Jump to content


Photo

Proving A Negative


  • Please log in to reply
189 replies to this topic

#41 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 20 September 2016 - 01:34 PM

All the transitional fossils found have been found in the fossil records.   :think:

Do I smell a question begging fallacy combined with a tautological argument, while muddying the waters by inserting a prejudicial terminology?

 

 

Fact ALL Fossils that have been found were somewhere under ground. To call them transitional is based on the imagination of the observer. And they neither know whether the species of the fossil descended from earlier less advanced species nor if it was the ancestor to other more advanced species. It's merely extrapolative  innuendo that's being used here to insinuate that the origins part of ones cosmological model has got some basis in reality.

 

So no no "transitional fossil" has ever been found. What has been found are specimen that were imagined to be "transitional fossils".  


  • mike the wiz and Blitzking like this

#42 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 20 September 2016 - 11:52 PM

Do I smell a question begging fallacy combined with a tautological argument, while muddying the waters by inserting a prejudicial terminology?

 

 

Fact ALL Fossils that have been found were somewhere under ground. To call them transitional is based on the imagination of the observer. And they neither know whether the species of the fossil descended from earlier less advanced species nor if it was the ancestor to other more advanced species. It's merely extrapolative  innuendo that's being used here to insinuate that the origins part of ones cosmological model has got some basis in reality.

 

So no no "transitional fossil" has ever been found. What has been found are specimen that were imagined to be "transitional fossils".  

What he did, was make a joke. You didn't seem to get it.  ;)

 

---

 

Under evolution, one would expect transitionals.

Under evolution, we all are transitionals.

 

Therefor the argument that evolution is internally inconsistent based on the transition aspect fails completely.



#43 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 21 September 2016 - 12:28 AM

What he did, was make a joke. You didn't seem to get it.  ;)

 

---

 

Under evolution, one would expect transitionals.

Under evolution, we all are transitionals.

 

Therefor the argument that evolution is internally inconsistent based on the transition aspect fails completely.

in other words, your religion of chucky is completely tautological in nature..

 

 

By the way, one would expect BILLIONS of transitionals, But, alas, we find NONE..

I wonder why that is?  Don't worry, you don't have to answer, it was merely a rhetorical question.. :kaffeetrinker:



#44 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 21 September 2016 - 11:19 AM

in other words, your religion of chucky is completely tautological in nature..

This aspect is tautological in nature.

Since tautologies are always true, so is this aspect. 

 

By the way, one would expect BILLIONS of transitionals, But, alas, we find NONE..

I wonder why that is? 

Its because you do not seem to understand the concept of a tautology...



#45 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 21 September 2016 - 07:45 PM

tautology

 

 

[taw-tol-uh-jee] /tɔˈtɒl ə dʒi/
 
noun, plural tautologies.
1.
needless repetition of an idea, especially in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness, as in widow woman. .
2.
an instance of such repetition.
3.
Logic.
  1. a compound propositional form all of whose instances are true, as A or not A. .
  2. an instance of such a form, as This candidate will win or will not win. .
Origin of tautologyExpand
1570-1580
1570-80; < Late Latin tautologia < Greek tautología. See tauto-, -logy
Related forms Expand
tautological
 
[tawt-l-oj-i-kuh l] /ˌtɔt lˈɒdʒ ɪ kəl/ (Show IPA), tautologic, tautologous
 
[taw-tol-uh-guh s] /tɔˈtɒl ə gəs/ (Show IPA), adjective
tautologically, tautologously, adverb
tautologist, noun
nontautological, adjective
nontautologically, adverb
untautological, adjective
untautologically, adverb
 
Can be confused Expand
redundancy, tautology.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2016.
Cite This Source
Examples from the Web for tautologyExpand
Contemporary Examples
Historical Examples
 
British Dictionary definitions for tautologyExpand
tautology
/tɔːˈtɒlədʒɪ/
noun (pl) -gies
1.
the use of words that merely repeat elements of the meaning already conveyed, as in the sentence Will these supplies be adequate enough? in place of Will these supplies be adequate?
2.
(logic) a statement that is always true, esp a truth-functional expression that takes the value true for all combinations of values of its components, as in either the sun is out or the sun is not out Compare inconsistency (sense 3), contingency (sense 5)
Derived Forms
tautological (ˌtɔːtə ˈlɒdʒɪkə l), tautologic, tautologous, adjective
tautologically, tautologously, adverb
Word Origin
C16: from Late Latin tautologia, from Greek, from tautologos
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition
© William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012
Cite This Source
Word Origin and History for tautologyExpand
n.

1570s, from Late Latin tautologia "representation of the same thing," from Greek tautologia, from tautologos "repeating what has been said," from tauto "the same" + -logos "saying," related to legein "to say" (see lecture (n.)).

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source
tautology in TechnologyExpand
logic
A proposition which is always true.
Compare: paradox.

  • Schera Do likes this

#46 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 21 September 2016 - 11:32 PM

Quoting dictionaries etc doesn't make it seem you understand. You're misapplying the term. Its the application of something that shows understanding.

 

Its like a mentally dysfunctional person. To come across intelligent they often use "complicated" words in order to appear intelligent, but they're often wrongly applied, not in context or something like that. I'm certain there are institutes that can help you.

 

Calling something a tautology and then calling it wrong is contradictory.



#47 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 22 September 2016 - 09:40 PM

Quoting dictionaries etc doesn't make it seem you understand. You're misapplying the term. Its the application of something that shows understanding.

 

Its like a mentally dysfunctional person. To come across intelligent they often use "complicated" words in order to appear intelligent, but they're often wrongly applied, not in context or something like that. I'm certain there are institutes that can help you.

 

Calling something a tautology and then calling it wrong is contradictory.

 

OK, I will use the terms "Circular Reasoning" and "Self Fulfilling Prophecies" instead if it makes you feel better..

 

Either way you Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth is LOADED with them From top to Bottom!  Wake Up!! :gilligan:



#48 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 22 September 2016 - 11:41 PM

OK, I will use the terms "Circular Reasoning" and "Self Fulfilling Prophecies" instead if it makes you feel better..

 

Either way you Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth is LOADED with them From top to Bottom!  Wake Up!! 

The reality however is that evolution is following the evidence, rather then interpreting the evidence, ignoring some, to support a world-view.



#49 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 September 2016 - 02:41 AM

 

 

Fjuri: Calling something a tautology and then calling it wrong is contradictory.

 

Logicians tell us that tautologies can be useless. It takes cleverness to make one useful, which is rarer.

 

For example, if I told the police "the suspect was either male or female, I could not tell, it was dark", that is an example of a useless tautology, because under every scenario, the suspect will be male or female, which obviously does not help them to narrow their search by even 1%.

 

Strictly speaking, evolutionary scientists do seem to make a distinction between transitionals and intermediate transitionals. One is just an epithet name-tag, the latter is a genuinely good definition because it tells us something.

 

I can accept that it is a tautology, that any species we find will be classed as a transitional, no matter what the species is or amusingly, whether it really is one, but that makes your argument tenuous, not strong, because if macro evolution really is false, then you could still class every species as a transitional, because effectively this is name-tagging. Therefore you tacitly admit, that I can't falsify the notion that all life are transitionals, if they all count as transitional, for how could I show a lifeform that was not transitional?Attached File  baba smiley checkmate.jpg   2.47KB   0 downloads

 

But this doesn't address the question; "but where are the transitions that would have had to have existed, that led to bats becoming bats because they had to evolve wings from legs? Where are the intermediates for pre-bats? Pre-seahorses, pre-apes, pre-starfish, pre-giraffes, pre-spiders, pre-pine trees, pre-dugongs, pre-ichthyosaurs?"

 

Because the list is basically almost unending, from a rational-perspective, there is no reason to entertain the notion that evolution happened because there simply isn't any reality to the belief that it could all be hidden because the numbers are too vast. It would be like arguing that there is somehow an explanation for the fact that 1 billion dolphins are missing from Brighton beach despite the claim they had washed ashore. No matter what your conjectural excuse is, it is simply not rationally credulous to entertain those post-hoc excuses and ignore blatant logic.

 

The blatant logic, as logicians refer to it, is a; "conspicuous absence of evidence" for macro-evolution, which reasonably, and genuinely, is enough to reject macro-evolution. 

 

Macro evolution is a belief. I am sorry but that is what it is, nothing you have argued will change that logically it is demonstrable that the transitionals should show up and have not. Sure, you can argue a technicality that somehow they existed and didn't show but then I could also argue that technically, we don't know that apes or aliens, built the pyramids.

 

Fjuri, you are not giving us any logical reason to believe it. You can make statements that the evidence for evolution is there, and evolution follows the evidence but those are just statements. When we examine the facts, in fact macro-evolution is missing, and the tenuous, indirect evidence you rely on can be regarded as circumstantial and inconsequential, logically speaking.



#50 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 September 2016 - 02:53 AM

 

 

Fjuri: The reality however is that evolution is following the evidence, rather then interpreting the evidence, ignoring some, to support a world-view.

 

Ironically a lot of that "evidence" is tautologous. Don't believe me? Then answer this question; if you had a billions colourful balls, containing rainbow like shapes, could you arrange many of them to look like they transitioned? 

 

Question: In world with millions of species that all have similar needs, would we expect a proportion of them to look like they could have evolved and transitioned into other species? For example, would we also expect those that depend on carbon dioxide to be more similar to those that breathe in oxygen?

 

The answer is; "of course".

 

We don't, "ignore" evidence, we explain it without evolution and a lot of those explanations you are ignorant of if you are honest. A good place for you to start properly understanding creationist claims, is the book "The Greatest Hoax on earth" by Jonathan Sarfati. In that book Sarfati, an excellent logician and chemist, shows how a lot of the evidence we are accused of ignoring, can be explained away easily.

 

I actually laughed a lot when reading that book, because the so called "evidence" for evolution isn't bad....it's appalling. The hatchet-job for example, he does on the evolution of amphibians, is actually hilarious. This is your problem Fjuri, because you have a worldview you don't want to be wrong, you are not really willing to examine how good or bad the evolution, "evidence" is. It is not the evidence, for we all have the same evidence, it is actually the arguments FROM the evidence, which are, BAD arguments. In all honesty, some of the arguments from evolution can be refuted by children, if children were asked; "what would be wrong with concluding X?" They would tell you what was wrong, if they had it described to them in a way they could understand.

 

You're inexperienced, which is why you parrot the usual minsconceptions such as; "evolution is science" or, "the evidence is for evolution", etc...all of the statements you make are just learnt from what other evolutionists say because you have never questioned evolution, you just accept it by faith. I know that, because it's not hard to spot. I don't attack you because of it, I just wish you would make a better effort to understand WHY a lot of creationist arguments are actually stronger than the evolutionist arguments.

 

Believe it or not, many evolutionists would agree with me. Indeed, Sarfati goes in depth to show us those evolutionary-scientists that do agree with the weaknesses of evolution-theory. Actual evolutionary-scientists, aren't rhetorical-debaters, a lot of the time they only have scientific motives meaning they don't see it as problematic to admit to the weak areas of evolution, because they are only interested in what science can confirm so we can quote some pretty amazing honesty from them. But because those individual scientists accept criticism of evolution theory, doesn't mean the science establishment as a whole accepts that criticism, in the same way, just as all individual parts of a plane are none-flying, doesn't mean the plane as a whole cannot fly. So then, those scientists who are truly knowledgeable, aren't stupid enough to pretend evolution is not weak, where it is weak. It is only their job in their individual field, to study the facts, they don't get to decide what the chief priests will tell the public. Your knowledge level still only counts as, "what the establishment has told you from the top", but in order to understand the issues better, you have to study the details, from real scientists that don't argue rhetoric, but just study facts, and openly admit when facts are not favourable. That's a deeper level of study, that goes beyond what the chief-priests of evo want the public to see evolution as. (seeing it as some irrefutable factual monster, rather than the polished turd it really is)

 

Until get out of "subjective mode" and put yourself in an objective position, you won't examine evolutions flaws, because you won't.  "Won't" as in "stubbornly will NOT acknowledge, willfully, BY CHOICE." But you then have to depend on statements and assertions about evolution, rather than knowledge.


  • Blitzking likes this

#51 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 September 2016 - 08:08 AM

"What do you think that paleontologists do, when they dig up fossils? look for evidence or hiding a lack of evidence?"
 
Many times they actually come out and tell the public the TRUTH about the fossil record.. Like Prominent Evolutionary Paleontologists Colin Patterson and Steven Gould have done.. Or do you think that you know more than THEY did about the fossil record...  Surely even YOU are not that Arrogant.. :gilligan:
 
Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson’s recent book, Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:
“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?…Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” 
 
 
One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let’s call it a non-evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way.  One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.  That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long.  Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory.  Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.
Question in: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?  I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence.  I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school.’  Prominent Evolutionary Paleontologists Colin Patterson
 
Stephen J. Gould, Harvard , "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it." Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College,
 
Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness... Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." Nature, Vol.377,  "Since the so called Cambrian Explosion... no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record."

 

So, since your only of respond to my critique of Mike's OP main message is a deflection by posting a bunch of quote mines, it is clear that my critique was right on the spot. Mike the Wiz claimed that evolutionists try to wriggle out of falsification while in the real world scientists are digging up fossils, sequencing proteins or genomes, performing experiments, so they are not hiding a lack of evidence, but bringing forth the evidence required. Mike the Wiz' OP fails.

 

 

For memory:

An absurd post-hoc extra hypothesis, invented to wriggle out of falsification. It's even worse if such excuses are made about things in the past, because we can't verify or falsify those claims, for example in the present, someone might have witnessed the 100 lorries or they might be caught on CCTV, or whatever.
 
But the fact some idiot can argue such a thing means that technically, how can we disprove a claim?
 
Is it not the same with evolution? The only thing we can reasonably provide as evidence it didn't happen is to show it didn't happen which would mean that the evidence to falsify evolution would be invisible evidence, like with the dolphins.



#52 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 September 2016 - 08:09 AM

The reality however is that evolution is following the evidence, rather then interpreting the evidence, ignoring some, to support a world-view.

Evolutionary biologists.



#53 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 24 September 2016 - 12:53 AM

So, since your only of respond to my critique of Mike's OP main message is a deflection by posting a bunch of quote mines, it is clear that my critique was right on the spot. Mike the Wiz claimed that evolutionists try to wriggle out of falsification while in the real world scientists are digging up fossils, sequencing proteins or genomes, performing experiments, so they are not hiding a lack of evidence, but bringing forth the evidence required. Mike the Wiz' OP fails.

 

 

For memory:

 

"So, since your only of respond to my critique of Mike's OP main message is a deflection by posting a bunch of quote mines, it is clear that my critique was right on the spot. Mike the Wiz claimed that evolutionists try to wriggle out of falsification while in the real world scientists are digging up fossils, sequencing proteins or genomes, performing experiments, so they are not hiding a lack of evidence, but bringing forth the evidence required. Mike the Wiz' OP fails".

 

"So, since your only of respond to my critique of Mike's OP main message is a deflection by posting a bunch of quote mines"

 

Quote mines are when a quote is distorted, edited, or taken out of context in order to falsely misrepresent what the person who was quoted was trying to convey, I have done NONE OF THOSE things and you should either present evidence that I have or withdraw your accusation and apologize.. This "quote mine" Ad Hom attack that is routinely pulled by scurrilous Darwinists like yourself because you have no way to counter the MASSIVE amount of evidence against you is getting boring and oh so revealing as to the desperation of your situation of trying to be an apologist for what this very website very accurately describes as a FAIRY TALE

Except it is WORSE than a fairy tale, At least in the Fairy Tale version of the Frog turning into a Prince, THE FROG GETS A KISS FROM THE PRINCESS!!

 

Here are the quotes I provided, Show the "Quote mine" or Apologize for the false accusation.

 

Many times they actually come out and tell the public the TRUTH about the fossil record.. Like Prominent Evolutionary Paleontologists Colin Patterson and Steven Gould have done.. Or do you think that you know more than THEY did about the fossil record...  Surely even YOU are not that Arrogant.. :gilligan:
 
Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson’s recent book, Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:
“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?…Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” 
 
 
One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let’s call it a non-evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way.  One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.  That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long.  Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory.  Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.
Question in: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?  I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence.  I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school.’  Prominent Evolutionary Paleontologists Colin Patterson
 
Stephen J. Gould, Harvard , "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it." Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College,
 
Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness... Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." Nature, Vol.377,  "Since the so called Cambrian Explosion... no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record."


  • mike the wiz likes this

#54 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 24 September 2016 - 01:56 AM

The reality however is that evolution is following the evidence, rather then interpreting the evidence, ignoring some, to support a world-view.

 

The reality however is that Creationism is following the evidence, rather then interpreting the evidence, ignoring some, to support a world-view of Godless Metaphysical Naturalism..

 

There, I fixed it for you!!   You are more than welcome.. :kaffeetrinker:



#55 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 September 2016 - 03:31 AM

BK is right, evolutionists do tend to use-and-abuse the "quote mine" card. One indication a quote is not a quote mine is if a lengthy paragraph is quoted in context. I would recommend though, BK, also including their excuses for what they say. A lot of these quotes can be used, but it's useful to show their explanation.

 

For example Gould might say something like this; " there are no transitionals......here is my explanation"

 

It is useful to show his explanation, because modern science would reject his explanation. It seems very few people, very few evolutionists, accept punctuated equilibrium, meaning the things Gould admitted to, are still problems for evolution.

 

Can I give a quick example Blitzking;

 

Imagine that I have an explanation for the Datylov incident. (mysterious death of nine people on a mountain in Russia), BUT, imagine I am the type of person that has always stuck to the position that the whole thing is highly explainable, there is no mystery, and I would never admit to the possibility of any type of mystery even if I had a gun to my head. (like Gould and all other evolutionists, would never support anything a creationist said, and would never question evolution)

 

Now let's imagine I ADMIT to a problem such as; "some of the bodies were killed by a mysterious force of pressure but no skin was broken"...but now imagine I give an answer to that later on, and you quote-mined my comment about the mysterious force. Now let's pretend my answer is this; "there was an avalanche!"

 

Now what am I getting at with this example? My point is this; if it can be shown that something we "quote-mined" is later explained by the person we quote-mined but their explanation is WRONG, then that means the complaint we quoted, logically speaking, is still a problem.

 

For that mysterious incident, there was no possibility of an avalanche, no evidence of one either, meaning that the admission we quote-mined is still a valid objection.

 

When we quote Gould, his famous admissions about the lack of intermediates, it's important to remember his explanation for the missing intermediates was punctuated equilibrium, but since science basically doesn't accept punctuated equilibrium, then that means his complaints about missing intermediates, are still a problem for evolution.

 

Conclusion: Lots of the time, evolutionists use the quote-mining accusations as an easy slam-dunk, point scoring tactic, when in fact if they looked further into what we are saying, they would have to admit that a lot of the problems evolutionists tacitly admit to, are still problems for evolution, and those problems are not solved by just-so conjecture. So it is largely IRRELEVANT that we are quoting a portion of what the evolutionists have said, because the rest of what they say is usually just conjectural opinion, anyway, which doesn't really remove the significance of what they admitted to.

 

So if you quote mine me Driewerf when I said, "I admit I shot Kennedy, I even have the rifle and the bullets to match.", would it matter that you quote-mined me if you left out the part where I said; "but I done it all on the Lord Jesus Christ's say so, He Himself told me to do it and He said anyone who puts me in prison for it will die an ugly death".

 

Driewerf, should I go free, and not be convicted of murder, because you only quoted a portion of what I said?  :smashfreak:  (in the same way, should we let evolutionists off the hook, when they admit that evolution is a crap theory, because later on they go on to give lots of weak excuses for the important things they admitted to? )

 

EXAMPLE: "well I admit to the law of non-contradiction I really do, the fact is I can't be myself while at the same time not being myself. The moon can't be there and not be there at the same time. But I believe deep down in my evo-heart that if materialism is true, there is an answer, perhaps the moon can exist and not exist, for we don't everything!"

 

 

mike the wiz quotes this part:well I admit to the law of non-contradiction I really do, the fact is I can't be myself while at the same time not being myself. The moon can't be there and not be there at the same time

 

Driewerf complains thus;

 

 

Fictional Driewerf: You quote-mined him! His full quote was that there could somehow be a way the moon can exist and not exist.

 

Mike the wiz: so you really think we can ignore non-contradiction, because he went on to explain that he believes in contradictions anyway, and I missed that part? You're saying it's not at all important that he admitted to the facts, simply because he went on to give a lot of evolutionary-waffle about why he doesn't accept the facts despite admitting to them? You're saying I shouldn't go to prison for murder if I admitted to it because we missed out the excuses I gave for why I justify murder?  :smashfreak:



#56 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 24 September 2016 - 02:00 PM

I guess Creationists can be called "quote miners" for nearly anything that any atheist says that might cast a bit of doubt on the veracity of AbioDarwinim then... They can Always just state that what was said was not what the Atheist or Oval Earther meant to say for whatever reason the person who is making the quote mine accusation claims..  Sacred Shelter of Scurrilous Scoundrels Say I !

 

For Example, Charles "Chuckles the Clown" Darwin wrote:

 

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

 

But Creationists are not allowed to quote him in one of his ever so brief moments of candor because he went on to defy his own admission of "Absurdity" by continuing with his Lunacy of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth..

 

"“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science.  Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

 

". . . Now I will just run through some points in your letter.  What you say about my book gratifies me most deeply, and I wish I could feel all was deserved by me.  I quite think a review from a man, who is not an entire convert, if fair and moderately favourable, is in all respects the best kind of review.  About the weak points I agree.  The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder.”



#57 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 25 September 2016 - 08:56 PM

But Creationists are not allowed to quote him in one of his ever so brief moments of candor because he went on to defy his own admission of "Absurdity" by continuing with his Lunacy of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth..

Because it's a dishonest representation of what he meant. You're taking "It seems absurd, but here's why it's actually not", cutting off the last half so it says "It seems absurd", and presenting it in such a way as to imply Darwin didn't think the eye could have evolved.

#58 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 25 September 2016 - 09:16 PM

Because it's a dishonest representation of what he meant. You're taking "It seems absurd, but here's why it's actually not", cutting off the last half so it says "It seems absurd", and presenting it in such a way as to imply Darwin didn't think the eye could have evolved.

 

Actually, that is what YOU just did you hypocritical little quote miner you..  :excl:

He didn't say "It seems absurd" (like you said I was "Taking")

He SAID (it) "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

And he DIDNT say "but here's why its actually not"

 

But at the end of the day, it matter ZERO what Darwin or anyone else "Thought"

The only thing that matters is the Truth.

 

Don't worry  I don't hold grudges..



#59 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 26 September 2016 - 06:32 AM

Actually, that is what YOU just did you hypocritical little quote miner you..  :excl:
He didn't say "It seems absurd" (like you said I was "Taking")
He SAID (it) "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

If you want to explain how "I freely confess" and "in the highest degree" are critically important to the meaning of that sentence, feel free.

And he DIDNT say "but here's why its actually not"

That is what the rest of that chapter meant.

But at the end of the day, it matter ZERO what Darwin or anyone else "Thought"
The only thing that matters is the Truth.

I don't understand why you would quote Darwin in the first place then. Much less why you'd go out of your way to insist that you be allowed to quote him out of context.

Don't worry  I don't hold grudges..

If you held grudges every time someone pointed out how you were wrong, I expect you'd barely have time to breathe.

#60 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 27 September 2016 - 01:24 AM

If you want to explain how "I freely confess" and "in the highest degree" are critically important to the meaning of that sentence, feel free.

That is what the rest of that chapter meant.

I don't understand why you would quote Darwin in the first place then. Much less why you'd go out of your way to insist that you be allowed to quote him out of context.

If you held grudges every time someone pointed out how you were wrong, I expect you'd barely have time to breathe.

 

So just admit that you have ZERO Empirical Scientific Evidence to support your religion of Darwinism

 

Just be honest and admit it is merely a religious belief and has no place in Science






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users