What is creationism?

[rusra02]

The problem is that in the multitude of cases where the context HAS shown that quote is misapplied, posters like you and Guy Threepwood simply ignore it and continue to post your dishonest quote-mines regardless. The difficulty is in dealing with the fact that you are taking quotes you don't understand about a subject you don't understand to represent the views of people that you don't understand. You draw these quotes, and indeed most (if not all) of your argument from creationist websites because you are not interested in viewing or understanding the actual evidence itself, so it doesn't matter to you if you have to resort to dishonesty and lies, because you can simply deny it to yourself as you don't actually understand in what way you're being dishonest. If you don't understand what something actually means, how can you ever be considered dishonest in representing it? And if learning about it means learning that you have been misrepresenting it, what are the chances that you're going to make that effort?

You have made repeated assertions in this very thread which demonstrate that you don't understand evolutionary theory. You get all of your information from biased sources, not scientists, and you have no interest in engaging with the actual evidence.

To that end, let's take a look at that David M. Raup quote mine. Here is the source (which you mis-attributed):

https://archive.org/stream/cbarchiv...0/conflictsbetweendarwinandpaleo1930_djvu.txt

From this, you can clearly see that Raup's intention is that he was speaking strictly about the changes being GRADUAL. He accepts evolutionary theory.

I won't reply to your personal attacks. I will repeat that I acknowledged Raups as being an evolutionist, and I let his quote speak for itself.

 

[rusra02]

The lack of smooth transitions is hardly even a controversial observation these days, it's why we now have this rift, between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium, two competing theories attempting to account for an observation the original theory did not predict.

The argument between the two groups, is how to account for the sudden appearances, gaps, the long periods of stagnation in the record, not that they don't exist.

I understand that. What the evidence uncovered supports is direct creation, neither gradualism nor PU, IMO.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I understand that. What the evidence uncovered supports is direct creation..

What do you mean by direct creation?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I won't reply to your personal attacks.

Then prove me wrong: demonstrate a reasonable understanding of evolution theory and retract your quote mines when they are demonstrated to be dishonest.

I will repeat that I acknowledged Raups as being an evolutionist, and I let his quote speak for itself.

Again, you are lying. You specifically said:

"I don't accept your premise that would forbid quoting an evolutionist who points to evidence against the theory simply because he is an evolutionist, or didn't intend to admit evidence that disproves what he believes."

Clearly you AREN'T "letting his quote for for itself". You are claiming the quote means something other than what was intended. The quote was categorically NOT him "pointing to evidence against the theory" and nor was it him "admitting evidence that disproves what he believes". I have presented you with the context and multiple quotes that clearly demonstrate this.

If you have to resort to dishonesty to support your position, then your position clearly isn't strong.

 

[rusra02]

What do you mean by direct creation?

That God created each animal and plant "according to it's kind", as Genesis describes.

 

[rusra02]

Then prove me wrong: demonstrate a reasonable understanding of evolution theory and retract your quote mines when they are demonstrated to be dishonest.


Again, you are lying. You specifically said:

"I don't accept your premise that would forbid quoting an evolutionist who points to evidence against the theory simply because he is an evolutionist, or didn't intend to admit evidence that disproves what he believes."

Clearly you AREN'T "letting his quote for for itself". You are claiming the quote means something other than what was intended. The quote was categorically NOT him "pointing to evidence against the theory" and nor was it him "admitting evidence that disproves what he believes". I have presented you with the context and multiple quotes that clearly demonstrate this.

If you have to resort to dishonesty to support your position, then your position clearly isn't strong.

Again, I will not waste time responding to your personal attacks. The quote says what it says, and means what it says.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Again, I will not waste time responding to your personal attacks. The quote says what it says, and means what it says.

Exactly. Whereas what YOU claimed it meant was the following:

"I don't accept your premise that would forbid quoting an evolutionist who points to evidence against the theory simply because he is an evolutionist, or didn't intend to admit evidence that disproves what he believes."

Do you or do you not now admit that it DOESN'T mean what you said it meant?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I understand that. What the evidence uncovered supports is direct creation, neither gradualism nor PU, IMO.

That seems to have the best outcome prediction of the 3 so far.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Again, I will not waste time responding to your personal attacks. The quote says what it says, and means what it says.

Here is that quote in larger context

"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find."

David Raup: Paleontologist: / Curator and Dean of Science at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago

Also from Raup:

The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I acknowledged in my post that the writer is an evolutionist.

I acknowledged in my post that the writer is an evolutionist. What David Raup said was what the fossil record shows. His quote speaks for itself, and what it's "intended meaning" is each reader may judge for themselves. Your claim of misrepresentation is simply mistaken.

You're trying to say that he is pointing out some barrier to macroevolution, when he is not. You have misrepresented his view.

Individual quotes don't actually speak for themselves (unless they were originally made as one-liners, as this one was not) which is why it's dishonest to quote mine. The "intended meaning" is taken from reading (or quoting) the quote in its proper context.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think evolutionist's claims of quote mining is often nothing more than an impudent attempt to prevent people from learning what evolutionists themselves describe as weaknesses in their theory and evidence hey publish against it. Unless the context shows the quote has been misapplied, claims of quote mining are just another propaganda ploy, IMO.

Nice attempt to play the victim card. You misrepresented someone's view with a quote mine. Maybe you didn't mean to. But just acknowledge it and move on instead of blaming "evolutionists" for desiring honesty in scientific discourse.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again, I will not waste time responding to your personal attacks. The quote says what it says, and means what it says.

Is it a personal attack if you've actually done what is being pointed out? You could just stop quote mining and then we could have an honest discussion.

Or are you not interested in having an honest discussion? Because when you quote mine, you are basically saying that you are not. So I wonder if that's the message you are intending to send.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here is that quote in larger context

"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find."

David Raup: Paleontologist: / Curator and Dean of Science at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago

Also from Raup:

The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be.

Instead of doing more quote mining, why not read up on some of Raup's work, or at least some analyses of his work (that's assuming you want to learn what his arguments were and where he was coming from, of course).

http://commondescent.net/articles/Raup_quote.htm
https://books.google.ca/books?id=vRfABkeA2DUC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=david+raup+view+natural+selection&source=bl&ots=_TynM8wdRG&sig=VnKnaIUcLGw-oxE7z0xDcYwFSKA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOx5mZjv_KAhXFnIMKHfmFBvs4ChDoAQgtMAU#v=onepage&q=david raup view natural selection&f=false
https://books.google.ca/books?id=uj_by_Sg3LkC&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=david+raup+view+natural+selection&source=bl&ots=iXtC9TKdvi&sig=qoax_XGAgsPCeqgn8tkxSxFhbwo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOx5mZjv_KAhXFnIMKHfmFBvs4ChDoAQgjMAI#v=onepage&q=david raup view natural selection&f=false
http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2015/08/david-m-raup-1933-2015.html
https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=wikipedia&q=isbn:0387159657
https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=wikipedia&q=isbn:0393309274

 

[McBell]

I think evolutionist's claims of quote mining is often nothing more than an impudent attempt to prevent people from learning what evolutionists themselves describe as weaknesses in their theory and evidence hey publish against it. Unless the context shows the quote has been misapplied, claims of quote mining are just another propaganda ploy, IMO.

This is nothing more than a sad attempt at justifying your dishonest quote mining.
It is clear that the quote you used was saying or even implying what you claim it was.
That is called lying.
Something I thought your deity said was a no no.

 

[McBell]

I won't reply to your personal attacks. I will repeat that I acknowledged Raups as being an evolutionist, and I let his quote speak for itself.

Except that you did not let his quote speak for itself.
You lied about what he meant by the quote.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Instead of doing more quote mining, why not read up on some of Raup's work, or at least some analyses of his work (that's assuming you want to learn what his arguments were and where he was coming from, of course).

http://commondescent.net/articles/Raup_quote.htm
https://books.google.ca/books?id=vRfABkeA2DUC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=david+raup+view+natural+selection&source=bl&ots=_TynM8wdRG&sig=VnKnaIUcLGw-oxE7z0xDcYwFSKA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOx5mZjv_KAhXFnIMKHfmFBvs4ChDoAQgtMAU#v=onepage&q=david raup view natural selection&f=false
https://books.google.ca/books?id=uj_by_Sg3LkC&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=david+raup+view+natural+selection&source=bl&ots=iXtC9TKdvi&sig=qoax_XGAgsPCeqgn8tkxSxFhbwo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOx5mZjv_KAhXFnIMKHfmFBvs4ChDoAQgjMAI#v=onepage&q=david raup view natural selection&f=false
http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2015/08/david-m-raup-1933-2015.html
https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=wikipedia&q=isbn:0387159657
https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=wikipedia&q=isbn:0393309274

I don't see any refutation of the quotes in those sources, can you quote anything he ever said to retract them?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't see any refutation of the quotes in those sources, can you quote anything he ever said to retract them?

The very first one clarifies pretty precisely what he was saying.

The rest, as I said, are his words on the subject of evolution, natural selection and extinction, and analyses of his writing and work on the subject. That's if you're actually interested in what he had to say about the subject matter.
He doesn't need to retract statements just because some people don't know how to properly quote him. (Besides, he passed away over the summer.)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The very first one clarifies pretty precisely what he was saying.

The rest, as I said, are his words on the subject of evolution, natural selection and extinction, and analyses of his writing and work on the subject. That's if you're actually interested in what he had to say about the subject matter.
He doesn't need to retract statements just because some people don't know how to properly quote him. (Besides, he passed away over the summer.)

His first words from your first link are "We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."

I think that certainly helps clarify the point, though I'm not sure if that's what you were referring to?


Yes it's a shame, he had a very interesting independent perspective

 

[SkepticThinker]

His first words from your first link are "We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."

I think that certainly helps clarify the point, though I'm not sure if that's what you were referring to?


Yes it's a shame, he had a very interesting independent perspective

You can read more than one sentence per sitting, right?
I suggest doing that.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You can read more than one sentence per sitting, right?
I suggest doing that.

You said the first one... but OK- the next longer piece is:

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.


Doesn't this underscore the point even further? I honestly can't see where he refutes it, can you pinpoint what you are referring to here?