Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 121 of 173 (135644)
08-20-2004 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by DarkStar
08-20-2004 1:02 AM


Re: While your waiting.....
A short list of the numerous scientists who doubt Darwinism.
How many Steves on the list?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by DarkStar, posted 08-20-2004 1:02 AM DarkStar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 08-20-2004 1:51 PM crashfrog has replied

Maxwell's Demon
Member (Idle past 6229 days)
Posts: 59
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 122 of 173 (135688)
08-20-2004 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by crashfrog
08-20-2004 11:36 AM


Re: While your waiting.....
I'll tell you... Not one. Nor are there any Stephens, Stevens, Stefans, Estebans, Stephanies, or Stefanies.
(Found the list online in text-format pasted it into word and ran a few quick searches)
Added by Edit:
It seems there are several versions of the list floating around. So the number of Steve's on the list may vary slightly.
This message has been edited by Maxwell's Demon, 08-20-2004 01:04 PM

"tellement loin de ce monde..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2004 11:36 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2004 6:56 PM Maxwell's Demon has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 123 of 173 (135765)
08-20-2004 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by DarkStar
08-19-2004 10:13 PM


Re: Last warning!
DarkStar writes:
I have attempted to get this thread back on track, which is supposed to be a discussion about why so many evolution scientists make so many condemnatory statements concerning the theory of evolution, and yet seemingly still support the theory.
The explanation has already been provided for you. It's the same explanation about why your video shows scientists saying things that are not reflected in anything they write, and why you cannot find these scientists saying the things you claim anywhere but on your video.
People do not decide to become practicing scientists in fields they believe are bunk. They especially don't write papers that conflict with their personally held beliefs. Atheists don't become priests, and Creationists don't become practicing paleontologists. There does not exist a large community of scientists issuing derogatory comments about their own science.
It is very common for religious people to seek a church with a message that speaks to them and resonates within them. Religious communities are receptive to revelatory forms of communication such as sermons and passages from the Bible. Contrivers of the alleged quotes of scientists are preying upon this susceptibility. Sometimes the quotes are fictional, other times they are accurate but out of context. Even arch anti-Creationist Stephen Jay Gould has been quoted by Creationists as being anti-evolution.
If I told you the Pope said, "Martin Luther was right," you'd be certain right away that something was fishy, not because you're Catholic, but simply because this is just something the leader of the Catholic church would never say. So even if you yourself are convinced evolution isn't scientific, why don't you think it's pretty fishy when someone claims Darwin didn't think it was scientific?
The mystery here isn't why so many supporters of evolution condemn it. The mystery is why you believe something so ridiculous.
--Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 08-20-2004 05:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by DarkStar, posted 08-19-2004 10:13 PM DarkStar has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 124 of 173 (135768)
08-20-2004 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Maxwell's Demon
08-20-2004 1:51 PM


Re: While your waiting.....
I'll tell you... Not one.
Do you suppose that maybe, when the Project Steve list came out, they cross-referenced and purged their own list?
It'd be funny to try and find matches between "anti-evolution" lists and the Project Steve list.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 08-20-2004 1:51 PM Maxwell's Demon has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 125 of 173 (135792)
08-20-2004 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by DarkStar
08-20-2004 1:02 AM


Re: While your waiting.....
Before trying to change the point of discussion, don't you think we still need to resolve the fact or your first assertion?
Shouldn't you retract all of your statements based on your first quote since you can not support it?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by DarkStar, posted 08-20-2004 1:02 AM DarkStar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2004 8:47 PM jar has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 126 of 173 (135797)
08-20-2004 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by jar
08-20-2004 8:34 PM


Re: While your waiting.....
Shouldn't you retract all of your statements based on your first quote since you can not support it?
I think his half-assed retraction is about all we're likely to get out of him.
Let him move on to his second quote, if he likes. We can tear that one apart, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 08-20-2004 8:34 PM jar has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 127 of 173 (135813)
08-20-2004 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by DarkStar
08-20-2004 1:02 AM


Re: While your waiting.....
Re: A short list of the numerous scientists who doubt Darwinism.
The statement they agreed to:
"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Far from a strong statement saying "the theory of evolution is wrong".
I suspect the list is strongly made up of theistic evolutionists/IDers who are aquainted with the biology, along with perhaps some that are so far out of the biology field they don't know what they're talking about.
For the first sentence - Perhaps it should be read as "I am skeptical of claims for the ability of just random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." Some scientific skepticism about anything and everything is not a bad thing.
The second sentence - I think even the hard core evo side will agree with that.
The most prominent name is, or course, that of Michael Behe. As pointed out in Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God, Behe accepts the vast bulk of the theory of evolution, including the decents of man and the great apes from a common ancestor.
-----
In case you and others didn't figure out on your own - Re: The "Society for the Advancement of Real Science" Denounces Intelligent Design.
Please note: This press release by the Society for the Advancement of Real Science is a parody. No such organization exists. Unfortunately, because reality is nearly as extreme as this parody, many readers initially think that this "press release" is genuine. Hence this disclaimer. (http://www.designinference.com/}
Moose
This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 08-20-2004 08:25 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by DarkStar, posted 08-20-2004 1:02 AM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by NosyNed, posted 08-20-2004 9:52 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 129 by DarkStar, posted 08-20-2004 10:07 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 128 of 173 (135821)
08-20-2004 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Minnemooseus
08-20-2004 9:21 PM


You told !!
In case you and others didn't figure out on your own
I was leaving that to see if he knew. You know I think he didn't . It seems possible to me. I wish you hadn't told.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-20-2004 9:21 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 173 (135827)
08-20-2004 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Minnemooseus
08-20-2004 9:21 PM


Re: While your waiting.....
Aww, that was too easy. Actually, I am a bit surprised, (only a little bit), that the first post in response did not reveal this. Considering the huge capacity of search engines, this should have been one of the first things that was noticed, assuming the name of the bogus organization was not a dead giveaway. If not that, the very first paragraph should have thrown red flags up for everyone. Ned got it right away too! Kudos to minnemooseus and nosyned for recognizing a farce immediately. Good job guys!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-20-2004 9:21 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 173 (135831)
08-20-2004 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Percy
08-20-2004 9:47 AM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
I don't really claim that honest scientists supported what were obvious frauds, only that many laypeople and some disingenuous scientists were very quick to jump on any bandwagon that seemed to support the myth of macroevolution.
However, the peppered moth was an obvious attempt at deception. There is absolutely no question about that, and as for lucy.....
One must be careful not to claim this is necessarily the end of the 1470 saga more developments may yet occur, but we can only go on the state of knowledge at any given time. Twenty-five years ago, it appeared that 1470 fitted the evolutionary scenario reasonably well. In 1999, it looks increasingly like a larger-brained gracile australopithecine. There is precious little evidence to show otherwise. For the present it should be quietly packed away and added to the long list of abandoned or downgraded hominid specimens, which once adorned our natural history textbooks.
http://www.trueorigin.org/skull1470.asp
What Did Johanson Really Find?
As far as we can tell, the bones that Johanson actually found indicate that Australopithecus afarensis is an extinct ape. It is the bones that he didn’t find (feet bones and an undistorted pelvis) that have human characteristics.
Furthermore, by his own reckoning, he found bones that span more than one million years with very little variation in them. He found positive evidence that Australopithecus afarensis shows virtually no sign of evolution in a million years.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i5f.htm
I accept the fact that the evidence clearly shows that lucy is nothing more than an extinct species of ape, nothing more. Perhaps in the future, with future finds, my opinion will change, but for now lucy is just another extinct ape and that is all.
I will however, agree with you about what christians believe when it comes to the various stories in the bible. The bible is full of stories that violate natural laws, but I guess if you are going to believe in a god that made those natural laws then it is no stretch to believe that this same god can control and manipulate those laws as he wills. I would gather that he can do whatever the hell he feels like doing with the laws that he made, I mean, after all, he is god, right? Who is going to argue with him?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 08-20-2004 9:47 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by CK, posted 08-21-2004 5:49 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 133 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-21-2004 10:59 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 134 by Percy, posted 08-21-2004 11:06 AM DarkStar has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 131 of 173 (135847)
08-20-2004 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Nasa
08-10-2004 12:27 AM


quote:
Religion: A person's out look, as a whole upon life!
No, religion has multiple definitions, and all are generally more specific than that.
From the OED:
(Rare or obsolete definitions omitted)
1. a. A state of life bound by monastic vows; the condition of one who is a member of a religious order, esp. in the Roman Catholic Church.
2. a. A particular monastic or religious order or rule; a religious house. Now rare.
4. a. A particular system of faith and worship.
c. religion of nature: the worship of Nature in place of a more formal system of religious belief.
5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life.
You were talking about this last entry, yes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Nasa, posted 08-10-2004 12:27 AM Nasa has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 132 of 173 (135896)
08-21-2004 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by DarkStar
08-20-2004 10:38 PM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
Darkstar - when you've got nothing left none of the following impress people much 1)A quick ramble about the god of the gaps 2) it was all a joke!
Your performance here seems to indicate that the only joke is your understanding of this area.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by DarkStar, posted 08-20-2004 10:38 PM DarkStar has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 133 of 173 (135911)
08-21-2004 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by DarkStar
08-20-2004 10:38 PM


One good transitional deserves another.....
First let me say it would be appropriate to get your "anti-Lucy" evidence from peer-reviewed scientific sources rather than simply quoting creationist websites - the latter leave me unimpressed.
I would gather that he can do whatever the hell he feels like doing with the laws that he made, I mean, after all, he is god, right? Who is going to argue with him?
He can do anything? Even create species via macroevolution?
Then who are you to argue with Him?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by DarkStar, posted 08-20-2004 10:38 PM DarkStar has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 134 of 173 (135912)
08-21-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by DarkStar
08-20-2004 10:38 PM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
Hi DarkStar,
Did you miss Message 123?
I don't really claim that honest scientists supported what were obvious frauds, only that many laypeople and some disingenuous scientists were very quick to jump on any bandwagon that seemed to support the myth of macroevolution.
Your main assertion in this thread is that even scientists don't accept macroevolution, and that they actually say so. So far you haven't been able to substantiate a single quote, or even attempted to explain why scientists toil for years in specialties they think are bogus, or even why quotes, mere "sound bites" most of them, should serve as a substitute for a scientist's body of technical work as an indicator of their views. Loudmouth encouraged you to propose a quote whose original context was available, Adminnemooseus encouraged you to take Loudmouth up on this, and you ignored both.
In a true debate, both sides are expected to maintain their positions. Even if one side draws a clearly weak position to defend, it must martial and manage its resources as best it can. But there is no requirement here that you maintain your position. That you've been reduced to endlessly repeating assertions you've been unable to support and cut-n-pasting from Creationist websites as you bounce from one supposed fraud to another tells everyone that, to use a war analogy, you've been out of ammo for quite some time and have been reduced to throwing rocks from your foxhole.
I think you should adopt a position that makes sense. Or at least offer a rationale for your position so we can talk about it, instead of ignoring the posts asking about your rationale. If you're not willing to do that, at least stay on topic by finding a quote of a scientist saying that macroevolution is a myth, because macroevolution as a myth is not the topic of this thread, yet you repeat it at every opportunity.
Here's an example, to stick with the war analogy, of you throwing rocks at tanks:
Percy writes:
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.
DarkStar writes:
However, the peppered moth was an obvious attempt at deception.
You're not responding to my argument, you're just repeating your original assertion. From the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration.
Moving on...
and as for lucy.....
One must be careful not to claim this is necessarily the end of the 1470 saga...
What does skull 1470 have to do with Lucy?
What Did Johanson Really Find?
As far as we can tell, the bones that Johanson actually found indicate that Australopithecus afarensis is an extinct ape. It is the bones that he didn’t find (feet bones and an undistorted pelvis) that have human characteristics.
Furthermore, by his own reckoning, he found bones that span more than one million years with very little variation in them. He found positive evidence that Australopithecus afarensis shows virtually no sign of evolution in a million years.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i5f.htm
You can classify Australopithicus afarensis as an ape if you prefer, but it still has characteristics unique to humans and not to apes, such as bipedality and upright stance. The significance of Lucy isn't what you call her, but the characteristics she shares with us and not with apes. You've already been provided photographs of skeletons, and here's a couple more images. This one compares a reconstruction of Lucy to a modern female. The original Lucy skeleton is on the the left, the reconstruction is in the middle, and a modern human female skeleton is on the right:
Here's a drawing comparing Lucy from the pelvis down with a chimpanzee:
You don't have to accept that Lucy is a human predecessor, but the similarities and differences from Homo sapiens and chimpanzee are undeniable. This is the definition of an intermediate.
I will however, agree with you about what christians believe when it comes to the various stories in the bible. The bible is full of stories that violate natural laws, but I guess if you are going to believe in a god that made those natural laws then it is no stretch to believe that this same god can control and manipulate those laws as he wills. I would gather that he can do whatever the hell he feels like doing with the laws that he made, I mean, after all, he is god, right? Who is going to argue with him?
I agree with you. But when a person operates in this way he is practicing religion, not science. Creationists somehow think they can practice religion and call it science.
--Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 08-21-2004 10:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by DarkStar, posted 08-20-2004 10:38 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by DarkStar, posted 08-23-2004 12:24 AM Percy has replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 173 (136205)
08-23-2004 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Percy
08-21-2004 11:06 AM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
percy writes:
Did you miss Re: Last warning! (Message 123)?
No, did you miss the original intent of this thread? If so, let me remind you and anyone else who has either forgotten or was unaware.
In my very first post, http://EvC Forum: DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1 I stated
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.
The first quote posted,
"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
, was supposedly contained in a letter from Darwin to Gray. It was my initial contention that Darwin was referring to his own theory, a point I have been unable to confirm, even from the talkorigins site, due to the letter never being presented in full.
Your initial contention, stated as follows:
percy writes:
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.
was that Darwin was not referring to his own theory, something you have been unable to confirm due to the exact same problem that I was faced with, the inability to locate the full text of the letter in question. Until the letter is produced in full, neither of our contentions can be fully supported.
percy writes:
Your main assertion in this thread is that even scientists don't accept macroevolution, and that they actually say so.
No, actually my assertion in this thread is not an assertion at all, but rather it is a quest to find and understand the truth to the question"Why do so many scientists supporting the theory of evolution make so many seemingly condemnatory statements regarding Darwinian evolutionary theory?"
Statements such as this small sampling,
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anythingor at least they are not science."
George G. Simpson
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."
Michael Denton
As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?Charles Darwin
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."P. Lemoine
"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it.
During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity.....
Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."G. Salet
"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."Steven Jay Gould
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."Dr. Fleischman
The evolutionary establishment fears creation science, because evolution itself crumbles when challenged by evidence. In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of public debates were arranged between evolutionary scientists and creation scientists. The latter scored resounding victories, with the result that, today, few evolutionists will debate. Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and the late Carl Sagan, while highly critical of creationism, all declined to debate.James Perloff
I doubt if there is any single individual within the scientific community who could cope with the full range of [creationist] arguments without the help of an army of consultants in special fields.David M. Raup
No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution.Tom Bethell
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."Austin Clark
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."W.R. Thompson
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."H. Lipson
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."D.B. Gower
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."Colin Patterson
"What is it based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseenbelief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."Arthur N. Field
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.'"Errol White
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."Pierre-Paul de Grasse
This is but a very small sampling of the thousands of quotes from which we could choose. Are they all taken out of context, giving the reader a false understanding of what was actually said? Are they mere fabrications, designed to confuse and give misdirection to the reader? Are creationists waging a smear campaign that makes politicians seem docile? Or do the men and women who utter these words mean exactly what they say?
The purpose of this thread is to investigate these things in an honest and open-minded manner. As I stated in my initial post,
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 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?
percy writes:
Here's an example, to stick with the war analogy, of you throwing rocks at tanks:
Percy writes:
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.
DarkStar writes:
However, the peppered moth was an obvious attempt at deception.
percy writes:
You're not responding to my argument, you're just repeating your original assertion.
I take it by that statement that you deny that there was any attempt at deception. Perhaps you could then explain to me why individuals would take staged photos of said moths, dead ones at that, attached to tree trunks knowing full well that said moths did not normally rest on tree trunks. Maybe where you come from that would be considered a "flaw" but in my necks of the woods this is known as a blantant attempt to mislead an audience, hence the fraud claim. The obvious intended inference was unquestionably an attempt at fraud, in my opinion. Would you now ask me to back up this statement. What then? Shall I attempt to interview the individuals involved and ask them if they intended to deceive anyone by their staged photos? How sure can you be that there was no attempt at deception?
percy writes:
You can classify Australopithicus afarensis as an ape if you prefer, but it still has characteristics unique to humans and not to apes, such as bipedality and upright stance.
I am not convinced by your argument here. Far too little of the lower half of lucy was available, and some parts were in such a condition that proper reconstruction was impossible absent preconceived ideas and assumptions of what it should look like if it were normal and whole. It is merely guesswork, supported by a presupposition of what lucy's hip, in an undamaged state, and her feet would actually look like. Something like this may be able to convince you but I am a bit more skeptical when it comes to serious reconstruction and missing key pieces of the puzzle, such as lucy's feet. So, after reading numerous opinions on the matter, and examining the available evidence, I arrived at what I view is the only logical conclusion. Lucy was nothing more than an extinct species of ape and did not walk upright but was a knuckle walker just like modern apes. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
And in conclusion you offered:
DarkStar writes:
I will however, agree with you about what christians believe when it comes to the various stories in the bible. The bible is full of stories that violate natural laws, but I guess if you are going to believe in a god that made those natural laws then it is no stretch to believe that this same god can control and manipulate those laws as he wills. I would gather that he can do whatever the hell he feels like doing with the laws that he made, I mean, after all, he is god, right? Who is going to argue with him?
percy writes:
I agree with you. But when a person operates in this way he is practicing religion, not science. Creationists somehow think they can practice religion and call it science.
Now this is where I find the macroevolutionists argument most disingenuous. For me, as a microevolutionist, the study must begin at that instant when non-life became life. How did life get here? Was it through abiogenesis? Was it from unknown microbes traveling through the vastness of space until becoming trapped by earth's gravitational force? If so, how did these microbes survive the plunge through our atmosphere? Or, did some as yet unknown entity somehow create life specifically for this planet? Was there a plan? Was there a purpose? These are questions that I can not answer, not for the creationists, not for the macroevolutionist, but only for myself as I continue on this adventure in pursuit of knowledge and truth. I do know this much however, macroevolution can not answer these questions for me because it can not start at the beginning.
For the creationist, the beginning of their theory is at the beginning, before there was life, and then explaining how life appeared. The creationist acknowledges that several aspects of their belief system necessitates a violation of known natural laws. They are comfortable with the supernatural content of their beliefs and I give them credit for that.
To the macroevolutionist, this theory of creation, which necessitates a god of some sort, is nonsense. However, the macroevolutionists realize that their explanation of how life arrived in the first place is also nonsense, and it too violates known natural laws. Macroevolutionists are not comfortable with any acknowledgement of the supernatural and this is why those who support macroevolution must avoid beginning at the beginning, knowing that life somehow springing from non-life through purely natural means is an absolute absurdity, and thereby choose instead to acknowledge that their theory does not deal with how life appeared, but only what happened afterward.
That too may be fine for you but, for me, if one can not start at the very beginning, then their position is already too weak for me to give it much credence. In order for me to ever accept macroevolution, I would have to study it from the very beginning, at that precise moment when non-life became life and then moved on through the span of time until finally arriving at the present day. Macroevolution does not begin early enough for me and can not offer that to me, and that is just another reason why I am convinced macroevolution is nothing more than a myth that is as ancient as is man himself.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Percy, posted 08-21-2004 11:06 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by edge, posted 08-23-2004 1:21 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 137 by jar, posted 08-23-2004 1:25 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 138 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 08-23-2004 5:37 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 139 by crashfrog, posted 08-23-2004 10:35 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 140 by Percy, posted 08-23-2004 10:49 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 08-23-2004 6:57 PM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 143 by DBlevins, posted 08-24-2004 1:07 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 144 by Loudmouth, posted 08-24-2004 1:15 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 08-28-2004 8:50 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 170 by Percy, posted 08-31-2004 1:50 PM DarkStar has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024