What is creationism?

[rusra02]

Let me perhaps explain this better. There are tons of quotes that are not quote mining. Such as when a creationist quotes Ken Ham or some other such creationist. That isn't a quote mine. When its quote mining is only when people specifically find quotes out of context and attempt to use them.

The most famous is the one used against Richard Dawkins. There is a point in one of his books where he seemingly gives credence to creationism. However he only does this as a literary mechanism to hook the readers attention before going further to explain why. But on every creationist website they will have quoted Dawkins out of context and attempt to say "even the great Atheist Pope Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in evolution!" or some such nonsense.

So not every quote is a quote mine. Just the quotes taken out of context is a quote mine. I've gotten pretty good at spotting them as they normally have a few common qualities. First its from someone who is an accredited biologist that accepts evolution usually. That is your first problem. Why would they accept evolution if they have pointed out a perfect flaw that invalidates the theory? It wouldn't make sense. Unless you were quoting them out of context. The second common characteristic is that it seems as if they were going to continue on with the point in the paragraph or page. Though this one isn't always as common.

But again bring me a quote that has been called quote mining that you don't believe to be so. We can discuss why or why not.

I have highlighted what I consider a fallacious basis for calling a quote from an evolutionist "quote mining." Honest scientists who accept evolution nonetheless rightly point out what the evidence actually indicates. For example, Raup rightly noted the fossil record does not provide the evidence evolutionists hoped for their theory. Calling such statements quote mining is mistaken, to say the least, and downright dishonesty in many cases, IMO.

 

[rusra02]

Yes, but you ignored my question. What IS this evidence that shows all the things you claim?

(Belatedly, I note that the poster ImmortalFlame has already picked you up on this in #269; and that you have evaded his/her requests too.)

For your benefit, "The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have highlighted what I consider a fallacious basis for calling a quote from an evolutionist "quote mining." Honest scientists who accept evolution nonetheless rightly point out what the evidence actually indicates. For example, Raup rightly noted the fossil record does not provide the evidence evolutionists hoped for their theory. Calling such statements quote mining is mistaken, to say the least, and downright dishonesty in many cases, IMO.

The fact that you continue to lie about his statements is shameful. Again, he was talking specifically about a traditional Darwinian view of evolution as a Universally gradual process. He was not indicating anything about evolution theory in general. Here is the source:

https://archive.org/stream/fieldmuseumofnat50chic#page/n21/mode/2up

And here the pertinent quotes which demonstrate that you are LYING about what he is actually saying (emphasis mine):

"Now let me step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works." (p. 25)

"So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare." (p. 25)

"Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection 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. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be." (p. 22)

Raup is categorically and demonstrably not addressing evolution in general. He is addressing "Darwin's contribution" as an "explanation for this change".

The fact that you are still presenting his quote as meaning something demonstrably contrary to what he clearly meant, despite having it demonstrated to you multiple times by multiple posters, means you have now gone far beyond mere simple ignorance of his position in light of culling the quote from a creationist source, and instead gone to the depths of being outright dishonest in misrepresenting him yourself. You are a demonstrable liar, and will continue to be one until you retract your statements and admit your dishonest activity.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

For your benefit, "The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation.

The question is: What evidence?

Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind.

The question is: How does this contradict evolution?

In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

Outright lie. Hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils have been found, and not a single one contradicts evolutionary theory. In fact, the only theory that adequately explains the state of the fossil record, and why we see a clear progression as we ascend the geological column, is the theory of evolution.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I have highlighted what I consider a fallacious basis for calling a quote from an evolutionist "quote mining." Honest scientists who accept evolution nonetheless rightly point out what the evidence actually indicates. For example, Raup rightly noted the fossil record does not provide the evidence evolutionists hoped for their theory. Calling such statements quote mining is mistaken, to say the least, and downright dishonesty in many cases, IMO.

What he was talking about is true and he is being very specific. He is talking about the optimization of biological functions and how Darwin got it wrong.

Let me say something that could easily be taken out of context by any creationist were I a noteworthy biologist. Darwin was wrong. Darwin's ideas of evolution are simply wrong. They are simplistic and the evidences that we have found do not support his original theory. The old concept of gradual change over time rather than sporadic changes over short periods of time are usually considered wrong. There are LOTS of hypothesis and theories within the theory of evolution (which is a web of thousands of other theories under one big theory) that were wrong.

But the principles of evolution are correct. We do change over time. We see evidences of this in transitional forms in fossils, DNA and a half dozen other methods and schools of science.

 

[outhouse]

For your benefit, "The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation.

It factually is not in agreement

 

[rusra02]

The question is: What evidence?


The question is: How does this contradict evolution?


Outright lie. Hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils have been found, and not a single one contradicts evolutionary theory. In fact, the only theory that adequately explains the state of the fossil record, and why we see a clear progression as we ascend the geological column, is the theory of evolution.

I was quoting Raup.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I was quoting Raup.

No you weren't, you were quoting Donald E. Chittick:

On the other hand, the fossil record closely matches the general order of the appearance of living forms found in the Bible book of Genesis. Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

SOURCE: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102004442#h=21

 

[rusra02]

What he was talking about is true and he is being very specific. He is talking about the optimization of biological functions and how Darwin got it wrong.

Let me say something that could easily be taken out of context by any creationist were I a noteworthy biologist. Darwin was wrong. Darwin's ideas of evolution are simply wrong. They are simplistic and the evidences that we have found do not support his original theory. The old concept of gradual change over time rather than sporadic changes over short periods of time are usually considered wrong. There are LOTS of hypothesis and theories within the theory of evolution (which is a web of thousands of other theories under one big theory) that were wrong.

But the principles of evolution are correct. We do change over time. We see evidences of this in transitional forms in fossils, DNA and a half dozen other methods and schools of science.

Thank you for your frank admission. Transitional forms in fossils are lacking. Again, to quote Chittick: "A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.” Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin’s Enigma: “The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth.”

 

[rusra02]

No you weren't, you were quoting Donald E. Chittick:

On the other hand, the fossil record closely matches the general order of the appearance of living forms found in the Bible book of Genesis. Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

SOURCE: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102004442#h=21

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Thank you for your frank admission. Transitional forms in fossils are lacking. Again, to quote Chittick: "A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.” Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin’s Enigma: “The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth.”

False. Every fossil is a transitional form. We have an abundance of them. With the evidence at hand it is wholly obvious that we have evolved. Your deduction is false as we know how many of these structures evolved. There has never been a half organ but fully functional organs that developed from simple tissue. It starts simple and becomes more complex.

 

[rusra02]

False. Every fossil is a transitional form. We have an abundance of them. With the evidence at hand it is wholly obvious that we have evolved. Your deduction is false as we know how many of these structures evolved. There has never been a half organ but fully functional organs that developed from simple tissue. It starts simple and becomes more complex.

Bold claims. Care to present evidence?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Bold claims. Care to present evidence?

How come it is enough for you to simply present claims without evidence?

 

[Midnight Rain]

Bold claims. Care to present evidence?

I've presented evidence till I was blue in the face. There are whole courses on the evidence. Instead of asking me to provide evidence for the whole of evolution, which would be a gross misuse of my time, narrow it down to something specific and I shall provide evidence.

 

[Skwim]

No you weren't, you were quoting Donald E. Chittick:

On the other hand, the fossil record closely matches the general order of the appearance of living forms found in the Bible book of Genesis. Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

SOURCE: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102004442#h=21

Thanks for the correction.

Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist.

Who next, Dave Leno, or perhaps Donald Trump?

How about someone in the biz?


.

 

[Jainarayan]

Transitional forms in fossils are lacking. .... They did not change from one kind into another. ... Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.” ...

Well, one could look at this argument in this way...

Umm... no. Totally false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals

 

[Sapiens]

Thank you for your frank admission. Transitional forms in fossils are lacking. Again, to quote Chittick: "A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.” Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin’s Enigma: “The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth.”

With today's genetic information transitional fossils are completely unnecessary though they serve to reinforce, and have never been sown to contradict, the genetic findings. So if you want to argue for or against evolution, you need to do so based on genetics and only use the highly imperfect fossil record for examples. However, it is amazing to note how right the early paleontologists got it with so little to go on.

You are quoting Sutherland, an engineer with no bio-sci background and no "authority" to hold forth on much, except perhaps airplane design. He once said: "What these scientists do not tell you is that these experiments where done in a closed container with the absence of oxygen, an agent which would have been highly destructive to this process, obstructing it all together. Since these experiments were done, scientists have discovered oxidized iron bands in Precambrian rocks showing the presence of oxygen during the period that evolutionist claim life begin. This destroys the possibility of spontaneous formation of life on earth based on evolutionist own data and discoveries." He failed to realize (might be ignorance) or failed to tell his readers (might be lying) that chemically bound oxygen and free atmospheric oxygen not the same thing and that while highly reactive atmospheric oxygen will always result, in time, in chemically bound oxygen (e.g., water) oxidized iron bands will not. It comes that way, right out of a volcano (e.g., Hematite), or may be formed bacteriogenicly (e.g., Iron oxides from the caldera of Axial Volcano, a site of hydro-thermal vent activity along the Juan de Fuca Ridge). Try not to confuse engineers with scientists, engineers are rarely broadly enough trained to warrant listening to in naught but their fields of specialization.

 

[outhouse]

I've presented evidence till I was blue in the face

Do not expect the same in return.

In 6 years that I have been here, I don't think he has ever posted a link or source.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Do not expect the same in return.

In 6 years that I have been here, I don't think he has ever posted a link or source.

I don't expect it to be reciprocated. Its typically how these debates go.

 

[metis]

In "Scientific American" a couple of years ago, they mentioned that the last "creationist study" put forth for peer-review for possible publication was back in the 1950's. Point being, there isn't one slice of objectively-derived evidence that they can put forth.