Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-26-2019 9:15 AM
29 online now:
CosmicChimp, JonF, Meddle, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,048 Year: 7,084/19,786 Month: 1,625/1,581 Week: 4/443 Day: 4/34 Hour: 1/2

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils and quote mining
Member (Idle past 2003 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 80 of 210 (525049)
09-21-2009 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Arphy
09-21-2009 7:45 AM

Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
Genetic drift is a good way to drive devolution by eliminating genes by chance—even beneficial mutations. Most mutations have small effects and the rare beneficial ones will mostly give a small selective advantage.

completely the opposite of what most YEC's will say, which is that ALL mutations are harmful. Handy that it still "disproves" evolution.

Now the rest of what you quote seems...off.

I'm going to make a prediction - after I finish writing what i write next, I will see if "Haldane's Dilemma" is Yet Another Falsified Creationist Quote Mine - I bet any money that this "issue" has been dealt with and you're STILL just regurgitating the same canards over and over.

It talks about a single mutation, but doesn't specify how large, or how big an effect it has - a single mutation from white to black moths is a really trivial change, but proved massively influential. that's one issue.

Another one is that you never get just ONE mutation. You get many - 4, 5? 50? All happening at once.

It sounds to me as if there's more than enough room to maneuver giving that we do NOT see massive mutations happening all the time.

Evolution is sslllooowwwww - I thought you knew this?

And I'd be surprised if this doesn't come up - evolution did NOT go from "ape" to "man". It went from "ape like" to "ape like" and "ape like" to "ape like".

That is to say that humans are STILL apes, and modern apes and man have A COMMON ANCESTOR, the one did NOT evolve from the other!

Get with the program.

now, for the grand finale...let me see if I can find a refutation of Haldane's Dilemma, proving that it's a quote mine

(covers the following link, and that it's been refuted)

(covers exactly wHY it's been refuted...amusingly enough it contains everything I mentioned)

How anti-climactic

Arphy, that's another failed quote mine.

Edited by greyseal, : added clarification of the links.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 7:45 AM Arphy has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2003 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 81 of 210 (525051)
09-21-2009 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Peepul
09-21-2009 11:10 AM

Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
Scientists are (mostly) not trying to prove evolution is true. That game is over. The evidence is in.

I don't think Arphy's thick, but he doesn't get the point.

Scientists are not arguing over whether Archy evolved, but how and when.

Ferocious arguments on the lineage of birds notwithstanding, they're all in agreement that there was one, and that they came from (and still are) dinosaurs.

Arguments over classification notwithstanding, Archy was both a dinosaur AND a bird.

Failure to understand that dichotomy doesn't make it not true.

Arphy, I thought you were smarter than that

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Peepul, posted 09-21-2009 11:10 AM Peepul has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2003 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 97 of 210 (525185)
09-22-2009 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Arphy
09-21-2009 9:28 PM

Re: To my numerous opponents
I really wish you'd split off the subtitle, but let's take a look...

arphy writes:

completely the opposite of what most YEC's will say, which is that ALL mutations are harmful
Read it again, it says "Genetic drift is a good way to drive devolution". The term devolution is used to show that creationists see evolution working in the opposite way that evolutionism does. A mutation can be both degenerative to the genome and beneficial.

I don't see the problem with my statement - I was commenting on the fact that it says, basically "positive mutations can occur" - you're right though, it still says all mutations are harmful, just in a roundabout, double-negative way. very disengenuous, and pretending it's science won't help - "devolution" is a made-up word without foundation.

To continue, you apparently totally disregarded the refutation of the Dilemma that you yourself brought up from the quote mines of creation.com, because you continued

Another one is that you never get just ONE mutation. You get many - 4, 5? 50? All happening at once.
Yip, and this makes the dilemma even worse.

why would it make it worse? It only makes it worse IF "all mutations are harmful" and you're a hell of a long way from proving anything of the sort. Examples have been given of positive mutations (sickle-cell under some conditions, moth colouration and far, far more) so that part is bunk.

Stick to proving one point Arphy - stick to either "evolution can't have the desired effect even in the timeframe from evolutionists" OR "devolution is bad, mmmkay?", because you carried on again:

Evolution is sslllooowwwww - I thought you knew this?
Hmm... again this makes the dilemma even worse still. Hence why evolutionism came up with puncuated equalibrium. To support this i will again put up the link to http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end the point is that the more time you add, or the longer you strech out the process the worse it becomes.

which basically says "all mutations are harmful" and I feel confident in saying that that page is dreck from top to bottom, full of outdated information, misquotes, mistakes and outright lies.

It is entirely science-free and really does little to bolster the opinion you would apparently like others to have of you of somebody who honestly looks at both sides of the issue. Every single one of those issues has been dealt with in at least one place, and that's "talk origins".

"punctuated equilibrium" is another canard - it's always trotted out by creationists who would like everyone to believe that it means evolution is impossible because apparently "everything evolved at once".

Just go to talk.origins and search for the term, you'll find out why your view of it is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 9:28 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 8:09 PM greyseal has responded

Member (Idle past 2003 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 103 of 210 (525195)
09-22-2009 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Arphy
09-22-2009 7:47 AM

Re: To my numerous opponents
Everything is always devolving. As my article clearly explains http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end. Our genomes are in a constant state of decay.

I'll tell you what, but that sounds like a creationist quote if ever I heard one.


Because it sounds like this, but dressed up to appear scientific to the ignorant layman:

in the beginning, god made everything perfect. Since the fall, sin and corruption have been in the world and things are only (ever) going to get worse.

And I'm quoting myself - I'm not a creationist but I can play one on the internet.

that people get old and die is not evidence of a genome in decay - that would mean people couldn't have babies, and would be stupider now, and more full of things like cancer and deformities, than they were 6000 years ago.

Our genomes would have obviously decayed by now when compared with ancient DNA samples. The DNA of all animals AND plants would be seen to be "devolving" and decaying - especially when compared with old samples from thousands of years ago.

I can confidently say that is not occuring. "biblical facts" of Adam living to 900 and so on notwithstanding, that's patently, obviously false.

Your (non) scientific theory is proved false by practical observation.

Peer review, in other words.

would you like to try again?

(PS, if that page is actually yours then wow, you're in-famous! but sorry, you don't get credibility for writing words on a web-page)

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 7:47 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 8:13 PM greyseal has responded

Member (Idle past 2003 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 118 of 210 (525366)
09-23-2009 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Arphy
09-22-2009 8:13 PM

Re: To my numerous opponents
would be stupider now, and more full of things like cancer and deformities, than they were 6000 years ago.

and you are saying they aren't? Where is your evidence for this?

I think you misunderstand what a hypotheses is.

You are saying "humans are stupider and more full of cancer and deformities than they were (in the past)" - yes? (at least, you are telling me "why do you say they are not" which indicates assent).

Now, why do you believe that your idea should be the de-facto position?

I think the established position is that humans now haven't changed in some 30,000 years or so - we have bones of humans throughout the ages, pictures, stories, works of art, tools, houses - these indicate that by and large humans are more or less the same shape as they were a long way into the past.

We know what people ate, what people did, how long people lived, what they wore and both can work out what they looked like as well as we have pictures and paintings of what they thought they looked like.

None of them show an increasing tendency to mutation and deformity, and unless you believe in atlantis and some distant golden age (what am I saying, of course you do) then the marvels of the modern age certainly do lend credence to an increase in understanding rather than a decrease in mental faculties.

I daresay genetic testing done would yield (if it already has not) a genetic code by and large identical to now (we are after all, the same species as people living 6000 years ago).

This is science, Arphy - now, provide your evidence that the established view is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 8:13 PM Arphy has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2003 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 119 of 210 (525371)
09-23-2009 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Arphy
09-22-2009 8:09 PM

Re: To my numerous opponents
"devolution" is a made-up word without foundation.
of course it is a made up word. We had to make up some word so that we can distinguish ourselves from what evolutionists think these mechanisms show.

the important words there, Arphy, were without and foundation.

Without a foundation for the word, it is just a made-up word used at best to lend credence to a viewpoint that is, as I have just pointed out, without foundation.

the rest of what you said is rendered pointless because of this lack - you state that the genome is "in a state of decay" but you have not established the proof of this statement.

One piece of correlation (and repeat after me, CAUSE IS NOT CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSE) is sickle-cell - but frankly it correlates nicely with the theory of evolution too. In the parts of the world where there is maleria, it provides a benefit pushing up it's prevalence. If you want to call it a point for both or neither sides, go ahead, but pick one.

The article you posted really is nothing more than an opinion piece - it is devoid of science. I'm not saying this to handwave it away, although I can see why you would think that.

"mutations destroy" - yes, we know...but they don't all and only do that

"mutation physics" - rubbish from top to bottom. I found the paper it refers to, but...the paper doesn't appear to agree with the assertions on the webpage.

"mutations rapidly destroy" - hangs entirely on proving that all mutations are harmful

"All multicellular life suffers" is entirely opinion based on unproved math and base assertion

"How long to extinction?" is exactly the same - based on bad, unproved math and equating damage from aging to mutation. It is wrong from beginning to end for this reason.

"Reproductive cells" talks about the reduction in viable sperm-count and female fertility...in concert with aging. and? so?

"Do germ-line cells really suffer less damage?" is from a paper that talks about different problems entirely and I don't believe the conclusion in your paper is warranted - it's a supposition only.

"Haldane’s dilemma" is a false dilemma. Haldane himself said his work was suspect.

"Quantitative estimates of time to extinction" - Case closed. It's wrong, bad, inappropriate and bullshit math. Taking that sort of approach, you get nowhere - where do you start your "population size" and why? as has been shown to you, Noah's kids would have died out already about 2000 years ago.

The paper is crap. Worthless. Not worth the bits it's printed with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 8:09 PM Arphy has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2003 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 128 of 210 (525649)
09-24-2009 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Arphy
09-24-2009 4:07 AM

Re: To my numerous opponents
arphy writes:

When we see things like fossils in the ground one could come up with a nearly infinite number of reasons as to how they got there

many "reasons" snipped

No, that is wrong - you don't FIRST come up with reasons. FIRST you get "the evidence". You may have a supposition, you may have a "gut feeling" but you don't ignore evidence that doesn't fit, you don't twist facts to bolster your position and most of all, you admit when you're wrong.

Failure is often much more important than success, it's a definitive proof that you are wrong. Merely being right doesn't tell mean you got it all in one go.

What we do find reasonable is to believe a book that claims to give an eyewitness account of the history of the world.

well, no - you take it as possible "evidence", you do NOT assume it is authentic knowledge without various checks and balances (do we know the author really was there, is there corroborative evidence, do other, independant authors and histories say the same things? and so on)

Now that we have our presuppositions that we find reasonable we can now interpret the evidence in the light of these worldviews.


(humour aside, you really, honestly have it WRONG).

So now we must look at the evidence. Is some of the evidence in contradiction?

much better! I may just come to the conclusion you've been listening to the rest of the cla-

We may try to explain these away at first, however eventually we may find that if there are too many contradictions, that become too difficult to explain away, so that we find it unreasonable to continue to hold the worldview that we have. At that point we should discard our worldview and rethink and then choose a worldview/presupposition that does seem reasonable.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Arphy, posted 09-24-2009 4:07 AM Arphy has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2003 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 144 of 210 (525887)
09-25-2009 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Arphy
09-24-2009 8:20 AM

two small things, arphy
Our genome is degenerating and this is a physical process.

remains unproven, I don't see any evidence. I don't think you or anyone else has any.

The evolutionary model is woven around the animals and fossils we see. Would evolution have had the same model before transitional fossils were found?

yes, Darwin predicted they'd be found before they were.

e.g. was the dino to bird link announced before finding "transitional forms" or after?

Archaeopteryx, I believe, was found 2 years AFTER his book was published - I'm not sure what they thought about dinosaurs and birds before this find.

I do know that the image of dinosaurs changed from big, ponderous slow beasts to quick, intelligent creatures as our knowledge improved.

I don't think that's a problem that the viewpoint changed - it doesn't change the evidence and it doesn't change the facts. It does change the supposition (and that, dear friends, is why you don't put the supposition before the facts).

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Arphy, posted 09-24-2009 8:20 AM Arphy has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2003 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 164 of 210 (530821)
10-15-2009 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Arphy
10-13-2009 6:13 AM

hi again arphy!
Rehi, nice to see you back (and with a vengeance - that's quite a long post!).

I now have the complete transcript and audio of Collin Patterson's lecture from which i quoted from.

Was that the one I provided a link to, that's been used IMO as a quote mine regarding his views? It was to the systematics group?

If so, I read it, and yes, I do think that the use it's being put to by creationists qualifies as "quote mine". When I read the document, it was very clearly not about evolution itself and his other letters are specifically saying that his views are sorely misrepresented by creationists.

What you talk about in the next paragraph in your post sounds very apt (it was what his talk was about), but you're confusing the issue - maybe intentionally, maybe not. For example you talk about teeth - "some fossil birds had teeth" you say...but yes, the fossil record says that birds evolved from reptiles, and we all know those reptiles had teeth. It makes sense that fossil birds (being "transitional" in some cases and features) could have teeth.

You're taking it as if it's a jumble that can be untangled any which way you choose (for example to "prove" that birds evolved from mammals because both are warm-blooded) - but it can't. You need to look at external facts like dating methods and geology to place the fossils into the right geologic timeframe, and here the morphology of the fossils gives you clear families that are - and are not - directly related. Of course, if you want to claim that because there's no DNA that we cannot know anything for certain because we weren't there, then that's just last thursday-ism and is unassailable and undefendable and pointless to debate.

Also another thought on feduccia on birds, while i recognise that feduccia thinks that Archaeopteryx has some morphological features so that it can be placed into a reptile-bird lineage (note again depending on which features are highlighted different evolutionary paths are theorised), it is such that it is clearly a bird and in classification should not be placed under reptiles.

with my greater understanding not only of Feduccia, but the ToE and Archaeopteryx, I fail to see why this paragraph is for or against the ToE. That is, essentially, what Feduccia is arguing - that whilst it is clearly transitional (claws, long bony tail, teeth are NOT bird-like), it should not be classed as "dinosaur" but as "bird".

That still, honestly, does NOT make it not transitional, and it definitely does not disprove evolution.

that's why your quotes were "quote mines" - because they sorely misrepresented Feduccia's opinion and position (as did your Patterson quotes).

Arphy, quoting Patterson writes:

So maybe what evolved into what is not so clear cut. If the details are not clear cut why should the big picture (everything evolved from a common ancestor) be so obvious?

Because, if you'd properly understood what they were talking about, there are choices how the data is arranged - but it doesn't falsify the data and it doesn't change the overall big picture.

It doesn't get any better throughout his talk. Shall i go on?

his talk, as I have said before, was not about the truth or reality of evolution, but specifically about systematics, and specifically WHY there is confusion. Would you expect him to say there is no confusion when the fact that there IS is exactly what his talk is about?

But confusion does not equal falsification - the confusion is details and disagreements between equal amounts of truths that all still do not have anything to do with disproving evolution.

Perdition: I haven't seen any definitions that say that parsimonious means invoking the least number of external agents. Most of them say things like the least complex, or "economy of explanation in conformity with Occam's razor" from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parsimony.

...you do understand that "least parsimonious", "least complex" and "economy of explanation in conformity with Occam's razor" and so on are functionally equivalent, right? And that invoking the least amount of external agents fits right in with that?

Your assumptions you talk about are issues that each demand their own thread, suffice to say here that I think it obvious that radiometric dating, geology, morphology, paleontology and evolution all reinforce each other spectacularly, and ignorance (especially deliberate) of the facts behind each of these distinct fields is not an excuse and even less of a reason for doubt.

Your last assumption is your own and remains without merit and void. sorry to be so blunt

Magda's genetics quote and Patterson's quote are not related. Honestly. I'm pretty sure you won't believe me, so I'll not argue it further in this thread (it needs its own).

Linnaus' taxonomy, special creation and evolution are not at odds unless you wish to ignore the evidence. Abiogenesis and special creation are, but neither so far have proof. Different thread. Your willingness to believe that "kinds" are a well-developed system of classification is proven (even with a cursory glance through this one, single webpage) false. So far every single person to talk about "kinds" and syngameons, baramins and whatever else fanciful words you want to use cannot agree where the limits and divisions are to even the smallest degree.

And excuse me?

The point is that a kind can not be pinned down to any man-made classification.

I...uh...what? kind IS a man-made classification. If you can't use it because it "can't be pinned down", STOP USING IT.

When talking about fossil ancestors to tetrapods (fishapods! love that word) and living "lobe finned fish" that resemble them...I don't get why you don't understand that they aren't necessarily identical (infact, most likely they are NOT) - it makes sense that if this branch of the family didn't move onto land, that they'd be better swimmers than those that did...

Lastly, when Bluejay said that he'd have to adjust his thinking on the speed of mutations, it's because of the wealth of proof positive that mutations have and do occur

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Arphy, posted 10-13-2009 6:13 AM Arphy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 10-15-2009 5:54 AM greyseal has responded

Member (Idle past 2003 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 166 of 210 (530896)
10-15-2009 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Percy
10-15-2009 5:54 AM

Re: hi again arphy!
Thanks for the link, Percy.

Here's a link to an update of that infamous speech.


Basically, the many transcripts floating around are often incorrect and, most importantly, were created by and for creationists.

As such, unauthorized at the very least, they should be held suspect.

Secondly, Patterson himself is upset at how his speech had been portrayed (quite rightly, you point out that at first glance the transcript you have seems to have him spouting off anti-evolution nonsense).

The thing is - and I *did* read it the whole way through - I believe he really isn't talking about the reality or truth of evolution or creation, but how you should treat the data to get at what is "true".

He is presenting the issue - which is a contentious one, echoed in his deliberately contentious speech - as a question of how we know the patterns that we see are "real" or "true".

I think it really was a speech designed for systematics specialists and was designed to cause a reaction.

I believe what has happened has been that every crank and creationist has taken what they perceive at face value and presented it as something that the speaker himself denies he meant.

Whether he was lying in his response or whether he really was harbouring "anti-evolutionist" theories is something that each side of this argument can vehemently disagree on...

I happen to believe what I perceive is the simplest answer that he was telling the truth in later letters specifically about a speech that was taped and transcribed without his knowledge or authorization. As such, I think that whilst he appears to be spouting anti-evolutionist gibberish, it is because he wasn't expecting to be taken out of the (admittedly complex) context he was speaking in and to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 10-15-2009 5:54 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Percy, posted 10-15-2009 5:06 PM greyseal has responded
 Message 169 by Arphy, posted 10-16-2009 2:00 AM greyseal has responded

Member (Idle past 2003 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 171 of 210 (531147)
10-16-2009 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Percy
10-15-2009 5:06 PM

read your link, and Patterson actually defends his most extreme view, expressed rhetorically as, "Is there anything you know about evolution that is true?" What an incredibly hostile question! Combined with his assertion that "Evolution shouldn't be taught in high school," I just don't think there's anything Patterson could say to dissuade me from believing that he has major problems with evolution

You're certainly welcome to your views and quite frankly I agree with you that what he said - both at first AND second glance - is very easy to read as hostile to evolution.

The issue I have with creationists quoting him is that he is apparently adamant in later letters specifically about that talk that this apparent view isn't what he meant and specifically that he was taken out of context.

Unfortunately he's dead, so further elaboration is impossible, and we're left with quite a question - was he a rabid anti-evolutionist and just caught out agreeing with the creationists or was he a staunch evolutionist who was caught out being provocative?

You either assume he's lying later on when he recants the creationist views or that he was stupid, deliberately provocative, or both.

Either way, he's not such a good source for creationists to count as gospel - and obviously not such a good source to count for evolutionists either. I'd prefer he was left out of the discussion - the only reason he gets brought up is because certain creaionists (yes, I'm looking at you Arphy) have a blind spot when it comes to dissenting viewpoints from the man himself about his own words (cryptic and inflamatory as they were!).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Percy, posted 10-15-2009 5:06 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Member (Idle past 2003 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 172 of 210 (531149)
10-16-2009 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Arphy
10-16-2009 2:00 AM

Re: hi again arphy! (last words from me on Patterson)
Hi Arphy.

I don't mind the rant, though you should best be reading what I wrote to Percy too since it is pertinent and I won't repeat what is there, here verbatim.

One thing to note is that you (greyseal) seem intent on portraying patterson as a man who believes exactly the same things about evolution as you do.

well with respect, either the man agrees with the theory of evolution or he doesn't. I could change that paragraph and use words like "creation" and "creationism" and turn it back on yourself and be just as correct.

This is just not true.

Much as I could just drop the point, how do you know that? - and this (and the reply to Percy) will be my last word on my opinion.

Firstly, nobody knows if it was a creationist who taped the unauthorized version

judging by the title of the speech (given to him) and the fact it was unauthorized, it sounds plausible - but yes, hard to tell. His speech IS being touted on creationist websites, but that's hardly surprising given the content.

I believe what has happened has been that every crank and creationist has taken what they perceive at face value and presented it as something that the speaker himself denies he meant.

Rubbish, especially when you listen to the audio. In the discussion section it is especially noticeable that he had wound up some of the other evolutionists present. And what do you mean he might have been lying. You really think he did a whole speech full of lies that he did not believe in himself, just to wind up the other evolutionists present. Sorry, now your excuses are becoming a bit too incredible.

Well, that's the rub, isn't it? Patterson himself says:

Fired up by Mayr's paper, I gave a fairly radical talk in New York, comparing the effect of evolutionary theory on systematics with Gillespie's (1979, p. 8) characterization of pre-Darwinian creationism: 'not a research govering theory (since its power to explain was only verbal) but an antitheory, a void that had the function of knowledge but, as naturalists increasingly came to feel, conveyed none.' Unfortunately, and unknown to me, there was a creationist in my audience with a hidden tape recorder. A transcript of my talk was produced and circulated among creationists, and the talk has since been widely, and often inaccurately, quoted in creationist literature

So, to recapitulate:

* Patterson himself calls his speech "radical" - I believe from context he means it to be provocative and thought-provoking, argumentative.
* Patterson himself says there was a creationist who unknowingly to him had a tape recorder and produced the "unauthorized" version
* Patterson himself says that he is "inaccurately quoted"

So, my viewpoint comes specifically from the man himself. You may find Patterson's own explanation of his words trite, false, unlikely or, indeed, "incredible" - but they are his words. Not mine.

I merely think that an authorized quote from the man himself about the viewpoint in his OWN speech is more likely to be representative of his own views than a speech which the man himself calls "unauthorized" and "inaccurate".

Take it up with Patterson if you disagree with my opinion of Patterson's own personal viewpoint.

I haven't heard his later comments, I don't have the "missing pieces", and I admit entirely that my view is mutable by listening to Patterson himself talk.

As to the "lying" I am speaking of whether his adamant denial of being a creationist later on is truth of lie - and that is something highly debatable based on his own words in both the speech and the recapitulation.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Arphy, posted 10-16-2009 2:00 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Arphy, posted 10-16-2009 5:49 PM greyseal has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019