Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 1 of 342 (717849)
02-02-2014 6:43 AM


Bs'd
The fossile record clearly shows that evolution NEVER took place. It shows that species pop up suddenly, without any link too supposed predecessors, and they stay unchanged during their whole stay in the fossile record.
This should be enough to settle the whole evolution vs creation debate.
Here are some statements of evolutionistic scholars on that subject:
Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution)."
Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15
Stephen J Gould was on of the most well known evolutionists and the inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory, and professor geology en zoology at Harvard university.
********************
"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ... That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ... prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."
Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46
Niles Eldredge is an evolutionist en co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory
.
***************************
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed."
Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182
So there we have it: NO evolution, but sudden appearance and stasis.
That is totally in line with the creation story, and rips apart the evolution theory.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 02-02-2014 8:07 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2014 8:35 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2014 8:35 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 02-02-2014 8:43 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 02-02-2014 9:07 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-02-2014 9:37 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 22 by Pressie, posted 02-02-2014 10:50 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 16 of 342 (717885)
02-02-2014 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by herebedragons
02-02-2014 8:27 AM


It either means
quote:Besiyata Dishmaya (Aramaic: בסיעתא דשמיא) is an Aramaic phrase, meaning "with the help of Heaven".
or
Bs'd
Stick with the first meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by herebedragons, posted 02-02-2014 8:27 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by herebedragons, posted 02-02-2014 10:24 PM Eliyahu has replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 17 of 342 (717886)
02-02-2014 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
02-02-2014 8:07 AM


The authors (Rabbi Yitschak Goldstein and Eliyahu Silver) use the non-word "en" to mean both "in" and "and", and from looking at other pages at their site (echadnl - MountZion) it would appear that their native language is likely Dutch.
Bs'd
Thanks for the heads up, I stand corrected. That page now as well.
And yes, my first language is Dutch. What you see here is school-book English.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 02-02-2014 8:07 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 24 of 342 (717910)
02-02-2014 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Modulous
02-02-2014 4:29 PM


The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
So you'd be happy with us taking a snippet of something you said, and making it appear that you are taking the opposite stance from what you have. You wouldn't complain that your words are being twisted or anything, as long as what you said has implications for evolutionist/atheist views then that would be a perfectly valid strategy?
Bs'd
No, I would not be happy about that, and no, that is not what I'm doing.
I give exact quotes, nothing changed about them, nothing distorted, and what those quotes say, and what those evolutionists say, is that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely STASIS, and sudden appearance without any link with supposed predecessors.
And those are the simple facts. You evo's better get used to them.
The fossil record flatly contradicts Darwin, and is fully in line with creation.
HalleluJah!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Modulous, posted 02-02-2014 4:29 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Coyote, posted 02-03-2014 12:20 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2014 8:14 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2014 8:38 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2014 12:54 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 26 of 342 (717914)
02-03-2014 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Coyote
02-02-2014 11:41 PM


Re: You missed a quote or two
Bs'd
A quote or two? I have a lot more of 'm. Unfortunately, they didn't make it past the moderator, but for those who are interested, here they are:
fossils - MountZion and they all say the same: There is NO evolution to be found in the fossil record, only STASIS, and sudden appearance.
There is a whole Quote Mine Project devoted to tracking down and clarifying creationists' misuse of quotes.
Please explain in what way I am misusing 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.
Taking a quote out of context is a necessity if you want to quote the quote. No way around it. Quoting the whole book would just be to much of a botheration.
And no, I'm not trying to make the quote say the opposite, everybody with two working braincells can see that the quotes say what I say they say, namely that there is NO evolution to be found in the fossil record, only stasis and sudden appearance of new species.
And everybody who claims different, is a dishonest person who is trying to cheat his way out of the fact that the fossil record shows the opposite of his believes.
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."
What I see here is the dishonesty of a evolutionist who cannot accept the fact that the fossil record totally disproves his believes, and therefore starts to badmouth the messengers.
So you believe that the quotes have been distorted to the point that they seem to mean the opposite of what they really say.
So according to you, what those quotes really say, is that there is no stasis to be found in the fossil record, and no sudden appearance of new species, only fine gradual development of new species, all according to Darwin.
So, this quote for instance: "Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."
Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95, speaking about the Bighorn basin inWyoming USA.
S.M. Stanley is an evolutionist and professor at theJohn Hopkins university in Baltimore.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of thepunctuated equilibrium theory.
One of his articles isPaleontologyand earth system history in the new millennium which has been published inGeological Society of America
For more info aboutprof Stanley look here: Earth & Planetary Sciences | Johns Hopkins University
That quote, according to you, having been distorted to mean the opposite of what it really says, is really saying that the fossil record is full of convincing transitions from one species to another.
Put this way, the dishonesty of your remark is immediately visable, but I would say: Show me.
Show me how the quotes have been distorted, show me the real original undistorted quotes, with as much context as you like, and then show me how they all say that evolution is everywhere in the fossil record.
Of course, you will not be able to do anything close to that, and that shows us who is the real liar here.
Have a nice day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2014 11:41 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 02-03-2014 12:37 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 28 by Pressie, posted 02-03-2014 12:43 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 29 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-03-2014 1:19 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-03-2014 2:46 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 30 of 342 (717920)
02-03-2014 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Coyote
02-03-2014 12:37 AM


Re: You missed a quote or two
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.
Bs'd
So far you didn't get any further than saying: "Your quotes are lying".
With that you implicate that the big evolutionists from whom these quotes are coming are lying.
That is a bit too much to accept, so I stick to the only other conclusion which is that you are lying.
Oh, by the way, I hope we can get this debate above the level of calling each other a liar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 02-03-2014 12:37 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-03-2014 3:30 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2014 12:19 PM Eliyahu has replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 31 of 342 (717921)
02-03-2014 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by shalamabobbi
02-03-2014 1:19 AM


Re: You missed a quote or two
Did you refuse to read message 5 by RAZD?? He disproved your supposed point. He gave you an example that shows gradual change. Are you incapable of reading? Are you incapable of comprehending?
Bs'd
It is the post of Razd against all the evolutionists.
I think there are 2 possibilities for the post of Razd, one is: It is totally made up out of thin air, two: It is on the same level as the piltdown man and the Nebraska man, and it will be exposed as a hoax soon enough.
So back to the real paleontologists: They all sing in unison that there is NO evolution to be seen in the fossile record, only stasis and sudden appearance of new species.
That rips apart Darwins prediction that when more fossiles would be found, his theory would be validated.
It shows that evolution never happened.
In order to give an explanation for the total lack of fossil evidence the PE theory was made up.
But this is what an evolutionist expert says about that one:
"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground."
Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59
Robert E Ricklefs is an evolutionist and professor biology at the University of Missouri te St. Louis:
Robert E

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-03-2014 1:19 AM shalamabobbi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-03-2014 2:10 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-03-2014 3:19 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2014 8:27 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 36 of 342 (717926)
02-03-2014 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by herebedragons
02-02-2014 10:24 PM


This should be enough to settle the whole evolution vs creation debate.
It's hard to believe a few out-of-context quotes could settle the entire debate. I think you need to provide a few of your own arguments.
Bs'd
I don't think so. The quotes I'm bringing show beyond all doubt that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely stasis and sudden appearance.
This is totally incompatible with evolution, and totally supports creation.
What else is there to say?
So there we have it: NO evolution, but sudden appearance and stasis.
Your quotes do not really support this conclusion, do they?
Yes they do. Absolutely, totally, and completely. It seems you didn't get the message of those quotes, so I'll repeat some of them for you:
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and direction less.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed."
.
Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182
"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record."Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59
"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ . . . their story has been suppressed."
Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71
S.M. Stanley is an evolutionist and professor at the John Hopkins university in Baltimore.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, the co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
One of his articles is Paleontology and earth system history in the new millennium which has been published in Geological Society of America
For more info about prof Stanley look here: Earth & Planetary Sciences | Johns Hopkins University
There is A LOT more where this came from, see HERE
Gould and Eldredge argued against gradualism, not evolution itself.
Of course they don't. They wouldn't be evolutionists if they did, wouldn't they?
And therefore, I nowhere claim they argue against evolution.
I don't really have a problem with you quoting Gould and Eldredge, even out of context like this,
In context, out of context, it doesn't matter, because the context does not in any way alter the meaning of the quotes.
So the context is irrelevant.
but you need to develop your own arguments and show how their statements support your premise. You are using their arguments as if Gould and Eldredge themselves have reach the same conclusion as you and that is what is dishonest.
Gould, Eldredge, and a lot of other evolutionist paleontologists, have reached the exact same conclusion as me concerning the fossil record, namely that is does NOT show evolution, but only STASIS, and sudden appearance.
There is nothing dishonest about that.
Let's hear your own personal arguments to see if you even have a clue about what the issues are.
I'm not a paleontologist, so my personal arguments on the fossil record are irrelevant.
Even if I was, it would be said that because i'm a creationist, my arguments would not be valid, so I don't bother with my arguments.
What I do is I show what big shot evolutionists say about the fossil record, because you cannot argue with them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by herebedragons, posted 02-02-2014 10:24 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by herebedragons, posted 02-03-2014 10:26 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2014 12:39 PM Eliyahu has replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 37 of 342 (717928)
02-03-2014 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
02-02-2014 8:29 PM


Really!
The best one could claim that Eliyahu got from the quotes that he likely got from some other creationist site ... is confusion.
Bs'd
I can understand that those quotes confuse you, because they go against your world view, and lead to cognitive dissonance.
Certainly anyone who states that Gould and Eldredge are saying evolution is disproven by their articles is confused at best, possibly ignorant or deluded regarding the actual papers (getting the quote mines second hand) or at worse deranged or just plain lying.
Right. However, NOWHERE do I state that Gould and Eldredge are saying evolution is disproven by their articles.
So what you are doing is attacking a straw man, what is what people usually do when they don't have any real arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2014 8:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2014 8:51 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 38 of 342 (717929)
02-03-2014 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Adequate
02-02-2014 8:34 PM


Well in that case there's a huge gap --- more of a bottomless abyss, really --- between the bit of Eliyahu's post where he quotes Gould and Eldredge, and the bit where he writes "So there we have it: NO evolution".
Bs'd
No gap whatsoever. I just totally agree with Gould, Eldredge, and many others, that there is no evolution to be found in the fossil record.
He needs to fill that gap by explaining why the "implications" of Gould and Eldredge's work
I'm not talking about their implications, I'm talking about their observations of the fossil record.
Those observations show us that the fossil record does not show any evolution, but rather the opposite; sudden appearance of new species without any link to supposed predecessors, and then STASIS during their whole stay in the fossil record.
are in fact the exact opposite of what Gould and Eldredge thought they were: why Eliyahu concludes "So there we have it: NO evolution" and that their writing "rips apart the evolution theory" when they write "In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record" (Gould) and "My version of how the evolutionary process works lines up very well with Darwin’s" (Eldredge).
We agree on what the fossil record shows; NO EVOLUTION, we don't agree on their other conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-02-2014 8:34 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by frako, posted 02-03-2014 7:53 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 39 of 342 (717930)
02-03-2014 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Coyote
02-03-2014 12:20 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
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?
Bs'd
Dishonest evolutionistic scientists.
They're being polite: creationists are lying to you. And you are trying to pass those lies on to us.
The simple facts are: The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.
It shows the opposite of evolution, namely sudden appearance of new species without any linkage to supposed predecessors, and then during their whole stay in the fossil record STASIS, non-change.
After science lied to the public for about 150 years, Gould and Eldredge had the courage to risk it all by pointing that out to the world, and they made up the PE theory, so that people could keep on hanging on to the evolution theory.
But of course, it still is an enormous blamage for both science and the evolution theory, so evo's can't handle it very well when you show them the facts.
When you show them the exact statements of high profile evolutionists, they say that you are a liar by just repeating their statements.
This of course is total nonsense, but they just don't have anything better.
However, the fact remains: The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.
It shows the opposite of evolution, namely sudden appearance of new species without any linkage to supposed predecessors, and then during their whole stay in the fossil record STASIS, non-change.


.
.

"A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God."
Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56
Czarnecki Mark is an evolutionist and a paleontologist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Coyote, posted 02-03-2014 12:20 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 02-03-2014 9:52 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-03-2014 10:09 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 02-03-2014 11:26 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 56 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2014 12:04 PM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2014 2:15 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 44 of 342 (717937)
02-03-2014 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
02-03-2014 3:30 AM


The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Oh, by the way, I hope we can get this debate above the level of calling each other a liar.
But you are a liar. And this is very evident: your lies are not subtle; you are, not to put too fine a point on it, not very good at lying. So if you don't want people to remark on what a shameless witless pointless liar you are, then you should stop lying.
Bs'd
I see my hopes were in vain.
If you don't mind I'm going to continue this debate with others.
Have a nice life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-03-2014 3:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2014 8:59 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-03-2014 9:55 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 60 of 342 (717972)
02-03-2014 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by RAZD
02-03-2014 8:14 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
What is your actual source for the quotes -- did you get them off a creationist website\source or did you get them directly from the articles cited?
Bs'd
I got them from here and there and everywhere. Some I checked in the original publications, I think I checked all of 'm in the Talk Origins Archive, and they are all totally correct.
If the former then you don't really know if you are giving exact quotes, and if the later than you are committing the sin of omission.
There is no "sin of omission", because the context does not alter the meaning of the quotes.
If you think different, then prove it; give the context and show that they mean something else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2014 8:14 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2014 12:41 PM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 65 by frako, posted 02-03-2014 12:59 PM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2014 4:50 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 64 of 342 (717977)
02-03-2014 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by RAZD
02-03-2014 12:19 PM


The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
With that you implicate that the big evolutionists from whom these quotes are coming are lying.
No she is saying that your use is a misrepresentation that portrays their meaning in a false way -- that your usage is a lie.
Bs'd
The only problem is, that she nor anybody else can prove that the quotes mean something else than their plain meaning as conveyed by my quotes.
So what it comes down to is shouting "Liar" without being able to back it up with proof.
... you implicate that the big evolutionists from whom these quotes ...
One hopes you realize that no one person personifies the science of evolution and that using quotes is making the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.
Greater idiocy than your above statement I haven't seen in a long time.
You say that relying on authority is a "logical fallacy". Well that statement of you is the logical fallacy. Or you must be of the opinion that it is better to rely on laymen in scientific issues...
No, I didn't think so.
So let's stop talking nonsense and get down to the facts. Said facts being that the fossil record shows only STASIS, non-change, and not evolution.
And that when you obfuscate and ignore their true meaning that your usage of such authority is invalid.
I give the exact quotes, so by definition I'm not obfuscating anything. And their true meaning is saying that the fossil record does not show any evolution, and that for sure I do NOT ignore.
And neither should you.
1. What is quote-mining?
"Quote-mining" is an expression, invented by evolutionists, who, because of cognitive dissonance, are unable to understand and/or accept the meaning of very clear, straightforward statements made by very scholarly evolutionists.
Because of that cognitive dissonance they become very irrational, and start saying absurd things, for instance, that somebody who quotes an evolutionist professor is a liar, and they cannot understand that then the one who made that statement is really the liar, because he is the one who made that statement in the first place.
They also claim that the statement is taken out of context, and that it really means the opposite of what it says.
When they are then confronted with the context, and it is then clear for everybody that the context doesn't change anything of the meaning of the quote, then they usually start attacking a straw man, meaning that they are going to "prove" something what was not a discussion subject at all. Then they start for instance saying that the one who made the quote believes in evolution, something that was never a point of dissension.
In the last stage they resort to name calling.
Of the above mentioned stages one or more can be skipped in a debate. The intellectually lesser gifted evolutionists usually immediately start name calling.
Rabbi, you are using the old creationist trick of quote mining!

And I say that when you quote expert opinions in your atheistic articles, you are guilty of quote mining. Gee, it seems we are at an impasse. What I am trying to illustrate, of course, is that the accusation of quote mining is childish and trivial. Not only does it not contribute to an adult-level exchange of ideas, but it actually inhibits such an exchange. It is perfectly valid to claim that a citation has been taken out of context As long as you can back it up with a reasoned argument. If you have nothing more to contribute than hurling unsubstantiated accusations of quote mining please go back to high school and shoot spitballs and do all the other things that immature adolescents do.

I repeat: It is perfectly valid to claim that a citation has been taken out of context As long as you can back it up with a reasoned argument. If you have nothing more to contribute than hurling unsubstantiated accusations of quote mining please go back to high school and shoot spitballs and do all the other things that immature adolescents do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2014 12:19 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-03-2014 1:18 PM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2014 1:27 PM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-03-2014 3:16 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 66 of 342 (717979)
02-03-2014 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by New Cat's Eye
02-03-2014 12:41 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
because the context does not alter the meaning of the quotes.
Absolutely it does.
Bs'd
Talking is cheap. Show me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2014 12:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Coyote, posted 02-03-2014 1:15 PM Eliyahu has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024