Summations Only

And, for you, "bad logic, bad thinking" is defined as not accepting your interpretation of the bible.

A quote or two?There is a whole Quote Mine Project devoted to tracking down and clarifying creationists' misuse of quotes.Taking quotes out of context and trying to make them say the opposite of what they really say is a major part of creationist rhetoric on the interwebs.If you don't have the evidence, that's the kind of dishonesty that you have to resort to. But it is still dishonesty, even if it is one of the mainstays of creation "science."

That is not correct.You may be able to take quotes out of context and dishonestly make them say that, but how do you account for the fact that the scientists who are being mis-quoted say that creationists are mis-quoting them?They're being polite: creationists are lying to you. And you are trying to pass those lies on to us.

Sorry, you are not able to pull the wool over my eyes with your rhetoric and those quote-mined quotes.Half my study for my Ph.D. exams was in the fields of fossil man and human osteology. (I passed, by the way.)I know something about the fossil record, and the major figures whom you are mis-quoting. I would be willing to bet you do not have any such knowledge, but rather pick up your "learning" from creationist websites.That's unfortunate, as they are lying to you and you are accepting those lies uncritically.

I think what we have here is another creationist who thought he had found the "silver bullet" that would disprove evolution once and for all.Like most creationists, this one included a mix of ignorance, arrogance, and a certainty he was right no matter what the evidence shows.Those character traits don't make for a very good debate.

BfDAre those few quotes all you have?

BfDI've seen the fossil record, something you cannot claim. I studied it intensely for several years for my Ph.D. exams.Your use of quote-mined quotations as "evidence" does not impress me.But that's pretty much all creation "science" has to offer.

Looks like he's here to witness, not to engage in debate.Like some other creationists we've seen, their beliefs are not open to question or change no matter what the evidence shows. They're here to preach, not to learn.It is truly sad to see minds so twisted shut. I can't imagine any deity favoring such, except maybe Apate (q.v.).

The are a lot of things that could either disprove or seriously rearrange the current theory of evolution.But, unfortunately for you, creationists are not the ones likely to come up with those things.If there are changes required in the theory of evolution it will be scientists who discover them. Creationists will, as usual, be sitting on the sidelines still fighting against Darwin, as if discrediting him in some manner would damage the theory of evolution as it has evolved 150 years later.And if scientists make changes in the theory of evolution, that theory will only be stronger than ever.That's the way real science works, as opposed to the creation "science" you are apparently more familiar with.

If a creationist found it, yes. It would be regarded as an outright fabrication until shown otherwise by some evidence.Creationists' reputation for scientific accuracy leaves much to be desired. And it is a reputation that has been well-earned. Just look at the many creationist websites. Or your posts here.You are a poster-girl for that well-earned reputation.You think you are "winning" these debates, but in reality you are showing large numbers of lurkers just how duplicitous the creationist position really is.St. Augustine was right:

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

​

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

Yup. You're the poster-girl for this sorry state of affairs.

When the bible and scripture are your sources of evidence, and rhetoric and apologetics are your methods, quote-mining is a natural way of doing things.And, as usual, the exact opposite of real science.

BfDWant to discuss evidence instead?I know creationists are big on rhetoric and apologetics, but scientists prefer to rely on evidence. You know, data!Got any?

I also know a lot more about the subject than you do. That was half of my study for several years preparing for my Ph.D. exams.And since you like quotes, you can quote me on this:

"You are wrong."

OK?

BfD When you rely only on quote-mining, and have no idea of what the actual evidence says, you could come to that erroneous conclusion. Your understanding of the PE theory, and all of evolution, is faulty.The standard theory, before there was a lot of data either way, seemed to show a gradual progression. The PE theory suggested that in some cases evolution went in spurts. That's not such a big jump, now is it? So? Why should we believe that the pace of evolutionary change was the exact same in all places, for all species, throughout all of time? That would be pretty silly, now wouldn't it? In science we look for evidence. Proof is left to mathematics, distilling, and photography. No, that's the way you believe it is.What you believe and what the evidence shows are clearly widely separated.But you go ahead and rely on rhetoric and apologetics. Just leave science alone. You are clearly unqualified to render any opinion in that field.And just once more: your reliance on "proof," which characterizes creationists all over the world, is very telling. It shows you are ignorant of the scientific method. Here are a couple of definitions which, if you actually learned them, might make a difference:

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

​

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

​

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

​

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

​

Fast evolution?You want fast evolution, try Woodmorappe, the creationist:

As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man—-all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.

This is pretty silly. This is claiming that the change from modern man, i.e., Adam and Eve, to these four species of fossil man took place since the Babel incident, which is usually placed after the global flood and in the range of 4,000 to 5,300 years ago. The change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man!Most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all; now they have not only proposed such a change themselves, but see it happening several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!What a joke! But then, that's creation "science" for you.