irrational fears caused us to create spirituality, and nothing in nature supports your argument.

You say that people who have "spiritual connection" are self-promoting, but how many Jews were self-promoting through Judaism in Nazi Germany? Yes, some religions can be very self-promoting, and humans are vulnerable because they DO spiritually connect. Otherwise, people would be able to realize self-promotion and nonsense, and abandon the practice. They wouldn't be "afraid" of what is going to happen to their souls after they die. But they ARE! They always have been and always will be, for the most part. It's because we are burdened by the ability to spiritually connect.