|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4156 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
So you redraw your claim of fraud ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I have attempted to get this thread back on track Then by all means, substantiate your claim about Quote 1 or withdraw it. We're sort of stuck on that point, crucial as it is to your argument, until you address it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
You may consider Darwins topic in the letter an unanswered question, seeing as how neither I nor anyone else has been able to produce the letter in question. Perhaps he was speaking of his theory, perhaps he was not. That question has not yet been answered to anyone's satisfaction, hence the move to quote #2. Should the letter be produced some time in the future, we can then readdress the issue.
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 |
For your satisfaction, the term "fraud" is withdrawn! Let's call it an unfortunate misunderstanding in a zealous quest to confirm the theory of evolution.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4156 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
that seems a bit of a dodge - let's try this:
I totally accept that there was no fraud and I was wrong about NMan Oh shall we move onto your claims about lucy or are they redraw as well? or do you want to deal with piltdown man first? This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-19-2004 09:26 PM This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-19-2004 09:27 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
How about you doing your part to get this thread back on track, and perhaps opening a new topic about evolution frauds, real or imagined. Thanks in advance.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4156 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
well it's real simple you just have to say that you were wrong about those things and we can carry on - you've already managed a grudging one about N-Man, you just need to do the rest and we can move on.
It's just requires one line from one: I WAS WRONG.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
How is it unanswered. You were asked to produce the source for your quote and the context of the letter and failed to do so.
I could say DarkStar said he supports macro-evolution. But unless I could show where you did so, I would have to retract and drop the allegation. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Perhaps he was speaking of his theory, perhaps he was not. It should be noted, though, that nobody but you and creationists think that he was referring to evolution. The Darwin Correspondence Online Database summarizes the letter as follows:
quote: Moreover you've still failed to address why Darwin would allude to the theory of evolution before he had presented it to Asa Gray. To paint this as any sort of "unanswered question" or "maybe so, maybe not" situation is disingenuity personified. At any rate, I was able to find the letter we've been talking about, sort of:
quote: from No webpage found at provided URL: http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/more_letters/mletters2_10.html That was the letter DarkQuote has been referencing, via Talkorigins. According to the introduction to the print:
With a view to saving space, we have confined ourselves to elucidating the letters by full annotations, and have for the same reason-though with some regret-omitted in most cases the beginnings and endings of the letters. Did Darwin even say what DS says he said? Who knows? Is this letter printed in its entirity? It doesn't say. (Maybe it's not even the right letter. I don't know.) Nonetheless it's apparent from this, the body of the letter, that Darwin is not referring to the theory he wouldn't have published for some months at the time he wrote the letter. Trying to even suggest that Darwin is speaking about evolution is simply the height of mendacity. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-19-2004 09:57 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
A short list of the numerous scientists who doubt Darwinism.
http://www.discoveringdesign.net/framelink.php?mylink=/ar... and..... The "Society for the Advancement of Real Science" Denounces Intelligent Design. http://www.designinference.com/.../2004.02.SARS_Slams_ID.htm 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Let's call it an unfortunate misunderstanding in a zealous quest to confirm the theory of evolution. That statement seems to characterizes your entire quote-mining expedition, for not only are the quotes out-of-context, you yourself are not even aware of the context of your quotes. You also don't seem to realize that even if you were able to produce thousands of quotes, in context, from reputable speakers, that would have no ramification for the theory of evolution. Theories are falsified by evidence, not by quotations. Can you not come up with any evidence to refute the theory of evolution? As far as moving on to the Cohen quote - as I showed before, Cohen does not believe that any change can occur in DNA without "a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence". This means he does not believe DNA mutation ever occurs, and thus reveals himself as a scientific ignoramus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
The "Society for the Advancement of Real Science" Denounces Intelligent Design. and you know what this 'society' is do you? Please fill in some details of your understanding rather than just posting links.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4156 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Wow that's a big list of names (but not even a tenth of the size of the steve project) - but as people have pointed out - it's evidence that we are concerned with - not names.
So how about you give us three or four peer-reviewed papers presented by scientists that contest TOE. A list that big - 3 or 4 should be easy! right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4156 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
ha ha ha - Yes Darkstar please tells us all you know about SARS.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi DarkStar!
Leaving aside the inaccuracies for the moment, how can you equate a list of things science rejects, such as Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man, with a list of things that Creationists embrace, such as talking snakes, people turning into pillars of salt, and the sun stopping in the sky? Reviewing your list now...
You remember, stories like the piltdown man, (that was a good one)... Someone definitely committed fraud in this case. As has already been explained in detail, some suspected fraud from the beginning, and scientists proved it a fraud in the 1950's when the fossils finally became available for detailed study after the death of Woodward.
...and the nebraska man, (almost busted a gut laughing about that one). With all the information you've been provided, you still think this is an example of scientific fraud?
And lets not forget about Lucy... Lucy is a genuine Australopithicus afarensis skeleton.
Then there is my personal favorite, the infamous peppered moths. That one just goes to show that the macroevolution myth believers have a wonderful imagination. Too bad they have such a disdain for true science. The peppered moth is not an example of macroevolution. It's an example of the influence of environmental changes on allele frequency within a species.
Of course we can never forget the one about the skull that was found in Spain in 1984. It was touted as the oldest known example of man found so far in Eurasia. Unfortunately for the macroevolution myth believing spinmasters, this skull was actually shown to be that of a young donkey. Shades of Pinnochio! You're referring to Orce Man, identified by a single skull fragment. A couple Internet articles give a year of discovery of 1982, so you might have the year wrong. Anyway, even after all these years there is still no scientific consensus about Orce Man. As one article I read states, normally this much attention wouldn't be given an ambiguous fragment, but in this case it might be the earliest hominid found in Europe. Anyway, there's no fraud here.
Oh, and let's not leave out the beautiful story that was propagated in 1983 where an American anthropologist claimed to have found the collarbone of a prehistoric man, an amazing discovery to be sure, especially when one considers that it actually turned out to be nothing more than the rib bone of a dolphin. I could find no non-Creationist information on this one. The Creationist accounts say that Dr. Noel Boaz mistakenly identified a dolphin rib as a human collarbone, and the mistake was brought to public attention by Tim White, a paleontologist at UC Berkeley. No scientist today accepts Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man or Boaz's dolphin bone. Scientists *do* overwhelmingly accept Lucy, and you've raised no points here that would cast doubt on her authenticity. The Peppered Moth experiments had flaws that probably mean that predation can not be considered as positively identified as the cause of the color changes, but the correlation of color changes with environmental changes is not in doubt. And Orce Man is still in dispute, with some scientists believing it hominid and some not. What we have here is a record of scientists analyzing and following the evidence. The hominid fossil record is extremely extensive and very genuine. While scientists can understandably disagree about the species of a single skull fragment, there are simply far too many hominid remains that are much more extensive, in some cases fairly complete skeletons, to cast any doubt that they are hominids. Scientists also disagree about how to organize these fossil remains into species, and how these species fall on the human ancestral tree. Summarizing, the point of the message I quoted was that Creationists accept as true many things for which there is no evidence, which violate common sense or known laws of physics, and which have a fairytale-like nature. You responded as if to trying to prove that scientists do the same, but clearly that is not the case. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024