Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[thau]

Amusingly Dr. Kirschner isn't a creationist, and has written books and published journals on evolution. Here he's complaining about the situation, he thinks different fields in biology should interact more.

As for Dr. Skell, he's a chemist. He's way outside of his field of expertise here.

And this is one reason why nobody takes creation science seriously. They quote mine and lie to push their agenda all the time.

Got it.

And any time I see someone using the defense "quote mining" I can pretty much conclude they have no real defense.

I also have some Stephen Gould quotes that should cause you discomfort, but if you are going to say "taken out of context," I will conclude you have no real defense, once again.

 

[tumbleweed41]

There is a person, calls himself Dr. dinasaur, he says that everything everything came into existance six thousand years ago. Although The Creator has existed forever, all of eternity, must have been awful lonely out there before six thousand years ago.

That would be Ken Hovind. (The Dr. in Dr Dino, and in his phone listing as Dr. Ken Hovind , refers to his PhD in Christian Education from an unaccredited correspondence school)

 

[thau]

Ahh, the quote mining defense (which I just commented on above). A.k.a., “the desperation defense.”

Famous Harvard paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, (quote) “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.

Gulp!

Your hero also wrote (quote) “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”


Do you want that last one explained, or are you going to explain it away for us instead?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Excuse me while I quote mine this....

Got it.

And any time I see someone using the defense "quote mining" I... have no real defense.

I also have some Stephen Gould quotes that should cause you discomfort, but if you are going to say "taken out of context," I...have no real defense, once again.

Forgive this dishonest and libelous use of a persons words out of context.:cover:

 

[tumbleweed41]

'I will be the first to say that I have learned much from my critics...' Kent Hovind

'One who has received only the slightest morsels of information about evolution might find resounding confirmation of its factual nature.' Ken Hovind
http://www.drdino.com

There you have it. Dr. Dino himself admits to the validity of biological evolution.

 

[tumbleweed41]

'The Earth is billions of years old. The geologic column is the way to interpret it, and Charles Darwin's evolution is right' Kent Hovind,

"Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 4", 1996, (a transcript of Kent Hovind's early sermons)

 

[johnhanks]

Ahh, the quote mining defense (which I just commented on above). A.k.a., “the desperation defense.”

Famous Harvard paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, (quote) “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.

Gulp!

Your hero also wrote (quote) “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”


Do you want that last one explained, or are you going to explain it away for us instead?

Ah yes, Stephen Jay Gould. The very same Stephen Jay Gould who wrote

In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium ... largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record ... Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

Do you want that last one explained, or are you going to explain it away for us instead?

 

[thau]

Stephen Gould is doing what he can concerning "damage control." He knows he made a mess of things being honest, as far as I am concerned. Below is a longer quote from your hero and a little summary I put together long ago.

----------------------------------------------

Stephen Gould Quote: “"Paleontologists have paid an enormous 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 almost never see the very process we profess to study. 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.”
.
Gould is not attacking evolution, but he is making an argument for punctuated equilibrium. So to review the arguments of two of the most revered high priests of evolution.

Gould & Co: A exists because X is present. There is no evidence for Y.
Dawkins & Co: A exists because Y is present. There is no evidence for X.
.
Conclusion: There is no evidence that experts agree on exist for A. Therefore A is not only yet unproven, it is very highly suspect since, some of the finest experts on the matter highly doubt the presence of the necessary evidence for it to exist. Here in the 21st century when science has made remarkable discoveries unimaginable, they still cannot identify proof of how we evolved that the experts can agree upon.

Essentially, Gould disproves Dawkins claim for evolution because he says there is no evidence for Gradual evolution. Or does Gould have no credibility? Dawkins disproves Gould’s claim for evolution because he says there is no evidence for punctuated equilibrium (i.e. monster steps). Or does Dawkins have no credibility?

The most knowledgeable man on evolution in the world Stephen Gould balks at the claims of gradual evolution yet public schools and universities everywhere insist it be taught as fact. And we who challenge evolution based on the same lack of evidence as Gould’s are counted as fools. How rich.

 

[tumbleweed41]

'Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.'

Dr. Todd Wood, Director of the Center for Origins Research Associate Professor of Science, Bryan Christian College. Creation Science Advocate
Dr. Todd Wood

Todd's Blog: The truth about evolution

 

[tumbleweed41]

Wow, this quote mining thing is fun!!!

 

[thau]

Excuse me while I quote mine this....



Forgive this dishonest and libelous use of a persons words out of context.:cover:

Who is coaching you? They really need to do a better job.

Your only defense is that quote mining is disingenuous. That's all you got? Heaven forbid you might have the guts to discuss the content of the quote itself.

 

[tumbleweed41]

... quote mining is disingenuous.

I agree, :yes:

 

[johnhanks]

Stephen Gould is doing what he can concerning "damage control." He knows he made a mess of things being honest, as far as I am concerned.

As far as you are concerned, maybe. For everyone else, Gould is slamming creationists' dishonest twisting of his and Eldridge's findings. (Though to be fair he did allow that it may be down to stupidity rather than dishonesty.)

Below is a longer quote from your hero and a little summary I put together long ago.

----------------------------------------------

Stephen Gould Quote: “"Paleontologists have paid an enormous 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 almost never see the very process we profess to study. 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.”
.
Gould is not attacking evolution, but he is making an argument for punctuated equilibrium. So to review the arguments of two of the most revered high priests of evolution.

Gould & Co: A exists because X is present. There is no evidence for Y.
Dawkins & Co: A exists because Y is present. There is no evidence for X.
.
Conclusion: There is no evidence that experts agree on exist for A. Therefore A is not only yet unproven, it is very highly suspect since, some of the finest experts on the matter highly doubt the presence of the necessary evidence for it to exist. Here in the 21st century when science has made remarkable discoveries unimaginable, they still cannot identify proof of how we evolved that the experts can agree upon.

I'm sure you aware that scientific theories are not susceptible to proof. Evolutionary biologists may argue over mechanisms of evolution (there doesn't have to be just one), but that it occurred is not doubted by any of the competing schools of thought.

The most knowledgeable man on evolution in the world Stephen Gould ...

By whose reckoning? A great biologist, certainly, but I doubt he would have claimed the mantle you throw on him.

... balks at the claims of gradual evolution ...

Present tense? You are aware Gould died nearly ten years ago?

... yet public schools and universities everywhere insist it be taught as fact.

No, schools and universities teach evidence for and theories of evolution; I'm not aware of any syllabus that requires exclusive teaching of gradualism.

And we who challenge evolution based on the same lack of evidence as Gould’s are counted as fools. How rich.

If you claim that Gould’s published findings support the notion that evolution has not occurred, then I can only echo his own difficulty in judging the matter - "whether [it is] through design or stupidity I do not know".

 

[tumbleweed41]

"Evolution is a fact, the Bible is just fairy tails..."

Ray Comfort, in an interview with Evangelist Pat Robertson

[youtube]Pun5C3owD0I[/youtube]
Ray Comfort admits: "Evolution is a fact!" - YouTube





Wow, now this quote mining thing is making me feel guilty and dishonest. I wonder if that is how others who use quote mining feel? Or if it doesn't bother them at all...

 

[rusra02]

"Evolution is a fact, the Bible is just fairy tails..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Comfort





Wow, now this quote mining thing is making me feel guilty and dishonest. I wonder if that is how others who use quote mining feel? Or if it doesn't bother them at all...

I think the charge of quote mining, in most cases, is a ploy to discourage the posting of quotes evolutionists find embarrassing.
According to one definition of quote mining: "The repeated use of quotes out of context in order to skew or contort the meaning of a passage or speech by an author on a controversial subject."
Quote something evolutionists don't like, and you are likely to be accused of "quote mining", lying, etc. If you can't attack the idea, attack the messenger. Such bullying tactics are sad and contemptible.

 

[thau]

Me: Stephen Gould is doing what he can concerning "damage control." He knows he made a mess of things being honest, as far as I am concerned.

You: As far as you are concerned, maybe. For everyone else, Gould is slamming creationists' dishonest twisting of his and Eldridge's findings. (Though to be fair he did allow that it may be down to stupidity rather than dishonesty.)

What twisting? It is clear what he was saying. In a moment of honesty, he stated the fact that evolutionists run from all the time --- i.e., the fossil record says “never happened.”

-------------------------------------

Me: The most knowledgeable man on evolution in the world Stephen Gould ...

You: By whose reckoning? A great biologist, certainly, but I doubt he would have claimed the mantle you throw on him.

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. What difference should it make if he is regarded as one of the most renowned evolutionist experts or just another expert? The fact is, he is an expert on the subject who in a moment of honesty tells it like it is --- (once again) There is NO EVIDENCE in the fossil record for gradual change! Out of context you say? Some things cannot be so easily explained away as you wish.

----------------------------------------

Me: ... balks at the claims of gradual evolution ...

You: Present tense? You are aware Gould died nearly ten years ago?

Yes, I am. I wrote this before he died, it still holds true. Sorry I did not edit it.

---------------------------------------

Me: ... yet public schools and universities everywhere insist it be taught as fact.

You: No, schools and universities teach evidence for and theories of evolution; I'm not aware of any syllabus that requires exclusive teaching of gradualism.

Oh, really? You mean they just say “we humans came from apes, no fossil evidence or any other hard evidence, just take our word on it?” “You can also look at these nice series of drawings we put together to show the changes we figure must have happened.”

Question: If there is no fossil evidence how one species became another more advanced species, then how can you say it happened? I will tell you how. Because there is a lot of similarities (DNA, etc.) between them, they ASSUMED it happened. There is no evidence of any vertebrate becoming something else since man has been around. Everything so nice and tidy. The fact the fossil evidence does not show it is not just a problem for you, it is a smoking gun refutation of your theory.

---------------------------------------

Me: And we who challenge evolution based on the same lack of evidence as Gould’s are counted as fools. How rich.

You: If you claim that Gould’s published findings support the notion that evolution has not occurred, then I can only echo his own difficulty in judging the matter - "whether [it is] through design or stupidity I do not know".

Please do not act so naive for your defense, I know you are not. I never said Gould does not vehemently believe in evolution, did I? No, but because you do not want to address what he did say and imply, you are diverting the subject. Gould, for all intents and purposes, states very clearly there is no fossil evidence for gradual evolution and yet, that is what all your other experts maintain occurred. This is a huge problem for your beloved theory.

 

[darkendless]

The evolution on this forum from "accepting the facts of evolution" to "believing (in the same manner as belief in a religion/God) in evolution is somewhat concerning.

It heavily amuses me how naive people are when demanding evidence for evolution. It almost seems as if they think that everything is ironed out and that this horrible fossil record should read like a book. What planet do you people live on? Use some common sense.

 

[Krok]

What twisting? It is clear what he was saying. In a moment of honesty, he stated the fact that evolutionists run from all the time --- i.e., the fossil record says “never happened.”

You repeating your lie won't change the fact that you are telling a lie. No matter how big your font-size is.

 

[thau]

You repeating your lie won't change the fact that you are telling a lie. No matter how big your font-size is.

You sound a bit desperate. Especially since you cannot provide any evidence that Gould's quote was "taken out of context." I explained why that is not so. All you have done is said to me "you are wrong" without any reasoning to support that charge.

I am not surprised.

 

[McBell]

Heaven forbid you might have the guts to discuss the content of the quote itself.