Urgent Help With Quote Miner

Okay, over at theologyforums.com I have run into another Joralex like entity of stupidity whom has just regurgitated some quotes to act as an argument. Can you lot help me with posting rebuttals to his quotes?Thanks in advance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangelist
Quotable quotes that help explain the necessity for evolutionists to rely on faith, instead of pure science.

​

On spontaneous generation:

​

Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize Winner, Harvard University
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." Scientific American, August, 1954.

​

American Scientist, January, 1955
"From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life."

​

Charles Eugene Guye, Swiss Mathematician
"the odds against such an occurrence are only one chance in 10(160)."

​

On fossil records.

​

Pre-cambrian strata contains only a few single cell bacterium and algae. Cambrian strata (the next one, and the oldest containing significant fossils) contains all major kinds except vertebrates. Concerning this, we have:

​

Dr. Daniel Axelrod of the University of California calls it:
"One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution." Science, July 4, l958.

​

Dr. Austin Clark of the U.S. National Museum wrote concerning the Cambrian fossils:
" mollusks were mollusks (then) just as unmistakably as they are now." The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 101.

​

Drs. Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert of Columbia University:
"Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about 600 million years old and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the preceding two billion years? If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than Cambrian is puzzling." Stratigraphy and Life History, p. 102.

​

George Gaylord Simpson, the "Crown Prince of Evolution":
"The sudden appearance of life is not only the most puzzling feature of the whole fossil record but also its greatest apparent inadequacy." The Evolution of Life, p. 144.

​

On natural selection.

​

Darwin believed that natural selection was the most important factor in the development of his theory. Many of the top teachers of evolution today are hopelessly at odds on the question of how vital it is.

​

Sir Julian Huxley:
"So far as we know...natural selection...is the only effective agency of evolution." Evolution in Action, p. 36.

​

Dr. Ernst Mayr disagrees:
"Natural selection is no longer regarded as an all-or-none process but rather as a purely statistical concept." Animal Species, p. 7.

​

G. G. Simpson, who is regarded as the leading interpreter of the theory today, doesn't agree with either one:
"Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear that evolution has no single cause." The Geography of Evolution, p. 17.

​

Simpson also says, concerning natural selection:
"It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation." Major Features, pp. 118, 119.

​

But Huxley says:
"On the basis of our present knowledge natural selection is bound to produce genetic adaptations: and genetic adaptations are thus presumptive evidence for the efficiency of natural selection." Evolution in Action, p. 48.
(In other words: A=B; therefore B=A...very logical and scientific reasoning).
And again:
"To sum up, natural selection converts randomness into direction and blind chance into apparent purpose. It operates with the aid of time to produce improvements in the machinery of living, and in the process generates results of a more than astronomical improbability which could have been achieved in no other way." Evolution in Action, pp. 54, 55.

​

And what is that probability?
"The figure 1 with three million naughts after it: and that would take three large volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print!...No one would bet on anything so improbable happening; and yet it has happened." Evolution in Action, p. 46.

​

And that calculation was made on the basis of ending up with a horse.....not quite as "advanced" as a human.

​

And finally:

​

Professor G. G. Simpson reports that the mathematical likelihood of getting good evolutionary results would occur only once in 274 billion years! And that would be assuming 100 million individuals reproducing a new generation every day! He concludes by saying:

​

"Obviously...such a process has played no part whatever in evolution." The Major Features of Evolution, p. 96.

​

To recap

​

Evolutionists do not agree on natural selection. Evolutionists do agree that spontaneous generation/abiogenesis as the origin of life is impossible....but it must have happened, 'cause here we are. Evolutionists agree that the earth and universe must be much older than the 14 billion years currently in vogue, since it would have taken at least 274 billion years to achieve an accidental horse. Evolutionists do agree that the sudden appearance of complex life forms is "puzzling."

​

Evolutionists do agree that we could NOT have been created, which is arbitrary exclusion of an hypothesis (untestable) in favor of another hypothesis (untestable), which is antithetical to the scientific model.

---

[This message has been edited by Admiral Valdemar, 12-24-2003]

Interesting that all of those quotes are apparently nearly 50 years old. I think perhaps you should get Evangelist to read Mayr's What Evolution Is - it's from this century, even....

Interesting that all of those quotes are apparently nearly 50 years old. I think perhaps you should get Evangelist to read Mayr's What Evolution Is - it's from this century, even....http://www.theologyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&th...That's the original thread, I debunked some of the quotes, but I feel I need to lay a royal smackdown in order to mock them more openly.Thus far I am not replying normally since the whole thread is one big appeal to authority fallacy.

A bit disengenuous, since the man has been dead for 20 years.All these quotes are old. A lot of science has been done in the last 30 to 50 years that has increased out understanding of these problems. I'm afraid that Evangelist doesn't understand what he/she is reading. This quote is explaining how evolution does explain how seemingly improbable events can come about.Finally, the Cambrian Explosion is seemingly becoming less and less of an explosion. Traces of modern phyla are being found in strata almost a billion years old, and modern molecular biology is confirming that the major phyla branched off one another well before the Cambrian. Again, these are ancient, out of date quotes.I can't say much more about these since I don't know the context of the quotes. And I don't feel like looking up 50 year old, out of date references anyway.Here is a good resource for quick, one-stop shopping of old, repeated creationist misrepresentations (also known as PRATTs).

W A R N I N G ! I'm not an expert and I'm making these up as I go along. In all cases I would as the poster that the heck the quote actually means before jumping on it.

quote:

---

Natural selection is no longer regarded as an all-or-none process but rather as a purely statistical concept." Animal Species, p. 7.

---

Yea, so? Can the poster explain what this means. I don't see how it can be anything but a statistical concept (at least for the most part). In other words, it should be expected that the case where one allele is so very beneficial that all others are driven to extinction within a generation or 10 should be a rare event. As we see in extant populations and as has been modeled there will be cases where mutlitple alleles co-exist and the balance will change statistically under different selective pressures.G. G. Simpson, who is regarded as the leading interpreter of the theory today, doesn't agree with either one:
"Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear that evolution has no single cause." The Geography of Evolution, p. 17.(I chuckle at the "leading" interpreter being dead for 20 years as posted above).Yea, again, so? What are the list of causes that Simpson suggests. At what level are the causes. The mutation plus selection level or higher. There are other sources of different phenotypes than mutation and there are multiple ways in which selection maybe applied. Is it talking about ways that speciation can happen?Simpson also says, concerning natural selection:
"It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation." Major Features, pp. 118, 119.If this is concerning natural selection why is the word "theory" applied? We can see that selection happens. What exactly is unsubstantiated? Could the poster supply the rest of the context?The asking for the meaning of the quote is one weapon. Since the poster probably hasn't even understood what is being said.The other weapon is asking for the context. Big odds that the poster has never read the context but has simply copied them all.

Veeery good keeper stuff, Admiral, sir/mam. Like I've intimated before, it takes deception and brainwash every bit as much to believe what the majority in town here believe as when kids we believed in a real Santa Clause.Meeeery Christ-mas, all!!

Buz, have you missed the threads discussing quote mining?If you pick these up and think that they will support your views you may be in for some unpleasant results. One danger of quote mining, expecially if you don't do the mining but simply copy someone elses, is what happens when the real meaning and context is dug up (though in this case, with 50 year old quotes, that may be hard) you end up looking foolish for having been so off base. In addition, the original material may turn out to be exactly opposite of what you thought. Thus you end up siting references which oppose your views without knowing it.As noted elsewhere, quote mining is a poor form of argument from authority. Often the mining is done with great carelessness or dishonesty.

Well now, Ned, there's a challenge for you. Search out the quotes and document that their message is outa context. They, for the most part, appear to be quite to the point and acceptable on their own merit. Little could be diminished from them from whatever context.Btw, Ned, why don't you get on the case of your own coombodies who reference scriptures in like manner. That's where the real abuse is in outa context quotes.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-24-2003]

No, Buz, having seen so many examples of careless and dishonest quote mining I think I'd usually wait for someone to back up what they are suggesting with a fuller context. That's just the point of quote mining isn't it? If you can pull one and have it appear to be correct and complete when it is, in fact, totally out of context then you have a useful nugget.Some, as I noted, are not saying anything that diminishes the ToE even as they stand. Others are of a suspicious nature.BTW, if you happen to disagree with my view of creationist quote mining you may open a thread and we can all discuss it. I've seen so many dishonest ones that I have come to expect that.I'd also be interested in a thread of out of context Biblical quote mining too. Maybe you want to start one of those as well.

An outa context thread sounds great, Ned, but I hate to start something I can't devote a resonable amount of time to as I don't have much time to compute these days. If you care to do a thread I'll be happy to contribute some to it.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-24-2003]

Gulp!! Is that people who take verses such as these out of context:Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 53, Hosea 11:1 Psalm 69.....I hate that too Buz, it is terrible the way some people mutilate the Old Testament.Brian.

My favorite tactic for quote miners is to give them a dose of their own medicine. Use of quotes at the following link normally drives home the point:http://home.houston.rr.com/bybayouu/quotes.htmlWe find such beauties as:it is absurd to think that Adam could name all the animals in part of a single day....science requires us to believe that the days of creation week were long ages instead of literal days.
Henry Morris, Adam and the animals, ICR Impact 212....all living things have arisen through a naturalistic, mechanistic evolutionary process from a single source, which itself arose by a similar process from a dead, inorganic world.
Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. Creation/Evolution. ICR Impact 4.And one of the strongest arguments for the validity of radiometric dating is that the methods agree.
from The radiometric dating game by David Plaisted, 1998....various dating methods agree that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
John Woodmorappe, Studies in creationism and flood geology ICR Impact 238.

I'm a little slow jumping on this one, but...

quote:

---

Okay, over at theologyforums.com I have run into another Joralex like entity of stupidity whom has just regurgitated some quotes to act as an argument.

---

Worse things have been let pass. We of the moderating force here at are pretty loose at permitting such things, but the above certainly could have been stated in a friendlier manner, such as "Okay, over at theologyforums.com I have run into another entity whom has just regurgitated some quotes to act as an argument".I think the difference is a matter of the line between presenting and not presenting ones self as being a bit of an obnoxious twit.So once again I say, "People, let's be nice to each other".Adminnemooseusps: Please take any further discussion of this, to the appropriate topic, for which the link is supplied below.Edited to add forgot to post "signature":Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-26-2003]

The Admiral asks, "Can you lot help me with posting rebuttals to his quotes?"And under "spontaneous generation" supplies this apparent quote:"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize Winner, Harvard University; Scientific American, August, 1954.Admiral:If my memory serves me well, I recall being told that Europeans in the Middle Ages thought vipers sprung spontaneously from dung heaps. I guess these were live-born snakes whose mom came and went unseen by the ignorant peasants. Apparently, when folks find "the magnitude of the task" to determine a correct scientific explanation for a natural phenomenum beyond their ability (and scientifically explaining the manufacture of something from nothing is certainly high magnitude stuff), they resort to a faulty deductions based on frustration, conjecture, or magic.May spontaneous good fortune rain down on you in the New Year.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-26-2003]

My description of Jorge may have been a bit harsh, but given his blatant ignorance on the matter, is taking every chance to act arrogant and use tried and failed tactics and the way he was refuted at TO.org and these very forums many times, I have no desire to hold him to the same respectable degree I hold you lot to. Indeed, if he wishes to redeem himself he should stop supporting a poster who has simply spouted bullshit quotes as fact and left it at that.Thankfully, not everyone there is as hardwired into these attitudes, but I digress, I still want more help in this field of "quote mining" by simply replying in kind. If he can refute the many evolution quotes out there I'll concede.