|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Percy, would you say that Darwin's contribution was the synthesis of methodology, where he offered the best (at least so far) explaination of the mechanisms involved?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
LM writes: Why do you consider macroevolution a myth? It is a theory based on objective evidence such as: 1. Endogenous retroviral insertions. 2. Pseudogenes 3. The correlation of cladistics and stratigraphy 4. Nested hierarchies 5. Atavisms etc. 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.
LM writes: It is not a myth. For evolution to be a myth it would be solely supported by faith. Belief in the myth of macroevolution is faith, as much faith as is required by religious people to believe in god.
LM writes: The fact that it is instead supported by fossils and DNA, both of which are real and measurable, falsifies your claim. I am sorry but your argument is baseless. All I have seen you do here is parrot the average neo-evo, using scientific terms in an attempt to support your own personal faith in the myth of macroevolution. How much scientific work have you performed to support your position? Are your papers published? If you are merely repeating what you have been taught to say then your argument is wasted. I can read these same misconceptions and misunderstandings of the evidence supposedly supporting the myth of macroevolution on a thousand web sites, none of which have any more scientific credibility than what you have presented. Macroevolution has never, will never be observed, neither in actuality or in the fossil record. Only those whose cling to the myth of macroevolution insist that the fossil record supports their belief, their faith in macroevolution. Science seems to agree with me as evidenced by the thousands of quotes by scientists that support my view while condemning yours. I can not be held accountable for what the scientists say and the neo-evo's claims that these thousands of quotes are taken out of context is not made more believeable by their inability to offer these same quotes in their full context, with supporting arguments revealing that the scientists did not mean what they actually said. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
jar writes: That really doesn't matter. You were the one who introduced the quotation. It is up to you to either support it, or withdraw it. That is where I think you are wrong. It is those who cling to the myth of macroevolution that insist the quote is taken out of context but are unable to prove that this is true. 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Percy, would you say that Darwin's contribution was the synthesis of methodology, where he offered the best (at least so far) explaination of the mechanisms involved? I guess I see Darwin as being the first to propose mechanisms that satisfactorily explained how evolution happened. In that sense I guess they were the best, but stating it that way minimizes how poor the previously offered explanations were, such as Lamarck's idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics. Another critical contribution of Darwin's that hasn't yet been mentioned in this thread is his understanding of the importance of variation within a population. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I would agree with you. In fact, it's amazing that what he proposed has stood up so well over 150 years now.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
asgara writes:
Sorry asgara, I would if I could but I too have been unable to locate the letter at the site I also provided. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/ If you want to give me a better citation of the letter in question, I will have no problem finding it.There is much to look through and it will obviously take some time. As I have already stated in another post, all one need do is prove to me that this quote is taken out of context and that Darwin did not mean what the quote suggests and I will gladly concede. Until then, the quote must stand as is. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2302 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
Personally, I believe that if no one can find where this quote comes from, then it DOESN'T stand anywhere.
Asgara "Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it" http://asgarasworld.bravepages.comhttp://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
I do not desire to push this any further and my contention was not merely that belief in evolution was present during the Medieval period but that it has been in existance for a long, long time. Much longer than you were willing to admit to, as noted by your references to Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck, hardly an acknowledgement of the ancient belief in evolution which was my main point. I am willing to concede to your position about parts of Europe, but most assuredly not all of Europe. At any rate, I will consider this discussion on the Medieval period closed.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
Personal beliefs are allowed and acknowledged. However that does not make that personal belief a verifiable fact. Supposedly there were at least two letters Darwin wrote to Gray. One has been easily located, unfortunately it was the wrong one. The search will continue.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2302 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
The quote comes from a letter dated June 18, 1857, before Darwin discussed his theory with Gray in the later 1857 letter. The Talk Origins link you gave earlier discusses this
Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes The Darwin Correspondence Project gives basically this same information. I know, neither gives the contents of the entire letter. I do know that that pictures posted in your first post in regards to this quote are not of the letter the quote came from. The pictures posted were from the Harvard cite, discussing the Sept letter. Attention Required! | Cloudflare Asgara "Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it" http://asgarasworld.bravepages.comhttp://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3776 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
I am sorry DS, but your argument is baseless. All I have seen you do here is parrot the average creationist, using quasi-scientific terms in an attempt to support your own personal faith in the myth of non-evolution. How much scientific work have you performed to support your position? Are your papers published? If you are merely repeating what you have been taught to say then your argument is wasted. I can read these same misconceptions and misunderstandings of the evidence supposedly supporting the myth of non-evolution on a thousand web sites, none of which have any more scientific credibility than what you have presented.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
I wish I could say I can't believe how preposterous this debate is, but it's all too believable. This is not the sort of exchange of ideas that leads to mutual understanding. DarkStar has proven in the past that he is not interested in learning about the scientific method, about history, or about the truly fascinating reality of biology. He's content raiding creationist websites for quotes that he feels support his half-baked opinions about the 'myth of macroevolution' and spitting scorn instead of presenting rebuttals to any patient attempt to explain where he's mistaken.
DarkStar says:quote:His tone here makes it abundantly obvious that he considers the debate one of words, and not of scientific methodology, though he's never demonstrated that he has even a basic understanding of the philosophy of science. Quotations are the only basis of his argument, so he demands that they be the focus of all discourse. When someone like Loudmouth tells him that there is indeed a scientific basis to the concept of macroevolution, DarkStar merely reiterates that quote:And this is supposed to suffice! Since he's already made up his mind that evolution is a myth accepted totally on faith, and that 'hardcore neo-evos' will defend their faith to the death, he can dismiss any words in support of macroevolution as empty rhetoric. If the speaker happens to reference valid scientific research into genetic, taxonomic, or paleontological matters, he dismisses the argument as 'opinion' without even taking the proposed evidence into account! I don't like the way DarkStar is being allowed to set the terms of this debate, because as usual, he's only allowing his side to be heard. One quote from Darwin is supposed to be accepted as proof that Darwin's entire theory is a myth, simply because DarkStar either can't grasp or won't accept how ridiculous this claim is. We're not allowed to present scientific material to falsify his claim that evolution is faith, merely because he can't argue on that basis. I guess he wants to believe we're all as ignorant as he is, and if we choose to debate him on his terms, we certainly must be. regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
It is rare that anyone on either side is persuaded that their views are wrong, and some debating styles are more difficult to engage than others. A more realistic goal is to use the thread to develop a context and background of information and explanation that an imagined unbiased observer could use to form his own opinion. While rhetorical tactics also have their say in the way a debate's outcome is perceived, remaining rational and consistent and accurate plays an even greater role.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
DarkStar writes: Science seems to agree with me as evidenced by the thousands of quotes by scientists that support my view while condemning yours. So in your view, science agrees with you that macroevolution is a myth, and you're just trying to convince a few stubborn holdouts here at EvC Forum to accept the scientific viewpoint. But what happens when you measure this perspective against the real world? Can you go to the library and find books by evolutionists who don't accept macroevolution? No, you can't. Can you go to natural history museums and find displays consistent with the view that macroevolution doesn't happen? No, you can't. Can you find descriptions in the popular press about the increasing numbers of scientists who are discarding the possibility of macroevolution? No, you can't. Thus, your quotes are painting a picture that is contradicted by what is going on in the real world. On this basis alone they should be considered suspect, but there's the additional evidence of the many quotes that have already been tracked down and been found false or misleading, not only here and at other discussion boards, but also in the easier-to-search TalkOrigins archive. It would be a very interesting exercise, were someone here willing to take it on, to track down those quotes whose original context can be found and examine the truth of the many quotes of this nature from Creationist websites, but to what end? You can claim all you like that scientists now reject macroevolution, but for some reason the only place where they can be found uttering words to this effect is at Creationist websites. In all other venues they are as supportive of macroevolution as ever. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024