DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1

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.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Thank you for noticing the error of your ways. Now, what makes you think that the quotes you are using now are more trustworthy than your first. Secondly, are the people you are actually quoting involved in biological or evolutionary research? Or, are they electrical engineers and non-biologists who are making these statements because of their religious convictions.What it comes down to is why should we listen to people who don't even understand the basis of the theory of evolution? Why should we listen to creationists who have a track record of lying, misrepresenting data, and misquoting well meaning and upstanding scientists? How about we do something different. You show us the objective evidence that falsifies evolution. Objective evidence is how the theory is supported in the first place. Evolution is NOT falsified by soundbites from misquoted scientists.Secondly, you must show how the belief in fairies is the same as the belief in the theory of gravity. You must show us how fairytales and scientific theories (such as gravity, germ theory, quantum theory) differ and then show how evolution is more like fairytales than these other scientific theories.

quote:

---

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.

---

What does the evidence say, DarkStar? Why are you afraid to tackle the evidence and instead rely upon quotes?This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 08-10-2004 12:36 PM

quote:

---

Now when I speak so negatively about the theory of evolution, it must be understood that I am only referring to the myth of macroevolution and not the well established fact of microevolution.

---

Why do you consider macroevolution a myth? It is a theory based on objective evidence such as:1. Endogenous retroviral insertions.2. Pseudogenes3. The correlation of cladistics and stratigraphy4. Nested hierarchies5. Atavismsetc.It is not a myth. For evolution to be a myth it would be solely supported by faith. The fact that it is instead supported by fossils and DNA, both of which are real and measurable, falsifies your claim.

quote:

---

My intention is to discover why so many scientists make condemnatory statements about the theory of evolution, meaning of course the myth of macroevolution.
  —Darkstar

---

Darkstar,Perhaps you could list one quotation at a time and we could (as a group) find the context of the quote, the qualifications of the scientists being quoted, and the time frame in which the quote was made.

quote:

---

I believe the term you were looking for is "subjective" evidence, as in evidence that is subjected to preconceived notions and ideas which are based upon suppositions and opinions rather than scientific facts.

---

No, they are very much objective. You can go out and test the same DNA and get the same results. You can measure the same fossils and come up with the same lengths and circumferences. You can test the same rocks and get the same ratios of K/Ar. Nothing subjective involved. The suppositions and opinions are what is being tested, since if macro-evolution is wrong then the predictions made through those theories should not be seen in the objective data. However, these predictions are fulfilled by objective data. Too bad for you.

quote:

---

Macroevolution has never, will never be observed, neither in actuality or in the fossil record.

---

Actually, as scientists define macroevolution, it has been observed. Anything at or above the level of speciation is considered macroevolution. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution hs bee observed.

quote:

---

Science seems to agree with me as evidenced by the thousands of quotes by scientists that support my view while condemning yours.

---

Then show me a quote and we will see just how accurate it is. The quotations pass the following three criteria:1. The context of the quote must be available online.2. Any statement must be consistent with collected objective evidence (eg the number of hominid fossils could fit in a shoe box is not consistent with the sheer number of hominid fossils).3. The quote must come from a person who has acquired a degree within the biological sciences from an accredited university.Care to take up my challenge?

quote:

---

This investigation must necessarily include an attempt to discover whether or not these thousands of quotes are "myths" created in the minds of creationists, or if they are indeed actual quotes and, if so, are they so far out of context that a misunderstanding is guaranteed or are they confirmation that far more scientists question the validity of Darwinian evolutionary theory then is made know in science writings, journals, and publications. The truth is out there, we need only to conduct an honest and open-minded search to find it. I'm game, how about you?

---

I think this investigation has come to a close. If you read Percy's list refuting many of your quotes (some are misleading, others are made by creationists) it becomes obvious that you are out to mislead and to disguise the true intent of those you are quoting. When I went to church they called this being a "false witness". If this is the best of the intellectual discourse that creationists are able to muster then it is no wonder that many christians disavow their actions.