Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Churches urged to back evolution
British Broadcasting Corporation ^ | 20 February 2006 | Paul Rincon

Posted on 02/20/2006 5:33:50 AM PST by ToryHeartland

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 2,151-2,2002,201-2,2502,251-2,3002,301-2,341 last
To: Thatcherite
I had seen these quotes before, most of them, and knew they had problems. What was really funny is seeing all the creationists on a list of evolutionists. People like Gish and Berlinski. A number of the quotes I couldn't even find. Since there are no citations for the vast majority, they were difficult to track down. I did save the post I made though so I won't have to do all the dirty work again.

I just saw I missed this *quote* from that famous scientist, Mr. Time Magazine:

""Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record."

(Time Magazine, Nov. 7, 1977)"

It doesn't get any funnier than this! :)
2,301 posted on 03/05/2006 8:41:33 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2298 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

I'm sure I noticed some Philip Johnson quotes on that list too, and I don't think you picked them up. You know who Johnson is?


2,302 posted on 03/05/2006 8:45:06 AM PST by Thatcherite (More abrasive blackguard than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2301 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
I guess you find it boring to be asked to back up your claims. In "I'm a devout Christian" world presumably it's enough just to have an emotional feeling that your beliefs are true. No need for any evidence. So, for the rest of us who like some evidence when extraordinary allegations are made, when are you going to produce some backup about early evolutionary theorists leaping at evolutionary theory because they liked its sexual and moral implications? Or did you just make that claim up?
Holy cow, are you really as stupid as you pretend? Or are you this pathetic that you refuse to let go of the point because you want to roll in it as a dog in rotting flesh? If you want me on my knees, pleading for forgiveness, you can forget it. Come back when you are sober.

I cannot and will not make it any plainer to you than to say I was lead astray into making that assertion based on the misquoting and misattributing of the Huxley quote.
2,303 posted on 03/05/2006 8:47:46 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (*Burp* I just got done chewing up a liberal. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583155/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2288 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
It would be quite nice, as a start, for you to show the slightest shame at your behaviour.

Are you now admitting that you made up the thing about early evolutionary theorists leaping at the theory of evolution because they liked the moral implications? It isn't absolutely clear if I can draw that conclusion from your apparent admission that the Huxley claim is a creationist fabrication.

2,304 posted on 03/05/2006 8:53:08 AM PST by Thatcherite (More abrasive blackguard than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2303 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
"I'm sure I noticed some Philip Johnson quotes on that list too, and I don't think you picked them up. You know who Johnson is?"

Yep. I got a little tired and after the first 20 or so just started browsing for interesting quotes. There were too many to do ALL of them.

"It (evolution) is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks of straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story to modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe it."

(Professor Phillip Johnson, "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture," pg. 9) "

Yes, Philip Johnson, the well known evolutionist. lol
2,305 posted on 03/05/2006 8:53:16 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2302 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Yes, Philip Johnson, the well known evolutionist. lol

And biologist :)

2,306 posted on 03/05/2006 8:53:43 AM PST by Thatcherite (More abrasive blackguard than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2305 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Wow, that was a quick response; 27 secs. lol
2,307 posted on 03/05/2006 8:54:36 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2306 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

This isn't spam, because it seems apparent to me that you actually took the time to write it yourself.

Thank you for the time; I'll check into it and get back to you.


2,308 posted on 03/05/2006 8:58:58 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (*Burp* I just got done chewing up a liberal. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583155/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2296 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Are the Ichey Awards being given out tonight?


2,309 posted on 03/05/2006 9:00:07 AM PST by js1138 (</I>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2296 | View Replies]

Placemarker


2,310 posted on 03/05/2006 9:03:48 AM PST by Thatcherite (*Burp* I just got done chewing up a creationist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2309 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
What? You mean another so-called Christian has lied misspoken to his fellows?

Oh, say it ain't so, Joe!

2,311 posted on 03/05/2006 9:12:55 AM PST by balrog666 (Irrational beliefs inspire irrational acts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2296 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
"What? You mean another so-called Christian has lied misspoken to his fellows?

Oh, say it ain't so, Joe!"

What we've got here is a failure to authenticate. Some men you just can't reach, so you get what we had here on this thread which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you.
2,312 posted on 03/05/2006 9:21:41 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2311 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

We don't write our own stuff? I have copied large articles into these threads when it was a direct refutation of something that was just plain wrong, and when links were being ignored, but mostly what I say is mine. Same with Ichneumon, except we do not do our own illustrations.


2,313 posted on 03/05/2006 9:27:38 AM PST by js1138 (</I>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2312 | View Replies]

To: js1138

"We don't write our own stuff?"

It's all really written by the Grand Master and emailed to us for use here. Let's give the credit where it's due.


2,314 posted on 03/05/2006 9:54:25 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2313 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
What? You mean another so-called Christian has misspoken to his fellows? Oh, say it ain't so, Joe!

I suspect yet another example of someone pretending to be a creationist Christian posting economical actualities in order to make Christians look bad. There seems to be a lot of it around.

It wouldn't be possible to be a Loki Troll Creationist would it. The actual behaviour of these people is already beyond parody. No-one would be able to tell the difference between the straight posters and the Loki Troll.

2,315 posted on 03/05/2006 11:58:58 AM PST by Thatcherite (Abrasive androgenous feminised euro-weenie automaton blackguard, rolling in rotting flesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2311 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I cannot and will not make it any plainer to you than to say I was lead astray into making that assertion based on the misquoting and misattributing of the Huxley quote.

Rereading that carefully I apologise wholeheartedly, because I see that you are finally clearly admitting that you have no evidence for the evo-morality assertion, despite your subsequent claim after the Huxley quote was exposed as a fabrication that "There are more where those came from". (Perhaps by then it would have been wise to have checked whether you had anything at all that would back your claims up, but wisdom doesn't appear to be your strong suit either). You do realise that even if the quote itself had been true that neither of the Huxleys in any way match the description "early evolutionary theorists"?

Anyway. Congratulations. Honesty late is a lot better than honesty never. I bet it feels a lot better now.

2,316 posted on 03/05/2006 12:18:20 PM PST by Thatcherite (Abrasive androgenous feminised euro-weenie automaton blackguard, rolling in rotting flesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2303 | View Replies]

Kindly address further inquiries to someone else--I don't wish to provide you with further excuses to enundate threads with reams of pointless biblical quotes.

That's ok, YouWhoShouldn'tBePinged, I have ample reason to post them!


2,317 posted on 03/05/2006 1:34:42 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2295 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Same with Ichneumon, except we do not do our own illustrations.

That's ok...

I can track them down and place adequate comments on them.

2,318 posted on 03/05/2006 1:36:22 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2313 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; Thatcherite; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; ...
Thank you for taking the time to write these out. Unlike what many frevolutionists wish to believe, I seek only the truth. If the quotes are wrong, I’ll withdrawal their specific use. I was led astray, as I already said, by the one misquote of Huxley, which has been misquoted/misattributed more than once. Eager frevolutionists were delighted, although I find it a bit pathetic (feeble?) that they latch on to one mistake with such a relentless feeding frenzy. In this, they are right; I made an assertion based on a faulty interpretation and attribution.

Of this, I’ll be sure; I’ll be less inclined to trust that source and those particular quotes again. Luckily (for me) there are other more reliable sources.

The first quote is a fabrication. The second is out of context.
I cannot find a source for the first quote, and remove my support of it. Here, instead, are some other gems of wisdom from Dr. Wald, specifically addressing the question of spontaneous generation:
”If life comes only from life, does this mean that there was always life on the earth? It must, yet we know that this cannot be so. We know that the world was once without life – that life appeared later. How? We think it was by spontaneous generation.”
Yet in “The Physics and Chemistry of Life” Wald wrote that “the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.”
Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson's quote. I can't find anything on him, other than that he's a creationist.
Because he is a creationist does not discount his credentials or his writings. Let me add to some of his quotes:
“The proof of the occurrence of mutations is by no means a proof of a current evolution.”
“It is therefore absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.”
“It may, therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts.”
Interesting.
Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission. Enough said.
Meaning…?
5) John Polkinghorne is a theistic evolutionist. While the quote is correct, he did not have a problem with evolution.
I believe the point behind that quote is that a Cambridge University physicist asserting the need for a Designer/Creator.
I can't find the rest of this online. It goes without saying that Raup is not saying evolution is wrong. He is arguing for PE. He is also wrong about Darwin, who understood that evolution could work in spurts.
Once again, the point would be to highlight the need for a Designer. I cannot help that you do not agree or that you feel he was wrong. Funny how being wrong about such things are excusable for those guys, but one misguided quote sends everyone into a feeding frenzy.
Written in 1925. By a physicist who had no training in biology.
Biology isn’t the only science dealing with the probability/impossibility of evolution.
Dr. Arthur Koestler is a neo-lamarckian; he doesn't represent anything about the ToE as it has been for over 100 years.
It stands to reason that you will reject and distance yourself from him, but his quotes are still on record. It seems that, when you find quotes not taken out of context or misquoted or fabricated, you merely shift to attacking of the source and excusing the quotes and demonstrating why you personally do not accept them.
Not sure this is even Patterson. I get multiple people as the author when I google this. Usually a sign of a made-up qoute.
We’ve already been over this. Niles Eldrendge was the author of that quote, in Time Frames: The Rethining of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria. Specifically, on page 240.
Dr. Wolfgang Smith. A mathematician specializing in aerodynamics. Also, not at all an evolutionist. This list sure is getting padded with creationists. :)
They are not evolutionists because of the quotes. The quotes are because they are not evolutionist. (Huh?) Maybe it is because the quotes can be used to argue against contemporary interpretations of the evolutionary model. Further quotes of interest by Dr. Smith:
We are told dogmatically that evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence ‘is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience’; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists. … And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred.”
Dr. Hubert P. Yockey. Information theorist and non-biologist.
Where do you get off thinking that only biologists can critique evolution?
Nice use of elipses. Where's this from? How many pages separate the cut pieces?
As best I can learn, it was in “"How evolution became a scientific myth," New Scientist, 11 September 1980, p.765.” I cannot find the original source to confirm any unscrupulous cutting or excising of important context. Let me know if you can.
BTW, this has nothing to do with evolution anyway.
How do you figure?
Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse was an evolutionist, but a neo-lamarkian. Your quote is from a crank who is pushing ideas disproved 100 years ago. Nice going!
Now you (again) are just showing your personal disagreement with the man based on your dislike of him or his quotes or his stance. Like it or not, he was once the president of “Academie des Sciences.” He edited Traite de Zoologie. He held the Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne in Paris for thirty years. Not misquoted, misattributed or fabricated. Further, Grasse wrote:
”The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur.

“ There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.

“Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped.

“The fruitfly, (
Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.

“The explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else in capable of solving the major problems involved.” "The system has become functional only when all its components have come together and adjusted themselves to one another. The Darwinian hypothesis compels us to postulate a preparatory period during which selection acts upon something that does not, physiologically speaking, yet exist. Under the necessary conditions of the postulate, the action can only have been prophetic! Any explanation ruling out the active intervention of the organism in the acquisition of regulating systems may be regarded as inadequate. To take as an evident truth the fact that the control mechanisms attenuating or neutralizing the actions of the environment (these are, let it be remembered, complex systems having several coordinated elements) could have been assembled by successive and lucky strokes of chance without the slightest need for the organism to play any role whatsoever, is to sacrifice objective scientific analysis to wholly verbal magic trick" “Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms. A knowledge of paleontology is, therefore a prerequisite; only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms.” “Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us.
To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts.’
(Above quotes by Grasse were taken from Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press 1977) In reviewing Grasse’s work, David Kitts (Professor of Science, University of Oklahoma) wrote:
“The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even ahistorical theories.”
20) ""I suppose the reason we leaped at the origin of species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores." A complete fabrication. Julian Huxley never said this.
Geee, no fooling.
Attributed to Sir Arthur Keith, it's a fabrication.
I’ll give you that too, since rigorous searching does not reveal any actual citation of Keith on this. Doesn’t mean the quote doesn’t exist, just like the Eldrendge quote. Of course, this doesn’t mean some of Keith’s reasonings were not damaging to the cause of evolution:
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’
Out of context quote [by Dr. George Gaylord Simpson].
As far as I can tell, you’re right. Of course, Dr. Simpson also wrote:
"Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material."
And people tell me that I am reaching by applying the philosophical meanings of evolution to life and finding meaninglessness.
He was a creationist in that respect. Pathetic that you included this.
Note first of all the above quotes showing Darwin incorporating actions based on Darwinism. The preservation of favored races, I wonder? Many people have tried to ply Hitler’s invocation of “God” to ally him with Christians and demonize them. No action taken by Hitler is consistent with the Christian paradigm, and his actions were clearly influenced by the Darwinian ideas of races.

Also note: I did not “include” it because I did not write or compile the list.
Yes, Darwin was a typical Victorian man. So?
So we can excuse his views based on the era in which he lived, just like we excuse pro-slavery and pro-racist opinions because they were the fare of the time. (Huh?)
Here's what the recently deceased Henry Morris thought about race
Ahh, ad hominem tu quoque.
Of course, as Gould and modern science in general has rejected the recapitulation theories he is talking about, this quote is moot.
You’d better slip that bit of information on down the line to the classroom teachers, because they recently tried to hand me recapitulation as fact too.
(Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist.) Why is he on this list? Shameless, yet again.
Considering he is a creationist, I’m not sure why he would be classified as “evolutionist” under the list at all.
(Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University) He was last main holdout against evolution, and died in 1942. He was always a creationist. Yet MORE padding.
His opinions disagreed with evolution. He was a scientist. I think his quotes are useful.
(Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.) Yet more *misspeaking* from the creationists. He was attacking social darwinism, not evolution.
He was a geologist writing in Volume 14 of Geology. Here’s the full context:
"Darwin's three mistakes were that (1) he dismissed mass extinction as artifacts of an imperfect geologic record; (2) he assumed that species diversity, like individuals of a given species, tends to increase exponentially with time; and (3) he considered biotic interactions the major cause of species extinction. Those mistakes led to the theory propounded in his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (Darwin, 1859), which has been adopted by many as the scientific basis of the social philosophies. The Darwinian theory of evolution has two themes: common descent and natural selection. Creationists are barking up the wrong tree when they question common descent, which is amply documented by scientific evidence. Darwin's mistakes were in his emphasis on biotic competition in natural selection. We learned evolution in school, along with aphorisms about the struggle for existence, natural selection, adaptation, and survival of the fittest. Few of us have found it necessary to check the scientific basis of the Darwinian theory. I did not bother to read Origin of the Species until I started to write a book on the terminal Cretaceous mass extinction. Only then did I realize how wrong Darwin was on some critical issues and how unfortunate it is that his mistakes have been misused by ideologists for their propaganda. This essay is an attempt to renounce social Darwinism... Darwin's theory in biology, transferred to Germany and nurtured by Ernst Haeckel, inspired an ideology that led eventually to the rise of the Nazis... We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is about time we cry: 'The Emperor Has No Clothes.'"
(Dr. Louist T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University) Sorry, he was a phsyicist at the University of Cincinnati. And he was writing in 1925. Again, more padding.
I believe the mix-up originates in the fact that he delivered a series of lectures at Princeton.
(Dr. David Berlinski) from the Discovery institute. More padding with creationists.
Because he is affiliated with an institute which believes in Intelligent Design, we must immediately discard anything he says, because no person who believes in either ID or Creation can make any comment scientifically sound in nature. (Huh?) I agree, however, that he doesn’t belong under the heading of evolutionist. (Even though ID accepts most tenets of the contemporary evolutionary model)
Ok, there's 40 quotes that are *veracity-challenged*. I didn;t do them all; some I couldn't find anything on, other than re-quoting at creationist websites. I am sure you will go through this and point out where I am wrong, in detail.
You weren’t sure of that at all, in fact you were quite confident that I would not. Sorry to disappoint.
Rereading that carefully I apologise wholeheartedly, because I see that you are finally clearly admitting that you have no evidence for the evo-morality assertion
Thank you. Sometimes I think your predisposition against me can get in the way when you read my remarks, but you came around. One petty statement based on what seems to be common misattribution/misquoting doesn’t wipe away everything I stand for, after all.
wisdom doesn't appear to be your strong suit either
Now THAT was a cheap shot. You ruined an otherwise almost decent post. That’s a shame.
2,319 posted on 03/05/2006 4:16:10 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (*Burp* I just got done chewing up a liberal. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583155/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2296 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
"Here, instead, are some other gems of wisdom from Dr. Wald, specifically addressing the question of spontaneous generation:"

He rejected spontaneous generation in the Pasteur sense; he used the term for a slow, gradual process that led to the formation of life on earth (abiogensis). Again, what he said in context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote57


" Because he is a creationist does not discount his credentials or his writings. Let me add to some of his quotes:"

Sure it does, when the list is supposed to be evolutionists.

" Meaning…?"

Meaning who cares what someone working at the Atomic Energy Commission thinks about evolution.

" I believe the point behind that quote is that a Cambridge University physicist asserting the need for a Designer/Creator."

He's an ordained Anglican priest. He's a theistic evolutionist.

"Once again, the point would be to highlight the need for a Designer. I cannot help that you do not agree or that you feel he was wrong. Funny how being wrong about such things are excusable for those guys, but one misguided quote sends everyone into a feeding frenzy."

Raup was arguing for no such thing, nor did he show that a designer was needed. Why do you think that a quote out of context will make an evolutionist turn out to be really a creationist?

" Biology isn’t the only science dealing with the probability/impossibility of evolution."

But a physicist writing in 1925 does not have the training to make such a statement. It certainly isn't worth more than a biologist's opinion.

"It stands to reason that you will reject and distance yourself from him, but his quotes are still on record. It seems that, when you find quotes not taken out of context or misquoted or fabricated, you merely shift to attacking of the source and excusing the quotes and demonstrating why you personally do not accept them."

Koestler wasn't a scientist, he was a journalist and a fiction writer for most of his working life. His views are rejected by the vast majority of scientists, and have nothing to do with the TOE. Again, despite this, he still wasn't rejecting evolution, he was rejecting natural selection as the main engine of it. Instead, he favored neo-lamarckism. This quote WAS taken out of context, in that it was never a rejection of descent with modification.
Why does this list have a journalist/literary writer on it?

" They are not evolutionists because of the quotes. The quotes are because they are not evolutionist. (Huh?)"

No, Wolfgang Smith (and the other people I have designated creationists) was an avowed creationist. That is why I call them creationist, because that is what they said they were.

" Further quotes of interest by Dr. Smith:"

Who cares? He was a an avowed creationist. The list is supposed to be scientists who support evolution admitting that evolution is bunk. Having creationists on the list (and not naming them as such) is dishonest padding of the worst sort. Why not just post an article by Duane Gish?


" Dr. Hubert P. Yockey. Information theorist and non-biologist.

Where do you get off thinking that only biologists can critique evolution?"

He showed no understanding of basic biology. The calculations were based on totally bogus assumptions that have nothing to do with how life actually works. I was kind.

" How do you figure?"

The origin of life is outside the TOE. Also, he (Conklin) died before the modern work on abiogensis even started.

"Now you (again) are just showing your personal disagreement with the man based on your dislike of him or his quotes or his stance. Like it or not, he was once the president of “Academie des Sciences.”"

Who cares? His views have nothing to do with what 99% of scientists think about evolution. Neo-Lamarkism has been disproved. Again, it should be noted, he is not arguing against evolution or common descent, he is arguing against a particular theory of how this happened. He's not in your camp either.

"David Kitts (Professor of Science, University of Oklahoma) wrote:"

Another quote mine. Kitts was not arguing that the fossil record goes against darwinian evolution, only that in and of itself it is not enough. The paragraphs before this in his review was contrasting different theories about how evolution works, not if evolution happened.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-1.html#quote13

"The preservation of favored races, I wonder?"

You wonder incorrectly. Races in Darwin's sense meant varieties/sup-species. He was not talking about human races in the Origin Of Species. Also, at that time, race also was applied to nationailty, so people spoke of the Italian race or the Irish race.

"Many people have tried to ply Hitler’s invocation of “God” to ally him with Christians and demonize them. No action taken by Hitler is consistent with the Christian paradigm, and his actions were clearly influenced by the Darwinian ideas of races."

No, he saw the Aryan race as the perfect special creation of God. He did not believe that the Aryan race evolved. His idea of race had nothing to do with Darwin's. He also was only nominally Christian, as his use of Christian symbols was a perversion of real Christianity.

" Also note: I did not “include” it because I did not write or compile the list."

Your reposting it is an act of tacit approval.

"So we can excuse his views based on the era in which he lived, just like we excuse pro-slavery and pro-racist opinions because they were the fare of the time. (Huh?)"

No, but his views on women's capabilities were a tiny part of his writing and not in the least out of place in his time. They had nothing to do with his science but all to do with his being a typical Victorian male. BTW, as far as slavery goes, he was atypical in his hatred for the practice.

" Ahh, ad hominem tu quoque."

So, why do you excuse Morris' racism but condemn Darwin's and Huxley's (even though they lived in a time when it was more excusable)? Hypocrisy doesn't become you. My critique is not a fallacy because it hits straight to your point.

"You’d better slip that bit of information on down the line to the classroom teachers, because they recently tried to hand me recapitulation as fact too."

I doubt that. Embryology is useful to show evolutionary history but Haeckel applied it too far. The use of embryology as a support for evolution is not the same as ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

" Considering he is a creationist, I’m not sure why he would be classified as “evolutionist” under the list at all."

Me neither. Just like the other avowed creationists on the list, like:
"(Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University) He was last main holdout against evolution, and died in 1942. He was always a creationist. Yet MORE padding.

His opinions disagreed with evolution. He was a scientist. I think his quotes are useful."

He was an avowed creationist, like Gish (though he was more respected and actually did scientific research). There is no difference having him on this list or Gish. Neither represents the views of evolutionary scientists.

" He was a geologist writing in Volume 14 of Geology. Here’s the full context:"

Yes, he was arguing against social Darwinism and was not in any way arguing against the TOE.

" I believe the mix-up originates in the fact that he delivered a series of lectures at Princeton."

And, he was a creationist.

"Because he is affiliated with an institute which believes in Intelligent Design, we must immediately discard anything he says, because no person who believes in either ID or Creation can make any comment scientifically sound in nature. (Huh?) I agree, however, that he doesn’t belong under the heading of evolutionist."

Because he has always been openly hostile to the TOE. He does not speak for evolutionists and doesn't belong on the list because of that.

Thanks for taking the time for the reply. I apologize for snarkily implying you wouldn't.
2,320 posted on 03/05/2006 5:36:48 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2319 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib

"We are in the position of little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That it seems to me is the attitude of even the most intelligent being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand those laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations." Albert Einstein - 1929


2,321 posted on 03/05/2006 5:44:32 PM PST by CIDKauf (No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
But you see, you’re missing the point. Going through the list to challenge misquotes, fabrications, etc. is a very valuable service, and not many people would do such a thing for free. But you have only given a handful of truly fabricated/misquoted/misattributed quotes. The rest are your own personal opinions about why we should not accept what the individuals have stated, or ad hominem attacks against their character. IE, “who cares what someone working at the Atomic Energy Commission thinks about evolution.” Perhaps you don’t. I would say that any physicist good enough to work at the AEC must have a solid head on his shoulders. But since he doesn’t actively run in evolutionary circles, you do not care to hear what he has to say.

He's an ordained Anglican priest. He's a theistic evolutionist.
So he’s an evolutionist, but just not in a form that you would deem acceptable. He is still a Cambridge physicist
Why do you think that a quote out of context will make an evolutionist turn out to be really a creationist?
Oh, but hold on here, I thought the point was only to contend with the evolutionists’ quotes, since a creationist is, by your definition, not a scientist. I’m not trying to make evolutionists into creationists at all. It is you who is trying to draw such a sharp dividing line.
But a physicist writing in 1925 does not have the training to make such a statement. It certainly isn't worth more than a biologist's opinion.
Given that he is ignorant of the evolution of, well, evolution, you might say so. Scientific understanding (and progression of the evolutionary model) has certainly progressed. You cannot expect each quote to be as strong as the next.
His views are rejected by the vast majority of scientists
I’m not contending with you on the merit of quotes by Koestler, but merely serving as a reminder that “rejected by the vast majority of scientists” never really does make a good argument against creationism. A) We know it. B) Truth never did care how many people believed in its opponent.
Who cares? He was a an avowed creationist.
Precisely my point, old boy. He was a creationist, therefore, to Mordor with him. This is only your personal persuasion.
The origin of life is outside the TOE.
Yes, I was wondering when that would be brought up again. (Evolutionary propaganda seems to be based on incessantly repetitious mantras in so many areas.) Why is it that the evolutionary model is exempted from pertaining to the origin of life? Upon what dividing line does evolution end and biogenesis begin? It is as if evolutionists realized how scientifically impossible living matter arising from non-living matter truly was, and therefore cut off any connection with it at the very beginning. Thus, they can claim “evolution doesn’t address that” and grin smugly, thinking they have disarmed the refutations of neo-Darwinian thinking. (Of course, they still operate believing in the principle of non-living matter giving rise to living matter; they have to.)

Curiously, the same exemption is not afforded ID or Creationism. Creationists operate with an assumption about the very beginning, true. But ID does not; it merely says something had to be guiding the process, based on irreducible complexity, etc. So why doesn’t ID get the same luxury? “We don’t know how life actually got started, and we won’t address that.”

Both sides operate based on their respective assumptions; one that it was some form of randomized something or other that something suddenly became alive. The other, some body of intelligence did something, and continued to guide the process. If we’re going to allow that convenient cop-out for evolution, let’s be equally fair to both sides, shall we?
Who cares? His views have nothing to do with what 99% of scientists think about evolution.
You see? Once again, it is only personal bias which is a factor. “I don’t care, because he doesn’t agree with me and my friends.” Do you not see how useless this is in an honest discussion?
You wonder incorrectly. Races in Darwin's sense meant varieties/sup-species.
We’ve been over that before. The quote in this case was in reference to Hitler, who meant it in a very literal sense.
Your reposting it is an act of tacit approval.
Right. And were someone to go through and highlight flaws in links provided by frevolutionists, an instantaneous divorce would occur and evolutionists (raising their voices to reinforce otherwise weak arguments) would brashly state that they cannot be expected to be held accountable for each inconsistency imbedded in a silly link. I already wrote that I supposed a reposting of the link equivocated an endorsement, but merely wished to clarify that I did not compile the list.
No, but his views on women's capabilities were a tiny part of his writing and not in the least out of place in his time. They had nothing to do with his science but all to do with his being a typical Victorian male.
Once again, you excuse it because it was typical. Restating your point doesn’t help.
So, why do you excuse Morris' racism but condemn Darwin's and Huxley's (even though they lived in a time when it was more excusable)? Hypocrisy doesn't become you. My critique is not a fallacy because it hits straight to your point.
Who excused it? I did not say a word about Morris’s. You’re trying to turn the exact same question back on me without answering it yourself, and it won’t work.
I doubt that. Embryology is useful to show evolutionary history but Haeckel applied it too far.
I’m sorry you doubt it, but I cannot help your personal bias.
Thanks for taking the time for the reply. I apologize for snarkily implying you wouldn't.
Don’t expect it to be a habit. I’m sorry to sound snarky in return, but some of us don’t live and breathe this stuff and make it our lives, and have the time to write detailed refutations to each frevolutionist’s opinions as they cross the wires. Some of us have lives to live, and don’t make the crevo debates the sole purpose of our existence on FR. I do have four other ping lists to maintain.
2,322 posted on 03/05/2006 9:16:46 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (*Burp* I just got done chewing up a liberal. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583155/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2320 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
" But you have only given a handful of truly fabricated/misquoted/misattributed quotes. "

No, every one I critiqued was either wrong or was from somebody who shouldn't be on the list.

"The rest are your own personal opinions about why we should not accept what the individuals have stated, or ad hominem attacks against their character."

No, I called a creationist a creationist. That's not ad hominem.

"IE, “who cares what someone working at the Atomic Energy Commission thinks about evolution.” Perhaps you don’t. I would say that any physicist good enough to work at the AEC must have a solid head on his shoulders. But since he doesn’t actively run in evolutionary circles, you do not care to hear what he has to say."

But he's not a scientist working in biology. The eco-nuts do the same thing with their list of *scientists* who say that global warming is all our fault. They pad their lists with people who have no training in climate science, just like creationists pad their lists with people who have no training in biology.

" So he’s an evolutionist, but just not in a form that you would deem acceptable. He is still a Cambridge physicist."

My point was, of course he accepts the idea that God created the universe. He also believes he did it through evolution and the Big Bang. He is not saying what you think he is saying.

"Oh, but hold on here, I thought the point was only to contend with the evolutionists’ quotes, since a creationist is, by your definition, not a scientist."

No, I didn't say that. But a list of alleged evolutionists who make statements that are supposed to show doubts about evolution shouldn;t be padded with creationists. You yourself said that Gish didn't belong. The rest of the creationists don't either.

"I’m not contending with you on the merit of quotes by Koestler, but merely serving as a reminder that “rejected by the vast majority of scientists” never really does make a good argument against creationism."

Neither does a list of quotes ripped from their contexts count as an argument against evolution. And you are ignoring my point that Koestler was NOT a scientist. Why is he on the list?

" Precisely my point, old boy. He was a creationist, therefore, to Mordor with him. This is only your personal persuasion."

No, that was your conclusion when you said that Gish should not have been on the list. Try to be consistent.

"Why is it that the evolutionary model is exempted from pertaining to the origin of life? "

Because it just DOESN'T deal with it. Anymore than Germ theory does. You would think this wouldn't be tough to understand...

"Upon what dividing line does evolution end and biogenesis begin?"

When the first imperfectly self replicating organism was formed.

"It is as if evolutionists realized how scientifically impossible living matter arising from non-living matter truly was, and therefore cut off any connection with it at the very beginning. Thus, they can claim “evolution doesn’t address that” and grin smugly, thinking they have disarmed the refutations of neo-Darwinian thinking. (Of course, they still operate believing in the principle of non-living matter giving rise to living matter; they have to.)"

No, it has never been part of the theory, ever since Darwin.

"Curiously, the same exemption is not afforded ID or Creationism. Creationists operate with an assumption about the very beginning, true. But ID does not; it merely says something had to be guiding the process, based on irreducible complexity, etc. So why doesn’t ID get the same luxury? “We don’t know how life actually got started, and we won’t address that.”"

Because neither ID or creationism has offered any way to test their claims. Abiogenesis, while in it's infancy, does.

" If we’re going to allow that convenient cop-out for evolution, let’s be equally fair to both sides, shall we?"

It's not a cop-out, it's the recognition of where the theory's boundaries have always been. Abiogenesis is best left to the chemists.

"You see? Once again, it is only personal bias which is a factor. “I don’t care, because he doesn’t agree with me and my friends.” Do you not see how useless this is in an honest discussion?"

Using someone who is representative of about 1% of the scientific community as an example of what science claims is dishonest, to say the least. It is also terribly misleading in this case since he DOES accept descent with modification, just not natural selection as the driving force.

" We’ve been over that before. The quote in this case was in reference to Hitler, who meant it in a very literal sense."

And he meant it in a way that Darwin didn't. Using Hitler as a representative evolutionist is a disgustingly dishonest tactic.

"Right. And were someone to go through and highlight flaws in links provided by frevolutionists, an instantaneous divorce would occur and evolutionists (raising their voices to reinforce otherwise weak arguments) would brashly state that they cannot be expected to be held accountable for each inconsistency imbedded in a silly link. I already wrote that I supposed a reposting of the link equivocated an endorsement, but merely wished to clarify that I did not compile the list."

Feel free to highlight the flaws we make or in the links we post. Unlike you, we won't cling to them after they have been shown to be in error.

" Once again, you excuse it because it was typical. Restating your point doesn’t help."

And you condemn him for believing what 99% of his generation believed. I bet you condemn Lincoln for being a racist because he believed, as did just about every body of his time (including abolitionists) that blacks were inferior.

" Who excused it?"

You did by brushing it aside.

"You’re trying to turn the exact same question back on me without answering it yourself, and it won’t work."

I'm exposing your hypocrisy.

" I’m sorry you doubt it, but I cannot help your personal bias."

I frankly don't believe you. They may have printed Haeckel-like drawings, but his version of recapitulation has not been taught for 100 years.

In conclusion, your list is full of misquotes and people who don;t belong and don't represent evolutionary thought. But, as you say, you stand by it.
2,323 posted on 03/05/2006 9:54:04 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2322 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

"I do have four other ping lists to maintain."

And some of us appreciate the work, though we may not say so very often.


2,324 posted on 03/06/2006 3:44:39 AM PST by gobucks (Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2322 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
BTTT

// The rest are your own personal opinions about why we should not accept what the individuals have stated, or ad hominem attacks against their character//

And that is a very large piece of the methodology this cult engages all the while calling it science and inferring it is the strength of their ideas.

Wolf
2,325 posted on 03/06/2006 8:50:26 AM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2322 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; DaveLoneRanger
What is this?

//They may have printed Haeckel-like drawings, but his version of recapitulation has not been taught for 100 years//

I am about 20 years older than you, and you are out to lunch on that one, as with most other things that you insist are irrevocable fact.

By your logic then, I doubt there is very little you can speak on directly yourself.

You seem to think by calling these people 'creationists' and 'cranks' etc you demolish them.

I will say this. There are some 'cranks' alright, and they will be found in the ranks of evo-cultists.

They are seduced by the false sense of intellectual supremacy that seems to be a magnet for the personalities the cult draws in.

Wolf
2,326 posted on 03/06/2006 9:09:39 AM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2323 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
"I am about 20 years older than you, and you are out to lunch on that one, as with most other things that you insist are irrevocable fact."

No, Haeckel's biogenic law has not been taught or accepted for a long, long time.

" By your logic then, I doubt there is very little you can speak on directly yourself."

This is nonsensical. Not out of character for you though. :)

" You seem to think by calling these people 'creationists' and 'cranks' etc you demolish them."

The list was supposed to be evolutionists who made statements that threw doubt on evolution. Instead, it was padded with avowed creationists who never accepted evolution. Or, it included people like Koestler, who was neither a scientist (he was a writer/journalist) nor did his views (neo-lamrakism) reflect what evolutionary biologists think. These people simply don't belong on this list. Period. Why, for instance, is Duane Gish on it?

" I will say this. There are some 'cranks' alright, and they will be found in the ranks of evo-cultists."

You're a one-trick dog. That's all you ever have to say. It's so boorish.
2,327 posted on 03/06/2006 9:19:29 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2326 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf; metmom; Mamzelle; AndrewC
I'm Nuts About A PHreeper

Post Markian

2,328 posted on 03/06/2006 4:51:03 PM PST by zeeba neighba (:=)virtuous ignore for trolls, scolls and caterwauling castigators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2326 | View Replies]

To: zeeba neighba

Careful, I might scoll you.


2,329 posted on 03/06/2006 5:21:44 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2328 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

Zounds! Tin foiled again!


2,330 posted on 03/06/2006 5:27:23 PM PST by zeeba neighba (:=)virtuous ignore for trolls, scolls and caterwauling castigators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2329 | View Replies]

To: zeeba neighba

Post Markian evo Crokyadyle style


2,331 posted on 03/06/2006 5:35:35 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2328 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf; Mamzelle; metmom

DU'ing da crock-O-Dial Rock


2,332 posted on 03/06/2006 5:37:52 PM PST by zeeba neighba (:DUDE--Where's my HomePage?!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2331 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

Hey is there a v-list that says we cant talk to each other from she who must not be talked to? LOLOL

Wolf


2,333 posted on 03/06/2006 5:41:42 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2329 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; ...
Here I am, bet you thought I'd given up on you. Had this written out a few days ago, but time isn't always a friend to my posting activities. Not to mention this lousy dial-up. Have I mentioned before how much I dislike dial-up? Eh, let's not go there.
No, every one I critiqued was either wrong or was from somebody who shouldn't be on the list.
According to whose definition? Since when does the evolutionist decide what quotes a creationist should put on the list? Your contention that not all of these are hard-core evolutionists, and thus the titling of the quotes as from evolutionist is a misnomer.
No, I called a creationist a creationist. That's not ad hominem.
Look up ad hominem. It doesn’t just mean calling their mother a sow. It is also “Person A says this-and-such; but this person is a member of the National Association of A’s, which advocate A, which is wrong. Therefore, we discount the opinion of Person A.”
But he's not a scientist working in biology. The eco-nuts do the same thing with their list of *scientists* who say that global warming is all our fault. They pad their lists with people who have no training in climate science, just like creationists pad their lists with people who have no training in biology.
Of course, fields such as paleontology, geology, physics, etc. are irrelevant to the study of the evolutionary model, I suppose? Why must it be solely biology?

Also, beware getting your words against global warming “eco-nuts”. As you know by my ping list, I’m in general agreement with you, but it could earn you some demerit points among some of your frevolutionary peers.
My point was, of course he accepts the idea that God created the universe. He also believes he did it through evolution and the Big Bang.
In other words, an IDer. His quotes were supportive of ID. You already know (I presume) my position on ID, and that evolutionists are stringently opposed to its teaching. So I think his quote still has merit.
He is not saying what you think he is saying.
I think you might be in error to assume that I am thinking anything about what he is saying. The quote said what the quote said; I didn’t spin it.
But a list of alleged evolutionists who make statements that are supposed to show doubts about evolution shouldn;t be padded with creationists. You yourself said that Gish didn't belong. The rest of the creationists don't either.
Sustained. But so far, you’ve only been able to find a handful of either creationists (with which the only objection is that they are, in fact, creationist under the heading of evolutionist; no other objections) and the already-shown misquotes. I don’t know what your goal was, but if it was to debunk the entire list of quotes, it seems not to have been successful.
Neither does a list of quotes ripped from their contexts count as an argument against evolution. And you are ignoring my point that Koestler was NOT a scientist. Why is he on the list?
Now you commit the logical fallacy of composition – ascribing the attributes of one small amount (insofar as your quarrels with context) to the entire thing. And I wrote that I was not contesting your point about Koestler. Yet, why are we debating the merits of the individuals and attacking their stance and ability to critique and object? Proper debate would be surrounding the substance, not the author.
Dave wrote: "Why is it that the evolutionary model is exempted from pertaining to the origin of life? "

Guitarman wrote: Because it just DOESN'T deal with it.
Just because! I get it. Thanks for clearing that up.
Anymore than Germ theory does. You would think this wouldn't be tough to understand...
The evolutionary model deals with origins. Not the Origin, the ultimate beginning, but it is a proposed explanation for the current orders of species we see today, reaching back into an alleged millions of years. When does it begin? Am I wrong when I say that the evolutionary model picks up RIGHT after spontaneous generation?
When the first imperfectly self replicating organism was formed.
Exactly. Biogenesis certainly is a very short-reaching subject. It takes up right there at the beginning of earth, runs the gamut up to the scientifically impossible spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter, and then “evolution” takes over! It’s like a committee which doesn’t want to deal with all the hard stuff, so it forms a sub-committee and then divorces itself from that, and whenever questions are asked, merely respond “that’s not in our job description.” ‘Tis remarkably convenient.
Because neither ID or creationism has offered any way to test their claims.
Each one has to rely upon some remarkable, if not supernatural, explanation.
Abiogenesis, while in it's infancy, does.
Don’t tell me; the Miller experiements?
Abiogenesis is best left to the chemists.
That’s convenient. Leave the study of life (and its ultimate origin) not to the “BIOLOGISTS” (first thing anyone ever tells you in bio class, biology is the study of life) but to those who study chemicals. At some point, there was an alleged fusion there which cannot be explained or reasoned away. You’ve been touting the need for biologists all along, and now you’re trying to pawn it off on the chemists.
Using someone who is representative of about 1% of the scientific community as an example of what science claims is dishonest, to say the least.
I never said “this is what science claims.” Heaven knows what the scientific community elites believe, regardless of what the facts are. I’m showing that not everyone agrees with you, and that some of the admissions of some of the evolutionary scientists conflict with current interpretations and beliefs. Again, you’re trying to argue the reputation of the source, and not the substance of what they have said. This whole dialogue has been bickering about whether or not we should include this scientist or that, all the while completely ignoring the substance of what they have said.
Using Hitler as a representative evolutionist is a disgustingly dishonest tactic.
How long will you continue to recast my words to make them appear as something they were not? I never said he was a representative evolutionist. I don’t think the fool was even scientifically-inclined. The point is, he was acting based on Darwinist principles.
Feel free to highlight the flaws we make or in the links we post. Unlike you, we won't cling to them after they have been shown to be in error.
Cheap shot. I did not cling to any one point when shown to be in error. Let me clue you in about cheap shots. They come from cheap guns. Cheap guns can backfire.
And you condemn him for believing what 99% of his generation believed.
And you don’t? Since when did majority opinion dictate morality?
I bet you condemn Lincoln for being a racist because he believed, as did just about every body of his time (including abolitionists) that blacks were inferior.
Depends on what you mean. Speaking in terms of social aptitude and skills, they were, simply because they had been suppressed for so long, had little training, and little to no chance.

By the way, remind me again what the justification was for believing that blacks were inferior. I seem to recall something about being lower-evolved…
You did by brushing it aside.
Ah, I get it. If I don’t directly address your specific point, then it constitutes excusing it. Fascinating bias you have there.
I frankly don't believe you. They may have printed Haeckel-like drawings, but his version of recapitulation has not been taught for 100 years.
Certainly wish I hadn’t sold the one textbook which talks about it. As one of the proofs for evolution, however, another book I have not sold yet talks about comparative embryology; “One sign that vertebrates evolved from a common ancestor is that all of them have an embryonic stage in which structures called pharyngeal slits appear on the sides of the throat. At this stage, the embryos of fishes, frogs, snakes, birds, apes – indeed, all vertebrates look more alike than different.”

Like structural homology, it predates DNA, which shows that there is no genetic relation.
In conclusion, your list is full of misquotes and people who don;t belong and don't represent evolutionary thought. But, as you say, you stand by it.
As I wrote above, I believe you have succeeded in providing only a half-dozen or so of actual misquotes.

If you were the one who decided who belonged and who didn’t, then your phrase “people who don’t belong” might be relevant.

As for not representing evolutionary thought….that is the point! Um…duh?
2,334 posted on 03/08/2006 9:34:12 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (*Burp* I just got done chewing up a liberal. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583155/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2323 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
" According to whose definition?"

To yours. You agreed that Gish should not be on the list because he was a creationist. There is no reason that ANY of the creationists should be on it. The list is supposed to be evolutionists who are grudgingly admitting that evolution is a theory in crisis and so on. Creationists have no place on the list.

"Since when does the evolutionist decide what quotes a creationist should put on the list?"

When the creationist who made the list pretended that the people on it were evolutionists who were admitting that evolution was bunk.


"Look up ad hominem. It doesn’t just mean calling their mother a sow. It is also “Person A says this-and-such; but this person is a member of the National Association of A’s, which advocate A, which is wrong. Therefore, we discount the opinion of Person A.”

But creationists are not supposed to be on the list; they are, giving the false impression that they are representative of evolutionist thinking. It's not ad hominem to say that.

"Of course, fields such as paleontology, geology, physics, etc. are irrelevant to the study of the evolutionary model, I suppose? Why must it be solely biology?"

Physics isn't.

" In other words, an IDer. His quotes were supportive of ID."

No, a theistic evolutionist.

"Sustained. But so far, you’ve only been able to find a handful of either creationists (with which the only objection is that they are, in fact, creationist under the heading of evolutionist; no other objections)"

Sustained but who cares? They are creationist under the heading of creationism. They don't belong on the list.

"Yet, why are we debating the merits of the individuals and attacking their stance and ability to critique and object? Proper debate would be surrounding the substance, not the author."

But their presence on the list is PART of the argument the listmaker made. The logical error was on the part of the person who assembled the list. A great many of the people just don't belong on the list.

" Just because! I get it. Thanks for clearing that up."

Because it NEVER has dealt with the origins of life. Neither has Germ Theory. Why don't you attack Germ Theory for not dealing with the origin of germs?

"The evolutionary model deals with origins. Not the Origin, the ultimate beginning, but it is a proposed explanation for the current orders of species we see today, reaching back into an alleged millions of years. When does it begin? Am I wrong when I say that the evolutionary model picks up RIGHT after spontaneous generation?"

Yes, you are wrong. It picks up right after abiogenesis. It's not spontaneous generation. The ToE only deals with imperfectly self replicating organisms. It's scope, like all theories, is limited to certain phenomena. Why this is so hard for a creationist to understand is incredibly frustrating.

"Biogenesis certainly is a very short-reaching subject. It takes up right there at the beginning of earth, runs the gamut up to the scientifically impossible spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter, and then “evolution” takes over!"

Actually, it had to wait until the earth cooled enough. And there is nothing impossible about abiogenesis. It is not spontaneous generation as attacked by Pasteur. It has nothing at all to do with that.

"It’s like a committee which doesn’t want to deal with all the hard stuff, so it forms a sub-committee and then divorces itself from that, and whenever questions are asked, merely respond “that’s not in our job description.” ‘Tis remarkably convenient."

Again, ALL theories have limits. Why doesn't the theory of gravity get attacked for not addressing where matter comes from? Your insistence on singling out evolution just shows your bias, nothing else.

" Each one has to rely upon some remarkable, if not supernatural, explanation."

Yes, creationism and ID make untestable claims (though creationism has made a number of testable ones, which have been falsified, like a young earth.)


" Don’t tell me; the Miller experiements?"

Hate to tell you, but there has been a lot more work done than just that. You need to keep up. :)

"That’s convenient. Leave the study of life (and its ultimate origin) not to the “BIOLOGISTS” (first thing anyone ever tells you in bio class, biology is the study of life) but to those who study chemicals."

Would it make any difference if I clarified that and said biochemists?

" I never said “this is what science claims.” "

That's the whole point of the list, to allegedly show what scientists who study evolution are really saying.

"I’m showing that not everyone agrees with you, and that some of the admissions of some of the evolutionary scientists conflict with current interpretations and beliefs."

But when 99% of evolutionists disagree with the person quoted, it means that the person quoted is not representative of evolutionary biologists.

"This whole dialogue has been bickering about whether or not we should include this scientist or that, all the while completely ignoring the substance of what they have said."

Because, again, the composition of the list is crucial to the argument it is trying to make. If the people on the list don't represent the vast majority of what evolutionists think, their inclusion on it deeply weakens the argument the list maker was attempting.

"How long will you continue to recast my words to make them appear as something they were not? I never said he was a representative evolutionist. I don’t think the fool was even scientifically-inclined. The point is, he was acting based on Darwinist principles."

His inclusion on this list is an abomination. There is no justification for it. And, as was pointed out, he believed that the Aryan race was the perfect special creation of God. He wasn't using Darwinian principles. He never believed that the Aryan race evolved.

" And you don’t? Since when did majority opinion dictate morality?"

I can disagree with him and still understand that his opinions were a product of his times. Do you agree with those who condemn Washington and Jefferson for owning slaves? Should they still be honored for their achievements? Darwin's views on women were mild in comparison to the general view of his time, as were his ideas on race. You attack him with 21st century standards and you ignore the fact that almost everybody held similar views then. Why single him out?

"Depends on what you mean. Speaking in terms of social aptitude and skills, they were, simply because they had been suppressed for so long, had little training, and little to no chance."

And women were not given nearly as many opportunities to educate themselves and compete freely with men. That's why it is more forgivable for someone in the 1860's to think that women were not as capable as men, but it is not as understandable now. Now we have far too many examples of women who have achieved great things to honestly conclude they are inferior. The same can be said with race.

"By the way, remind me again what the justification was for believing that blacks were inferior. I seem to recall something about being lower-evolved…"

Well, if you asked Henry Morris he would have said the curse of Ham.

"Ah, I get it. If I don’t directly address your specific point, then it constitutes excusing it. Fascinating bias you have there."

Amazing rationalization you have there.

"As one of the proofs for evolution, however, another book I have not sold yet talks about comparative embryology; “One sign that vertebrates evolved from a common ancestor is that all of them have an embryonic stage in which structures called pharyngeal slits appear on the sides of the throat. At this stage, the embryos of fishes, frogs, snakes, birds, apes – indeed, all vertebrates look more alike than different.”"

This is correct. It is also not Haeckel's biogenic law.

" Like structural homology, it predates DNA, which shows that there is no genetic relation."

Nonsense.

" If you were the one who decided who belonged and who didn’t, then your phrase “people who don’t belong” might be relevant."

So a list of alleged evolutionists who are saying evolution is bunk and admitting it's a theory in crisis can have people on it who never accepted evolution, or people on it who have never represented a tiny fraction of what evolutionary biologists believe? Fascinating.

" As for not representing evolutionary thought….that is the point! Um…duh?"

Duh is right. If it doesn't represent what the vast majority of evolutionists think, the list is a strawman created to attack positions that have no relevance to the ToE.
2,335 posted on 03/08/2006 10:36:07 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2334 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

It is rediculous for compromisers and evolutionsists to claim that the Church must accept evolution:

It is a compromise (non-acceptance of truth/reality) to say that it is OK for a Christian to believe most of the Bible, but to ignore Genesis. They cannot say that the Bible is TRUTH and a GOOD BOOK and then say that God (God's word through man) LIED in Genesis and other miraculous stories in the Bible! How can someone claim to be a ~Christian~, and that Jesus is the Savior of the World (that he died for man's sin; rose again from the dead), and then deny The Father's power in the Creation!!_!

Plus (becuase God did create the World, natural (real science-not rhetoric such as when some equate evolution or non-supernatual to science ;)!)Is in line emperically with The EXact "Word of God"!!!


2,336 posted on 03/09/2006 2:19:20 PM PST by JSDude1 (If we are not governed by God, we WILL be governed by Tyrants-William Penn..founder of Pennsylvania)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2335 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
You agreed that Gish should not be on the list because he was a creationist.
I said he didn’t belong under the heading of “evolutionists.” We already established that the title issued a blanket title of “evolutionists” which was a misnomer. Beyond that, their words are still worth reading.
When the creationist who made the list pretended that the people on it were evolutionists who were admitting that evolution was bunk.
I already sustained your objection about the title. We get it about the title. Let’s get past the title now. Moving on from the title. Title discussion over. (The word “title” sounds weird now.)
But creationists are not supposed to be on the list; they are, giving the false impression that they are representative of evolutionist thinking. It's not ad hominem to say that.
So other than the title business, you would not reject their words. Because that’s what you said; so-and-so is a creationist, so why should we care what they say?
No, a theistic evolutionist.
Depends on which form that takes. Theistic evolution = God caused evolution. ID = a god (or some godlike entity, designer, etc.) caused evolution.
Sustained but who cares? They are creationist under the heading of creationism. They don't belong on the list.
I care. We’re moving past the title. Title is gone. We’re now focusing only on the quotes, and whether or not they are true. I fully acknowledge and agree with your objection that these are not all evolutionists. The title is a misnomer. We got that.
Because it NEVER has dealt with the origins of life.
But you said biogenesis was in its infancy. What has dealt with the origin of life prior to biogenesis?
The ToE only deals with imperfectly self replicating organisms. It's scope, like all theories, is limited to certain phenomena. Why this is so hard for a creationist to understand is incredibly frustrating.
You have to remember that the term of evolution is slung around quite often, when there are various different definitions. (In certain respects, I believe in evolution! I just don’t believe in the old-earth, godless evolutionary model.)
Actually, it had to wait until the earth cooled enough. And there is nothing impossible about abiogenesis. It is not spontaneous generation as attacked by Pasteur. It has nothing at all to do with that.
Then explain to me how living matter can arise from non-living matter. There absolutely had to come a point when things not living first became alive. And that something had to defy currently known rules of science and nature.
Yes, creationism and ID make untestable claims (though creationism has made a number of testable ones, which have been falsified, like a young earth.)
Do you have specifics about what claims were falsified?
Hate to tell you, but there has been a lot more work done than just that. You need to keep up. :)
Hey. You’re back to the cheap shots. If not the Miller experiments (most commonly used) then what?
" I never said “this is what science claims.” " That's the whole point of the list, to allegedly show what scientists who study evolution are really saying.
Then let’s try to keep a dividing line between “science” and “scientists.”
But when 99% of evolutionists disagree with the person quoted, it means that the person quoted is not representative of evolutionary biologists.
Well duh. We already went through this. If they represented the majority opinion on the current evolutionary ideas, then they wouldn’t be on the list.
Because, again, the composition of the list is crucial to the argument it is trying to make. If the people on the list don't represent the vast majority of what evolutionists think, their inclusion on it deeply weakens the argument the list maker was attempting.
The only basis for your argument is the title, which I’ve already conceded to be a misnomer. Like the Huxley ordeal, you refuse to let go and move on, even after I agree with you.
His inclusion on this list is an abomination. There is no justification for it. And, as was pointed out, he believed that the Aryan race was the perfect special creation of God. He wasn't using Darwinian principles. He never believed that the Aryan race evolved.
I turn again to the words of Sir Arthur Keith:
To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied rigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy … . The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.
I would further refer your attention to the following articles:

Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust

The Holocaust and evolution
Do you agree with those who condemn Washington and Jefferson for owning slaves? Should they still be honored for their achievements?
I certainly don’t put Darwin on the level of Washington or Jefferson, but I do not find evidence of stringent racism on their part like I do on Darwin’s.
Well, if you asked Henry Morris he would have said the curse of Ham.
And again, you’re just trying to come back with a counter-accusation rather than answer it yourself. Bad form. This is becoming just a simple bandying of words back and forth, and it seems to me true and productive discourse has reached its end now. Unless you come back with something worth responding to, it seems best to me to be moving on from this thread now, and let it die of lung cancer in this smoky back room.
2,337 posted on 03/10/2006 6:03:28 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (*Burp* I just got done chewing up a liberal. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583155/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2335 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
"I said he didn’t belong under the heading of “evolutionists.” We already established that the title issued a blanket title of “evolutionists” which was a misnomer. Beyond that, their words are still worth reading."

Why? The list was designed as an argument; it's supposed to be evolutionists who are admitting that evolution is deeply flawed. Having creationists on the list does absolutely nothing to further that claim.

"I already sustained your objection about the title. We get it about the title. Let’s get past the title now. Moving on from the title. Title discussion over. (The word “title” sounds weird now.)"

But that destroys the argument the list is trying to make.

"So other than the title business, you would not reject their words. Because that’s what you said; so-and-so is a creationist, so why should we care what they say?"

No, I said they were creationists and their opinions are irrelevant to the argument being made by the list.

" Depends on which form that takes. Theistic evolution = God caused evolution. ID = a god (or some godlike entity, designer, etc.) caused evolution."

Theistic evolutionists, unlike ID'ers, don't tend to throw up their hands and give up at every point where we don't have a complete answer yet.

" I care. We’re moving past the title. Title is gone. We’re now focusing only on the quotes, and whether or not they are true. "

I refuse to change the goalposts with you.

" But you said biogenesis was in its infancy. What has dealt with the origin of life prior to biogenesis?"

It's abiogenesis; and prior to it there was creationism. Evolution has never dealt with it.

" You have to remember that the term of evolution is slung around quite often, when there are various different definitions."

Clinton had a different definition of *is* too; that doesn't mean he was using it correctly. I am talking about the ToE as formulated by Darwin.

"Then explain to me how living matter can arise from non-living matter. There absolutely had to come a point when things not living first became alive. And that something had to defy currently known rules of science and nature."

It would break no rules. Again, Pasteur overthrew spontaneous generation of germs and insects in rotting food; he did not have anything to say about the formation of life on earth 4 billion years ago.

" Do you have specifics about what claims were falsified?"

Young earth, the Ark, all people from a pair (a genetic impossibility).

" Hey. You’re back to the cheap shots. If not the Miller experiments (most commonly used) then what?"

The miller expirments are over 50 years old. The field hasn't just rested on that.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan02.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1025009/posts?page=90#90

"Well duh. We already went through this. If they represented the majority opinion on the current evolutionary ideas, then they wouldn’t be on the list."

No, if they represent but a tiny percentage of the opinion of what evolutionary biologists believe, they don't belong on the list. The entire argument of the list is based on it being the mainstream ideas of evolutionary biologists. If the people on the list don't represent that, then the argument has no weight, and crumbles.

"The only basis for your argument is the title, which I’ve already conceded to be a misnomer. Like the Huxley ordeal, you refuse to let go and move on, even after I agree with you."

Because you refuse to see that if the title isn't correct, the entire point of the list disappears. It was a weak argument to begin with (argument by quote mining); with the sample set so messed up, it becomes laughable.

" I turn again to the words of Sir Arthur Keith:"

He was wrong. I turn you to the words of Hitler himself:

"The folkish-minded man, in particular has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."

"I certainly don’t put Darwin on the level of Washington or Jefferson, but I do not find evidence of stringent racism on their part like I do on Darwin’s."

So you excuse the men who actually owned slaves but condemn the man who was virulently antislavery. You can rationalize anything away it appears.

" And again, you’re just trying to come back with a counter-accusation rather than answer it yourself. "

And you refuse to deal with the hypocrisy of your position. Henry Morris had far less of an excuse for what he said than Darwin. Yet you make Darwin the villain, and give Morris a pass.

"Unless you come back with something worth responding to, it seems best to me to be moving on from this thread now, and let it die of lung cancer in this smoky back room."

It IS frustrating to have to go over the same things again and again.
2,338 posted on 03/10/2006 6:46:21 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2337 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

good post elsie....this is the truth of the word...does it hurt? yes...but you can't sugar coat the bible can you? good job


2,339 posted on 06/18/2006 9:49:48 PM PDT by stlouisgirl777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1841 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

Pick away my post. I have finished the class. I went in with an open, curious mind. They failed to sway me that evolution is fact...that it is little more than science fiction. Frankly, I'm disappointed this sham of a class is treated seriously by any self respecting scientist. And although it may be a theory it is far from a law. Gravity is a law...etc...evolution is still considered a theory for a reason. You can't deny that there is NO proof of species change. Did Homo Heidlebergensis change into Homo erectus? They don't know, they can't say? The scientists won't say. So pick me apart....but come armed dude...I'm no ignorant fundie. Darwin himself had doubts about his theory...so take you're condenscentious attitude and lay it on some ignorant redneck.


2,340 posted on 06/18/2006 9:59:12 PM PDT by stlouisgirl777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1838 | View Replies]

To: stlouisgirl777

Wow!

This thread STILL going???


Energized bunny time!


2,341 posted on 06/19/2006 4:54:34 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2339 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 2,151-2,2002,201-2,2502,251-2,3002,301-2,341 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson