Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 1:50 PM
32 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,827 Year: 9,863/19,786 Month: 2,285/2,119 Week: 321/724 Day: 46/114 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
12NextFF
Author Topic:   DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1
DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 173 (131784)
08-09-2004 3:06 AM


The support of macroevolution as a viable theory is, imo, a dark blot on the credibility of the scientific community.

As an offshoot of a discussion in another thread, quotes from scientists, both evolutionist and creationist, which illuminate the problems inherent in the concept of macroevolution will be offered here, along with as much information as is possible to find online regarding these same scientists position in relation to the theory of evolution, including their position on both microevolution and macroevolution, as well as their position concerning design and intelligent design theory. I shall begin with my opening statement from the original thread.

I have never been a believer when it comes to the myth of macroevolution, not even as a child. It is, without a doubt, the most unbelieveable of all the childhood fairytale's, and is a fairytale which any logical and intelligent person, as they develop common sense and reason, simply outgrows. When they were children they thought like children, they imagined like children, they believed like children.

When they became adults, they left behind their childish thoughts, their childish imaginations, their childish beliefs, and learned how to properly develop their powers of logic and reason. Still, some have become so wrapped up in childish fantasy's that they will cling to their childhood fairytale's even into adulthood, believing in them all the way to their graves.

That the myth of macroevolution was ever linked to microevolution has always been, and may always be, a great stain of dishonor on the credibility of the scientists who willingly propagate the myth in the interest of self preservation, and has become a great stain as well on the sciences as being a beacon of knowledge and truth.

If it is not well known by now, it undoubtedly will be before the final chapter is written on the death of darwinian evolutionary thinking, at which time the myth of macroevolution will be forever abandoned by all who demand that science once again stand upon it's four cornered base of logic, reason, knowledge, and truth.

MicroEvolution, the only true and viable Theory of Evolution will then take it's rightful place on the center stage of the sciences study of origins. Until then, quotes from evolutionists and creationists, both past and present, will be introduced on these pages.

I will begin this discussion with one of the final quotes offered in the original thread, as it seems most appropriate to begin with a quote from the man whose ideas are primarily responsible for the birth of the myth of macroevolution.

In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote: "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." as quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

Few will question whether or not Darwin believed in his own theory but the real questions are, if Darwin himself recognized the unscientific nature of his theory, why is it that so many neo-darwinians insist that the myth of macroevolution be accepted as a bonafide scientific theory, and how do they reconcile their position with the thousands of quotes by scientists that challenge the scientific viability of the theory of evolution and seemingly debunk this so-called theory, more accurately known as the "Myth of Macroevolution"?

Although the quote above attributed to Darwin is available on numerous sites, and being as yet unable to locate the full text of the letter in which the quote appears, I direct interested parties to a pro-evolution site first, which covers this quote extensively.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html

So as to be fair, the following pro-creation site will be offered as a buffer to the previous site.

http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp

For those who may be interested, this site http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/ contains an extremely large collection of Darwin's writings.

In the pages that follow, we should attempt to address these issues regarding true science vs. myth, expand on the positions of both the evolution and creation scientists, and bring to light as much data as is necessary to provide everyone with the most up to date information available from all sides, while acknowledging all viewpoints.

This message has been edited by DarkStar, 08-08-2004 11:05 PM

{Topic moved from "Proposed New Topics" by Adminnemooseus}

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-09-2004 02:07 AM


The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-09-2004 3:14 AM DarkStar has not yet responded
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2004 11:46 AM DarkStar has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 08-09-2004 2:40 PM DarkStar has responded
 Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 08-09-2004 4:53 PM DarkStar has responded
 Message 14 by Nasa, posted 08-09-2004 11:59 PM DarkStar has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3883
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 173 (131787)
08-09-2004 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by DarkStar
08-09-2004 3:06 AM


Offhand the approved form of the message 1 seems to have some superfluous content, including the graphics, but I advanced it to open debate anyway. Try to restrain yourself on such matters in the future - I think it just adds clutter to your message.

You supplied your own link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html), which in itself pretty well covers the quotation in question. I don't know what much more can be said on the matter.

Now we see what else happens.

Adminnemooseus


Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DarkStar, posted 08-09-2004 3:06 AM DarkStar has not yet responded

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 173 (131804)
08-09-2004 4:57 AM


Theres a very easy answer, Darkstar. The fact that Darwin came up with this idea does not mean he is the ultimate authority on that idea. It can be, and has been, investigated by others.
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 173 (131865)
08-09-2004 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by DarkStar
08-09-2004 3:06 AM


Predictably Presented to Mislead
Just to start with, I have a quote of my own:

quote:
One of the favorite tactics of evolution deniers and other pseudoscientists is to use numerous quotations to make their case. For many people the use of quote after quote makes a very persuasive argument. However, the antievolutionist use of quotes is invalid and does not in any way provide evidence for creationism or against evolution. The reasons for this fall into several major categories: the use of quotations often is a fallacy of "argument from authority," selective quotation may be occurring, the quotations are often out-of-date, the quoted authorities are often not appropriate authorities, evolution deniers are sometimes not honest in representing who the people they quote are, and many of the quotations are misquotations.

-- Talkorigins.org

Actually, Talkorigin's "Quote Mine Project" has a specific entry on this quote, which I will link to and quote in part:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html

quote:
It should be noted at the outset that the above citation is incorrect. The quote does not appear on page 2 of Professor Gillespie's book (Gillespie, Neal C. 1979. Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.) but, rather, on page 63, in a paragraph carrying over from page 62.

(Poor DS can't even get his citations right.)

quote:
As the use of this secondary source for a quote by Darwin is telling of creationist tactics, let us first turn to Gillespie's book. Some context as to the subject matter is needed to understand what the creationists are doing. In large part the book deals with the change that was underway in the methodology of science at the time Darwin published Origin of Species. The method of "induction," championed by Francis Bacon, had been the "standard" for scientific reasoning up until that time, although perhaps paid lip service more than strictly followed. Ideally, in induction, facts are gathered until "lower" axioms or propositions can be derived, from which more general axioms can be arrived at by induction. As these more fundamental laws of nature are discovered, they can then, in turn, be used to deduce other lower axioms, which can then be tested by experimentation. (See Klein, Juergen, "Francis Bacon", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).)

By the time Darwin published Origin of Species, philosophers of science such as John Herschel, William Whewell, and John Stuart Mill had begun to recognize that science was not limited to strict induction. Darwin (according to Gillespie) operated with a methodology that came to be known as "actualism," whereby the existence of uniform and lawful causes of phenomena in nature are assumed. This assumption, in turn, allowed the use of analogies from those causes known to exist (vera causa) to fill in any gaps in our knowledge, as well as to serve as a basis for future research. Thus, "theorizing" was not strictly limited to being done only after fact gathering but could proceed concurrent with and as a guide for ongoing research.


So, when Darwin says "true science", he's not talking about science as it is practiced today, but rather, ideas from Bacon that have fallen by the wayside. Moreover, contemporary philosophers assured him after publication that he was doing real science:

quote:
When [it was reported that John Stuart Mill had characterized the Origin of Species] as being "in the most exact accordance with the strict principles of logic (and that) the method of investigation (was) the only one proper to such a subject," Darwin was relieved. ...

(The above is from the actual book out of which DS seems to have taken his quote; you can find more of the context at the above link.)

But here's the kicker:

quote:
Could it be that the quote itself supports the creationists, even if Gillespie's use of it does not? One major problem for that position is that Darwin was not speaking of evolution when he wrote those words to Gray. In fact, Darwin did not reveal the nature of his theory to Gray until July 1857, after the quoted letter of June 18, 1857.

quote:
This is the issue they have been discussing all along (extinction as a cause of the reduction the range of various species and causing the remnants to be located in widely separated locales), not evolution. It is only on July 20, 1857 that Darwin lets the cat out of the bag to Gray (The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, supra, at 6:431):

Talkorigins concludes:

quote:
Sadly, if the creationists only bothered to learn rather than merely quote mine, they might have stumbled on the much more interesting issue of the methodology used by Darwin and the questions it raised in the philosophy of science. In the end, however, it would not have been of any more avail to their case. Darwin's method was clearly valid and is still widely used to this day in all the sciences, not just biology. But at least it would have been a real issue, not this pale cardboard imitation of one.

So, to sum up, DS's Darwin quote refers neither to science as it is done today nor evolution as it was formulated then, and it's being presented entirely out of context. I doubt very much that DarkStar has even seen the book from which he (incorrectly) cites it.

So, the question isn't

if Darwin himself recognized the unscientific nature of his theory, why is it that so many neo-darwinians insist that the myth of macroevolution be accepted as a bonafide scientific theory

the question is, why can't Dark Star be bothered to check his facts before he posts?

Anyway, DS. Bring on your quotes. I look forward to showing how you've presented each and every one out of context or misrepresented the source in an effort to mislead, especially if it's going to be as easy as this one was.

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-09-2004 10:51 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DarkStar, posted 08-09-2004 3:06 AM DarkStar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 08-09-2004 12:05 PM crashfrog has responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 278 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 5 of 173 (131873)
08-09-2004 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
08-09-2004 11:46 AM


Re: Predictably Presented to Mislead
DarkStar not only admits he's been unable to trace the source (and thus cannot have read the original), but links to the same page in talkorigins as you do. I can only presume he thinks the 'true' origins page presents a valid rebuttal.

Good post, Crash, but I think you should take a little more time and care reading the post you are replying to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2004 11:46 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2004 1:27 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 173 (131914)
08-09-2004 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Jack
08-09-2004 12:05 PM


I can only presume he thinks the 'true' origins page presents a valid rebuttal.

I don't understand how. Even if Talkorigins.org was staffed by the most consistent liars imaginable, they do provide considerable bibliographical source material so their claims are easily checked out.

So no matter what "Trueorigins" has to say about them, their claims stand, particularly as the Trueorigins page has no specific rebuttal to the exegesis of the Darwin quote Talkorigins has provided.

Good post, Crash, but I think you should take a little more time and care reading the post you are replying to.

I don't see that DS actually read the Talkorigins article in question; certainly if he had it boggles the mind why he would present an argument that he knew had been refuted without even addressing the rebuttals.

At any rate, my post brings the Talkorigins information to the forefront; bringing to light DS's attempts to mislead as well as making the information instantly avaliable for those who don't like to follow links.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 08-09-2004 12:05 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18498
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 7 of 173 (131962)
08-09-2004 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DarkStar
08-09-2004 3:06 AM


My first reaction upon seeing your Darwin quote was, "I bet Darwin wasn't talking about evolution." Turns out I was right, and then Crash uncovers that he wasn't measuring his "speculations" against modern scientific practice, but against Baconian standards.

After all this time, I still don't understand the Creationist fascination with quotes, and I especially don't understand their unquestioning acceptance as genuine and accurate any quote by a famous evolutionist disavowing his own science.

Hey, DarkStar, get a load of this quote:

When design theorists refer to a "designer" or "designing intelligence," and thus avoid explicitly referring to God, they are merely engaged in a rhetorical ploy.
   -William Dembski, famous Creationist, in The Design Revolution

Anyone can play this silly game. What you want to do is get rid of your silly Fred Williams avatar, stop quote mining, and start discussing actual issues.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DarkStar, posted 08-09-2004 3:06 AM DarkStar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2004 4:25 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 65 by DarkStar, posted 08-15-2004 7:40 PM Percy has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 173 (131995)
08-09-2004 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
08-09-2004 2:40 PM


What you want to do is get rid of your silly Fred Williams avatar

Let him keep his avatar. It only makes him look more foolish.

Who is it that has Walt Brown's morphed head (emblazoned "666") as an avatar? That one kills me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 08-09-2004 2:40 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Loudmouth, posted 08-09-2004 4:43 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 173 (132001)
08-09-2004 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
08-09-2004 4:25 PM


quote:
Who is it that has Walt Brown's morphed head (emblazoned "666") as an avatar? That one kills me.

Joe Meert, which proves that geologists can, in fact, have a sense of humor. Understanding previous communications between the two just adds to the humor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2004 4:25 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 173 (132005)
08-09-2004 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DarkStar
08-09-2004 3:06 AM


quote:
Few will question whether or not Darwin believed in his own theory but the real questions are, if Darwin himself recognized the unscientific nature of his theory, why is it that so many neo-darwinians insist that the myth of macroevolution be accepted as a bonafide scientific theory, and how do they reconcile their position with the thousands of quotes by scientists that challenge the scientific viability of the theory of evolution and seemingly debunk this so-called theory, more accurately known as the "Myth of Macroevolution"?

Given the creationist track record, the statement should be ammended to "how do they reconcile their position with the thousands of misconstrued and out of context quotes by scientists . . .". Just the example of the one quote that you do offer up is a perfect example of why creationists have been accused of only following nine of the commandments. Secondly, science is not supported by public approval, but by objective evidence. If creationists want to show that the theory of evolution is wrong, they will need something other than quotes from those claiming to be scientists. They must show that there is objective evidence that falsifies the theory. Failure to do so demonstrates the true characteristics of creationism, a political/religious movement based solely on rhetoric and ignorant of the processes that go into constructing a scientific theory. Do you think it was only the opinions of scientists that support the orbit of the Earth around the sun?

quote:
In the pages that follow, we should attempt to address these issues regarding true science vs. myth, expand on the positions of both the evolution and creation scientists, and bring to light as much data as is necessary to provide everyone with the most up to date information available from all sides, while acknowledging all viewpoints.

An argument based on objective evidence and models based on the scientific method would be a good start. Oh, and "creation scientists" is an oxymoron. They do not use the scientific method and therefore are not scientists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DarkStar, posted 08-09-2004 3:06 AM DarkStar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by DarkStar, posted 08-15-2004 7:33 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 173 (132144)
08-09-2004 9:52 PM


Quotations - Number 2
Judging by the responses thus far, I think it can be conceded that Darwin not only believed in the process of macroevolution, but that he saw it as the best explanation for the origin of species. Science has made some tremendous advances since Darwin first proposed the idea of macroevolution so let's move a little further from it's initiation and see what others has to say regarding the myth of macroevolution.

Before continuing however, allow me to silence those who love to criticize condemnatory quotes concerning the myth of macroevolution as always being taken out of context by reminding them that rule #10 of the forum guidelines states:

Do not cut-n-paste long excerpts into message boxes. Please instead introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.
It is therefore quite difficult to keep any quote fully within the context of original thought without violating rule #10 so please, either follow whatever link may be provided or offer one of your own choice.

For example, how about someone in here supplying a link to the full context of Darwin's letter to Asa Gray so as to supply all readers with the full context of Darwins thoughts introduced in said letter. I have tried to locate it through searches but have been unsuccessful thus far. Not even the talkorigin site offered the letter in it's entirety, but instead also chose snippets here and there that seemingly supported it's own position. Talkorigins should not criticize something out of one side of it's mouth while practicing the same thing out of the other side.

Shortly after joining the EVC forum, I stated that the only way to understand the full context of any writing is to view the writing in it's entirety, which in many cases would require heavy cut-n-paste sequences, and as has already been noted, that would be a violation of rule #10 of the forum guidelines. Having said that, the following will have to suffice for now.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).
http://www.starlake.net/species.html

Despite the expected response of hardcore neo-evo's to defend their belief in the myth of macroevolution with their dying breath, regardless of what may be presented here, I have no doubt that as we progress through the thousands of available quotes exposing macroevolution for what it is, a myth of gigantic proportions, that the truth will be made known and the occasional truly openminded individual who passes through EVC will go their way having been made more aware of the enormous fallacies so inherent in the theory of evolution, at least where the myth of macroevolution is concerned.

The theory of evolution is by no means dead, but with the inclusion of the myth of macroevolution within that theory, it might as well be. Abandoning true science in favor of a myth in order to support an otherwise viable theory is pure foolishness.


The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2004 10:59 PM DarkStar has responded
 Message 13 by Glordag, posted 08-09-2004 11:54 PM DarkStar has not yet responded
 Message 15 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-10-2004 12:06 AM DarkStar has responded
 Message 53 by Loudmouth, posted 08-10-2004 1:35 PM DarkStar has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 173 (132162)
08-09-2004 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by DarkStar
08-09-2004 9:52 PM


Wait a second, DS. We weren't done with the first quote yet.

Can we assume by you moving onto the second that you're admitting that your intent with the first was to mislead?

If that's the case, why should we assume your intent is any different here?

I'll remind you of the forum guidelines:

quote:
7. Avoid any form of misrepresentation.

Misrepresenting Darwin, as you did above, is a clear violation. Moreover, it's intellectually reprehensible and a slur on a great scientist. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Talkorigins should not criticize something out of one side of it's mouth while practicing the same thing out of the other side.

"Tu quoque" is not a defense. Are you going to own up to your disgusting behavior or not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by DarkStar, posted 08-09-2004 9:52 PM DarkStar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2004 1:48 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 56 by DarkStar, posted 08-11-2004 10:54 PM crashfrog has responded

Glordag
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 173 (132177)
08-09-2004 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by DarkStar
08-09-2004 9:52 PM


Re: Quotations - Number 2
Just on a very brief search of both Cohen and the book you listed, I am not all too impressed. Written in 1984, this book appears to have been the source of creationist arguments for quite a while. Basically, from what I gather, the entire point of the book is to say that random mutation is/was impossible due to the high probability against its occurance. This issue has already been discussed in numerous threads, and is false logic. Also, I believe Cohen is/was an archaeologist, not a biologist, though I wouldn't bet my life on it. The rest of you can nitpick at this some more if you choose to, but I think I'll leave it at this.

Edit: Thought I'd supply the links of a couple of sites I visited to gather this information, if any of you care to view them.

http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000044;p=

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}

As you can see, one is a forum discussion on the book, and one is amazon.com's listing for it, complete with user reviews. I don't have the time to read the entire book, so I won't attempt to break down every aspect of it.

This message has been edited by Glordag, 08-09-2004 10:57 PM

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-10-2004 01:32 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by DarkStar, posted 08-09-2004 9:52 PM DarkStar has not yet responded

Nasa
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 173 (132183)
08-09-2004 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DarkStar
08-09-2004 3:06 AM


I like it....Take a look at this set:

Evolution a religion.

'A religion is essentially an attitude to the world as a whole. Thus evolution, for example, may prove as powerful a principle to co-ordinate men's beliefs and hopes as God was in the past. Such ideas underlie the various forms of Rationalism, the Ethical movement and scientific Humanism.'

'Humanism: An outlook that places man and his concerns at the centre of interest. Modern Humanism, which does away with traditional Christianity, is characterised by its faith in the power of human beings to create their own future, collectively and personally.'

Growth of Ideas. The evolution of thought and knowledge. Ed. Sir Julian Huxley, 1965, pp. 99, 336.

In other words, evolution = religion. That is, people (not God) set whatever rules they want. In practice, this usually becomes 'might makes right', including the tyranny of the majority.

Adolf Hitler was heavily intoxicated with the beliefs of evolution, it gave him the justification for the atrocities he carried out as he tried and failed to create his supreme race.

The Theory of Evolution is the most dangerous and deadly belief system man has ever dreamed up.

Think of a Russian leader?
Think of an Italian Dictator?
A Japanese Emperor?
Their Justification in their murderous solutions?
Evolutions philosopher, death is allowance for the weaker.

Think of an American white hooded cult.
Why such misunderstanding and hate?
Why were the cotton pickers such an insult?
They believed the pickers were closer to the ape!

The red Indians a seed that might violate, native Australians mutilated!
Evolutionary thinking that can tolerate? Or will the gas chambers be repeated?..........?

This message has been edited by Nasa, 08-09-2004 11:02 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DarkStar, posted 08-09-2004 3:06 AM DarkStar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Glordag, posted 08-10-2004 12:08 AM Nasa has responded
 Message 18 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-10-2004 12:25 AM Nasa has responded
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2004 12:31 AM Nasa has responded
 Message 51 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-10-2004 2:44 AM Nasa has not yet responded

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4195 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 15 of 173 (132184)
08-10-2004 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by DarkStar
08-09-2004 9:52 PM


Re: Quotations - Number 2
darkstar writes:

I have no doubt that as we progress through the thousands of available quotes exposing macroevolution for what it is, a myth of gigantic proportions, that the truth will be made known...

I'm not sure about your quote obsession. You could provide a billion quotes and not falsify evolution - though a few appropriate pieces of scientific evidence would do the trick. Short on evidence-based arguments?

However, since you seem intent on a quote-party, I'll give you another quote from L.L.Cohen, also out of Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities. Keep in mind this is the first quote by Cohen I've found:

Cohen writes:

'Survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection.' No matter what phraseology one generates, the basic fact remains the same: any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides (in the DNA). Nature or species do not have the capacity for rearranging them, nor adding to them. Consequently no leap (saltation) can occur from one species to another. The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence: one who knows what it is doing, such as our genetic engineers are now performing in their laboratories.

This quote discredits Cohen multiple times:

- "any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides"
- False. We have witnessed random mutation give rise to changes in size, shape, and form - therefore "strictly...purposeful" is incorrect. This statement denies the possibility of micro-evolution.

- "Nature or species do not have the capacity for rearranging them, nor adding to them."
- False. Duplications, rearrangments, point mutations, insertions, deletions are all methods that can contribute to a changing, and sometimes 'increasing', genome. Cohen's statement denies that mutations of any kind occur, and thus denies microevolution.

- "The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence"
- False, again. Essentially restating the lie that DNA is immutable except by a designer. The statement denies microevolution.

Darkstar - Cohen flat out denies the possibility of micro-evolution through his statements. Indeed, he denies the possibility of mutation of any kind through his statements.

Perhaps this is not someone you should be quoting, though part of the Cohen quote you provide:

Cohen writes:

It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers.

Is absolutely true, and no true scientist should argue with this specific point.

However, Cohen remains a poor choice to support your pro-micro-evolution view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by DarkStar, posted 08-09-2004 9:52 PM DarkStar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by DarkStar, posted 08-15-2004 8:27 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

1
23456
...
12NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019