|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Just to start with, I have a quote of my own:
quote: -- Talkorigins.org Actually, Talkorigin's "Quote Mine Project" has a specific entry on this quote, which I will link to and quote in part:
Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes quote: (Poor DS can't even get his citations right.)
quote: 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: (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: quote: Talkorigins concludes:
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
A religion is essentially an attitude to the world as a whole. No. I'm sorry, but if your argument relies on defining words in any way you choose, you lose, because you've stopped speaking English. A religion is a supernatural belief system. This is how the word is used in English, which we were speaking; this is what the word means.
That is, people (not God) set whatever rules they want. From what primary literature did you find this statement of evolution? I'd like a citation, please.
Adolf Hitler was heavily intoxicated with the beliefs of evolution You're talking about the Adolf Hitler, right? The one who thought he was doing the will of God? The one to whom the Catholic Church gave their tacit approval? That doesn't sound like the sort of atheistic behavior you're trying to imply. Sounds to me like Hitler was very much intoxicated on religion, not science.
Think of an American white hooded cult. The KKK? You mean the conservative Christians who think they're doing God's work by preventing mixing of the "races"? They're creationists, you know. Maybe you didn't know that. They don't believe in evolution. They believe in creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Yep just like you! That's the best you have? Calling me Hitler? Not only is that stupid and infantile, it's against the forum guidelines:
quote: I can't think of a greater example of disrespect than calling your opponent "Hitler."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It was once believed flies arose from rotting flesh. Frogs from wet mud. Mice from wheat. And men from dust? Funny, where did I first hear that? Oh, yeah:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Ok, whats your best evidence? Why don't you start here:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent At "29 evidences for Macroevolution." Keep in mind that the scope of the page is common descent. Moreover this is a thread for DarkStar's quotes, not yours. I'm sure he'd appreciate it if you kept it that way. Your behavior here is quite disrespectful to him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Or come on you know what I ment I know what you meant, it was plain as day. You meant that I'm like Hitler.
Everyone is religious. I'm not, though. "Religion" means "a system of belief about the supernatural." I have no beliefs about the supernatural. Therefore, I'm not religious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I do not believe I am religious, either, by the standard definition of the word. Do you have beliefs about the supernatural? For instance, do you believe in God? Welcome to Religion-town, population you.
Crash Frog you believe in evolution! Well, I wouldn't say I believe in it - I don't have to. It's supported by evidence. It would be accurate whether I believed in it or not. At any rate, evolution is the proposition that "natural processes can account for the history of life on Earth." There's nothing supernatural about that. As I said, I have no belief about the supernatural.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Religion is to hold to a belief. No, Nasa. Religion is a system of belief about the supernatural. It's not just a belief. It's a belief about the supernatural. You don't get to just redefine words as you see fit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Can evolution explain the orign of life. Why would it? Since that's a question of chemistry, and evolution is a theory of biology. That's like asking if the germ theory of disease explains how computers work. Of course not; those are two different fields.
Then the theories foundations are not solid. The foundations of the theory are observation, hypothesis, and experimentation; these foundations are the rock-solid bed upon which all science and all of science's fruit rest.
Can it explain how a single cell began to evolve and become more complex. Natural selection and random mutation.
How information was increased? Natural selection and random mutation, two processes that have been proven to increase information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Message 12, please, DarkStar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Please, if you are able, supply for us the entire text of the letter in question so that we can more appropriately address exactly what Darwins point was throughout the letter. How about, instead of attempting to change the subject, you defend your own assertion that the letter refers to Darwin's theory of evolution and not speculations in regards to the extinction of certain species.
My intention is not to mislead anyone Then why did you claim that Darwin was speaking of evolution, when you knew that he was not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Simply prove to me that this quote is taken out of context and I will most gladly concede, but until you can prove otherwise, the quote fully supports itself. In what way? Where in the quote does it say which "speculations" Darwin is referring to? Why don't you quit changing the subject and prove that Darwin's quote actually says what you said it does?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024