Quotes From Evolutionists

I found this one rather interesting.
Crashfrog, since you'd defend evolution to the grave, please address these.
Anointed-One.net
Thank you.

Not to the grave - just, until there's contradictory evidence. Please don't project your own dogmatic stance on me. The difference between you and I, I suspect, is that I'll change my mind when presented with incontrovertable evidence. What evidence would you accept that would cause you to not be a creationist?As for your quotes, so what? (Most of them are highly out of date, and represent holes in our knowledge of evolution that have subesquently been filled.) This is all stuff taken out of context, and has nothing to do with the veracity of the evidence for evolution, which is manifest.Scientists saying "You know, we don't understand precisely how such-and-such data fit into the theory yet" is not indicative of a falsification of the theory. It just means that there's more work to do. Scientists say the same thing about gravity, which you apparently accept. Do you know that we have no idea how gravity works?

In fact, given that I could find as many (if not more) quotes from Christians or creationists about how compelling the evidence for evolution is, or how hard it is to believe in god, why would you expect quotes taken out of context to have any bearing on a discussion of evidence?

How about you pick a small number of those quotes, explain why you think they are saying anything important and be prepared to defend your position.Itappears you didn't read them and you don't understand the context if you did.

Hi, Endo!I'm going to have to back Ned up on this. You've now violated half the guidelines - at the rate you're going you should be able to violate the rest before the end of this week. Seriously, you violated rule 5, Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Unless you respond according to Ned's request I will close this thread.------------------
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

Crashfrog, I admire your tenacity to defend your religion.
You can't discredit those quotes,and I'm sure you didn'r read all of them. Charles Darwin retains credit for a good number of them. Even the Father of Evolution realized that evolution has some very large fallacies which still haven't been accounted for. Charles Darwin never intended evolution to become a religion in which zealots of Evolution would defend it, Why does a Science need to be Defended? It's obvious that evolution is a belief, not a science. When was the last time you heard someone defend particle acceleration in a debate?

Fundies with internet access rarely attack "particle acceleration", whatever you mean by that, and don't seem to care a lot if it's presented in a science class. That's why it doesn't get defended.

1. Since the theory of evolution involves no references to the supernatural, i.e., gods or supernatural processes, it cannot be characterized as a "religion. 2. ALL scientific theories are subject to being attacked/critisized. Ergo, they are also subject to being defended, when they are so attacked. Wherever did you pick up the weird idea that simply because a theory is labeled "Science," it is free from criticism, and requires no defense?------------------

Science isn't a religion, and I'll tell you why: The source of information in religion is revelatory - God decides who gets to be a prophet, or who gets to write in the Bible. The only way religious knowledge enters the world is by divine fiat.Science is non-revelatory. There's no revelation in science. If you don't trust the conclusions of scientists you can do the experiment yourself - get the data, draw your own conclusions.You don't have to have faith in science. You can approach it with scepticism - distrust, even - and still percieve the same results.Can you say the same for your religion? To the contrary, you've told me that if I don't come to the Bible as already a believer, I won't get to see the evidence.Can you see the difference? I doubt it, somehow. What, you mean like this quote:

quote:

---

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

---

You've never read The Origin of Species, have you? If you had you'd know that quote was taken out of context. That question leads an entire chapter explaining why there's gaps in the fossil record. It's not Darwin wondering where the evidence is, it's a rhetorical device along the lines of "Where is the evidence? Here it is!"Don't you find quotes taken out of context rather decietful? Is this how you witness for your religion? Why do you need to attack it? You mean, like the legendary scholarly arguments between classical physicists and quantum physicists in the middle of this century? You don't know much about the history of science, do you?

Hi, Endo!I'm going to have to object to your mixing of categories. This is the Evolution forum, and statements like this belong in the Is It Science? forum: Please use your Evolution: Science or Religion? thread to discuss the issue of whether evolution is religion or not. The reason for this is that if I allow people to raise the same controversial issue in every thread, then pretty soon every thread becomes a discussion of that issue, regardless of the original topic. Peter Borger was the last member whose posting privileges were suspended because he refused to follow this request (see Suspensions and Bannings).On a related topic, it is usually the case that 10% of the members take 90% of the administrator's time. In a very short time you have become most of that 10%. I'm giving you a couple days to clean up your act, then your posting privileges will be suspended.------------------
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

FFG couldn't/wouldn't discuss this regurgipost on the Christians unite board, either.Yes, crash, the Korthof link is actually a negative book review, so clearly FFG did not read/understand the link.

Why bother, NN? Three quarters of the totally-out-of-context quotes on that page revolve around the PE vs Gradualist vs Hybrid debate. A substantial fraction of the remainder (mostly in the "Miscellaneous" category), are from creationists. The few that fit neither of the above are either from papers/books discussing alternative mechanisms (the Lipson paper, for instance) or talking about something else entirely.Argument from quotation is the last recourse of someone with no argument.

I do not think you understand the quotations you cited. Please tell me you are not yet another creationist willing to lie and deceive for the cause. I am getting very tired of that.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Was that last bit a quotation ....

Hi, SLPx!I didn't see your post until just now. I just did a check and it appears that EndocytosisSynthesis and FFGFollower are the same person. This is a violation of rule 8 of the Forum Guidelines: Participating as more than one ID is extremely strongly discouraged.Rather than giving EndocytosisSynthesis/FFGFollower the opportunity to violate the remaining two guidelines not yet broken, the posting privileges for both ID's will be suspended, and the IP address will be banned.Thanks for noticing this.------------------
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator