A simple question for creationists.

[FlyingTeaPot]

[youtube]Jim_HBj7Bdk[/youtube]
Bill Hicks - God is ****ing with Us - YouTube

 

[rusra02]

Rusra, I already pointed out to you that you are misrepresenting Sagan's view and now you are doing it again. Are you deliberately misrepresenting his views? If so, why?

Despite your claim and others of the ToE faithful, I did not misrepresent what Sagan said: "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer." (Cosmos p.29 by Carl Sagan) I was not discussing Sagan's view, only what he said.
Sagan said it, and that is that. Again, the tactics of the ToE propogandists is to attack the person if they cannot attack the idea. So the quote from the Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin probably will elicit a similar attack:
"Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true..the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." - 1/79, Vol.50,No.1,pp 22,23.
Interesting is the word "Unfortunately" in the above quote. Unfortunate for those believing in evolution, perhaps, despite the evidence to the contrary.

 

[johnhanks]

Despite your claim and others of the ToE faithful, I did not misrepresent what Sagan said: "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer." (Cosmos p.29 by Carl Sagan) I was not discussing Sagan's view, only what he said.
Sagan said it, and that is that. Again, the tactics of the ToE propogandists is to attack the person if they cannot attack the idea. So the quote from the Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin probably will elicit a similar attack:
"Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true..the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." - 1/79, Vol.50,No.1,pp 22,23.
Interesting is the word "Unfortunately" in the above quote. Unfortunate for those believing in evolution, perhaps, despite the evidence to the contrary.

What a pity you didn't extend your quote to p.26, where the author writes

This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred ...

He goes on to state that the record doesn't tell us how the change took place:

the fossil record doesn't tell us whether [natural selection] was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see, or 9 percent, or .9 percent

but the fact of evolution as revealed by the fossil record is undisputed.

 

[painted wolf]

Despite your claim and others of the ToE faithful, I did not misrepresent what Sagan said: "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer." (Cosmos p.29 by Carl Sagan) I was not discussing Sagan's view, only what he said.
Sagan said it, and that is that. Again, the tactics of the ToE propogandists is to attack the person if they cannot attack the idea. So the quote from the Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin probably will elicit a similar attack:
"Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true..the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." - 1/79, Vol.50,No.1,pp 22,23.
Interesting is the word "Unfortunately" in the above quote. Unfortunate for those believing in evolution, perhaps, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Yes you did... by cherry picking a quote (said in levity) that is the opposite of what Sagan actually thinks about the subject is classic misrepresentation.
You are trying to imply that he agrees with your position when he very clearly did not and the entire book is about evidence why that quip is false.

You are essentially lying about what Sagan actually said in his book by using this one quip to totally misrepresent his position.

And yes, that other quote is also taken out of context...

wa:do

 

[Photonic]

What a pity you didn't extend your quote to p.26, where the author writes

He goes on to state that the record doesn't tell us how the change took place:
but the fact of evolution as revealed by the fossil record is undisputed.

Oh no, intellectual dishonesty and quote mining from a creationist?!

Impossible!

 

[Majikthise]

Is he still using that partial quote from Sagan!?

In one ear and out the other.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Despite your claim and others of the ToE faithful, I did not misrepresent what Sagan said: "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer." (Cosmos p.29 by Carl Sagan) I was not discussing Sagan's view, only what he said. Sagan said it, and that is that.

Then you quote-mined a quote mind. You found a snippet of a quote from some website that quoted him out of context then you regurgitated without truly investigating your source. In essence you "did" misrepresent what was said.....

"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament)."

"Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true..the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." - 1/79, Vol.50,No.1,pp 22,23.
Interesting is the word "Unfortunately" in the above quote. Unfortunate for those believing in evolution, perhaps, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Let me finish the quote for you.......

"There were several problems, but the principle one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another. . . (p. 23, emphasis mine)"

But you don't care about the facts. You're comfortable quote-mining the quote-miners......

 

[rusra02]

Then you quote-mined a quote mind. You found a snippet of a quote from some website that quoted him out of context then you regurgitated without truly investigating your source. In essence you "did" misrepresent what was said.....

"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament)."




Let me finish the quote for you.......

"There were several problems, but the principle one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another. . . (p. 23, emphasis mine)"

But you don't care about the facts. You're comfortable quote-mining the quote-miners......

I find it..interesting...that any statement quoted from a ToE adherent or leader supposedly cannot be used if it supports a theory other than the "orthodox scientific" propoganda line. To suggest Dr. Sagan was being funny when he said what he said is not warranted, in my opinion. His quote was not taken out of context. He said it, he meant it. Deal with it.
As for the other quote in red above, the author admits there is little evidence for evolution, even assuming any such evidence exists. In other words, "very few" really can be "no cases".

 

[johnhanks]

As for the other quote in red above, the author admits there is little evidence for evolution, even assuming any such evidence exists. In other words, "very few" really can be "no cases".

Oh rusra, you scamp, you know very well that in post #183 I'd pointed out that that very same author, in the very same article, stated

This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred ...

and there you go pretending he's said there's little evidence for evolution. Now, what would Jesus have said about dishonesty like that?

 

[RedOne77]

I find it..interesting...that any statement quoted from a ToE adherent or leader supposedly cannot be used if it supports a theory other than the "orthodox scientific" propoganda line. To suggest Dr. Sagan was being funny when he said what he said is not warranted, in my opinion. His quote was not taken out of context. He said it, he meant it. Deal with it.
As for the other quote in red above, the author admits there is little evidence for evolution, even assuming any such evidence exists. In other words, "very few" really can be "no cases".

Think about who Sagan is for a few minutes. He is/was a main-stream astronomer and an outspoken atheist/agnostic. Anyone familiar with his works knows that he accepts evolution and sees creationism as pseudoscience and demonstrably false. This isn't guess work or forcing his views into "orthodox science", it's simply what he himself expresses all the time through his writings and videos.

 

[camanintx]

That's truly deceptive statement. Manipulation in bacteria can hardly apply to, say, human evolution.

Please explain what prevents the same processes we observe in bacteria from applying to humans and other organisms?

 

[painted wolf]

Hey if God created evil then lying for God has to be good right?

Isiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

wa:do

 

[Matthew78]

Despite your claim and others of the ToE faithful, I did not misrepresent what Sagan said: "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer." (Cosmos p.29 by Carl Sagan) I was not discussing Sagan's view, only what he said.

You need to learn the difference between misrepresenting someone and misquoting someone. I didn't say that you misquoted him. As far as I know, you quoted him accurately. You are misrepresenting his viewpoint with your quote by implying that he's conceding an embarrassing fact that is damaging to evolutionists and helping the creationist cause. Nothing he said was embarrassing, damaging, or anything negative about evolution. In fact, what he said was accurate; the fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer. But is it? Sagan's answer, which you refuse to acknowledge, is cearly no.

After you replied to my post, there were others who weighed in and offered quotes from Sagan that directly refute what you say. Now you have no excuse. Do not misrepresent him again!

Sagan said it, and that is that. Again, the tactics of the ToE propogandists is to attack the person if they cannot attack the idea.

Your creepy paranoia isn't helping your case. You can shout from the rooftops all you want about some vast conspiracy, or ToE propaganda, or vicious attacks against creationist Christians like yourself. You're only embarrassing yourself and making other creationists like you look silly.

So the quote from the Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin probably will elicit a similar attack:
"Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true..the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." - 1/79, Vol.50,No.1,pp 22,23.
Interesting is the word "Unfortunately" in the above quote. Unfortunate for those believing in evolution, perhaps, despite the evidence to the contrary.

None of us are attacking the quotes you presented. They're perfectly accurate statements when understood in context. What we attack is your misrepresentation of the views of the people you quote because you cannot stand the fact that we accept evolution as a validated scientific principle and refuse to adopt your creationist beliefs. You seem desperate to discredit evolution so we will have no choice but to accept your gospel. Good luck.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I find it..interesting...that any statement quoted from a ToE adherent or leader supposedly cannot be used if it supports a theory other than the "orthodox scientific" propoganda line.

How about you go forth and try your hardest not to misquote or misrepresent people? To quote the portion you quote-mined is dishonest and when read in context Sagan totally disagreed with your assertion.

To suggest Dr. Sagan was being funny when he said what he said is not warranted, in my opinion.

Nor did I ever say or suggest he was trying to be "funny". He was very serious when he said...("should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer ")

His quote was not taken out of context. He said it, he meant it. Deal with it.

I don't have a problem with Sagan's words....just your inability to accurately quote scientist..

As for the other quote in red above, the author admits there is little evidence for evolution, even assuming any such evidence exists. In other words, "very few" really can be "no cases".

You have no idea what he said...He said...

"the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution."

In most cases I would tend to agree. Evolution, in part, is affected by other conditions which one should not expect it to adhere to a "finely graduated chain of slow progression"....

What you failed to quote or even take note of when I posted it was this....

"There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another"

He says there are very few cases of "gradual transition from one species to another".....not that there aren't any. So in essence he supports that evolution has happened in regards to the fossil record. He totally disagrees with your assertion which is why whomever you got your quote from purposely left out the last part of his quote. This is total dishonesty.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Example of Quote Mining

Anyone who doesn't believe in the ToE must be a liar, a knave, and a dolt.

Apparently, Rusra believes that anyone who fails to accept the empirical evidence contained within the Theory of Evolution is a "liar, a knave, and a dolt".

After all, I pulled a direct quote from a past statement made by Rusra! This must be an example of Rusras true feelings on the subject!

 

[waitasec]

Example of Quote Mining



Apparently, Rusra believes that anyone who fails to accept the empirical evidence contained within the Theory of Evolution is a "liar, a knave, and a dolt".

After all, I pulled a direct quote from a past statement made by Rusra! This must be an example of Rusras true feelings on the subject!

excellent work...

 

[rusra02]

Example of Quote Mining



Apparently, Rusra believes that anyone who fails to accept the empirical evidence contained within the Theory of Evolution is a "liar, a knave, and a dolt".

After all, I pulled a direct quote from a past statement made by Rusra! This must be an example of Rusras true feelings on the subject!

What you did was to take a quote out of context. What I quoted Sagan as saying was not taken out of context. Your attempt to say the two are the same is both bogus and sad. Seems like a desperate try at deflecting from what Sagan said about the fossil record. Still, his words remain....the much ballyhooed fossil "evidence" for the ToE isn't quite so "evident".

 

[Android]

Your attempt to say the two are the same is both bogus and sad.

The fact that you cant see they ARE the same is sad.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What you did was to take a quote out of context. What I quoted Sagan as saying was not taken out of context. Your attempt to say the two are the same is both bogus and sad. Seems like a desperate try at deflecting from what Sagan said about the fossil record. Still, his words remain....the much ballyhooed fossil "evidence" for the ToE isn't quite so "evident".

You DID take it out of context. You only quoted a portion of what he said. In order to get the full context of what he said you have to read the rest of his statement. Let's try this again......

You said.......

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2634462-post96.html
"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer." (Cosmos p.29 by Carl Sagan)

This is it...full stop with no regard or respect for the rest of what he said. Do you see how the source you used actually ended his statement with a period? In his book there is a semicolon. Your source not only quoted him out of context but blatantly altered his text. You quote-mined your quote and it's a dishonest way to debate. I gave you the rest of the quote in full context.....

"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament)."

Where is your rebuttal? You don't really have one. If you continue to use whatever bad sources you're using for quotes you will continue to inform us you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. It's very peculiar how you want to maintain this view of Sagan...seeing as though you appear to not have never read a single book by him. Unbeknownst to you I actually own a couple of his books including "Cosmos"........

 

[tumbleweed41]

What you did was to take a quote out of context. What I quoted Sagan as saying was not taken out of context.

That you do not see the blatant dishonesty of your quote mine says a lot about the mind set of many Creationists.


http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/87305-dishonesty-creationists.html