Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
mike the wiz

A List Of Unchanged Organisms Showin Zero Evolution

Recommended Posts

Let's assume that Enoch is right...

 

The fact that Henry Gee casts doubt on the fossil record means what exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So evolutionists aren't allowed to display doubts towards evolution, or concessions owing to it's lack of evidence or experiments?....

 

And creationists aren't allowed to quote said doubts?....

You can as long as you're not trying to turn "Hey, this particular claim about evolution can't be supported by evidence, but this different one can" in to "EVOLUTIONIST ADMITS THERE'S NO EVIDENCE".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's assume that Enoch is right...

 

The fact that Henry Gee casts doubt on the fossil record means what exactly?

 

 

1.  It's not Science, there's no way to formulate a FORMAL HYPOTHESIS because you lack Independent Variables.  duh

 

Ergo...

 

2. It can't be TESTED... then Validated.

 

Ergo.... It's a Fairytale.  Voila!

 

Next block of Instruction:  How to make a sandwich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's assume that Enoch is right...

 

The fact that Henry Gee casts doubt on the fossil record means what exactly?

 

...and Stephen J. Gould, and Niles Eldredge, and Robert Jastrow, and Jean Henri Fabre, and J.C.Sandford,  and Dean Kenyon, and Richard Lundgren, and David Berlinski...and, and, and...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then his statements can no longer be taken as authoritative by default. 

 

 

Why?

 

How would we know that he wasn't also making a blind faith statement in the part you quoted?

 

Because he was making Factual Statements within his area of Expertise.  If you'd care to refute a Subject Matter Expert, then show...

 

How Fossils aren't fitted into a Preexisting story.....?
How conclusion drawn are not completely a Human Intervention created after the fact.....?
How the fossil record of Humans isn't modest....?
Show NO GAPS in the fossil record....?
 
[We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps." {Emphasis Mine}
Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 1999,  p. 32]

 

 

1.  He's very specifically saying that ancestry can't be discerned from fossil evidence.  2.  He's not saying that there are no conclusions that can be drawn from fossils. 

 

 

1. Ya think?

 

2. He's not saying he's Democrat or Republican either.

 

We're not interested in what he's NOT SAYING duh, only what HE IS saying.

 

Can you tell me what conclusions can be drawn (Then Validated) other than "things" died...all of a sudden like in a water-dirt mixture?

 

The whole point of the book is that cladistics can be used to make determinations about how closely related fossils are, even if we can't determine direct ancestry.

 

 

Who said so??

 

Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University (“Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist" -- Stephen Jay Gould)...

 

“Any theory of classification which pays no attention to the tremendous range of difference between shifts of phyletic lines into minor niches and into entirely new adaptive zones, is bound to produce classifications that are unbalanced and meaningless. But such a neglect of different kinds of phyletic evolution is precisely what the cladistic method demands.†{emphasis mine}
Mayr, E., Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification? Zeitschrift fűr Zoologische Systematik und Evolutionforschung 12:94–128, 1974; pp. 105–106.

 

“But doesn’t the fact that organisms lend themselves to being arranged in nested hierarchies of polarized traits (that is, cladograms) itself prove that they evolved that way (or at all)? Hardly. Assuming evolution a priori, one could construct a cladogram that has an 18-wheel truck as its crown group, and which shows a clearly transition-filled, incremental appearance of ‘truckness’, beginning with the stem-group unicycle. Note also that the human, elephant, and bat is each highly-derived fish, just as an 18-wheel truck is a highly-derived unicycle. Such is the reductio ad absurdum of cladistic methodology.â€

Woodmorappe, J,.Evolutionary cladograms and malevolent, strawman creationists: a review of Evolution: what fossils say and why it matters.  Donald R. Prothero, J, Creation23(3):39-43, 2009

 

As far as whether he thinks fossil evidence can be used to support evolution, you don't have to take my word for it!

(from The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution, p. 104)

 

 

That's the whole point, I'm not taking anyone's word for it.  This is Science!!!!!!!!  Validate your Hypothesis or Stop wasting my time with FAIRYTALES!!!!!

 

 

He shall be heard except when he disagrees with you, apparently.

 

 

Agree/disagree is for "Political" Science.  Perhaps you should ply your wares there and on Cake Decorating threads where these attributes are not only entertained but solicited.

 

 

I would suggest that you start evaluating the original context when you present a quote, and stop trying to twist people's words to support a position that they have repeatedly denied they hold.

 

 

The only thing that's "twisted" is your reasoning ability AS EVIDENCED BY your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because he was making Factual Statements within his area of Expertise.

Was he making a factual statement within his area of expertise when he said this thing that contradicts your point?:

It's not that fossils don't provide us with primary evidence for evolution as a fact, because they plainly do so.

(from The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution, p. 104)

 

If you'd care to refute a Subject Matter Expert, then show...

I have no issues with what he said. The question is whether what he said supports the conclusion you're drawing from it. Since your conclusion is directly contrary to other statements he made, and he has specifically denied that he supports that conclusion, the answer would seem to be no.

 

Can you tell me what conclusions can be drawn (Then Validated) other than "things" died...all of a sudden like in a water-dirt mixture?

I think this question should probably be directed to the subject matter expert you keep quoting.

 

Who said so??

 

Henry Gee, in his book In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life. Page 6. Perhaps you've heard of it?

Cladistics looks only at the pattern of the history of life, free from assumptions about the process of the unfolding of history. It resolves the conundrum of trying to comprehend Deep Time in terms of an unfolding drama. Because of this, cladistics is the best philosophy for the scientific understanding of the history of life as we unearth it from Deep Time. More than a set of techniques, but less than a science in its own right, cladistics is a way of 'seeing', of looking at the products of evolution as they are, and not how we would like them to be.

Before you dive back in to the quote mine, the question isn't whether he's correct that cladistics is legitimate, the point is that he is claiming that it is in the book you quoted from, which means we have to take that in to account when determining what he meant in the statement you quoted.

 

That's the whole point, I'm not taking anyone's word for it.

You don't have to take my word that Henry Gee thinks fossils support evolution, because my next quote was him saying that fossils support evolution. Please try to stay focused.

 

  

The only thing that's "twisted" is your reasoning ability AS EVIDENCED BY your post.

No, it's still you, trying to interpret statements completely out of their context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Popoi:

 

No, it's still you, trying to interpret statements completely out of their context. 

 

 

You aren't telling the truth, popoi, and quite frankly you are a mind-twisting, nit-picker who hates the truth.You are constnantly attempting to take clear-cut statements we make from both the laws of science and scientists we quote and Orwellianize them so it fits your neo-Darwinian dogma.

 

Enoch's documentation is impeccable (as usual) and your charge against him is ridiculous.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was he making a factual statement within his area of expertise when he said this thing that contradicts your point?:

(from The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution, p. 104)

 

I have no issues with what he said. The question is whether what he said supports the conclusion you're drawing from it. Since your conclusion is directly contrary to other statements he made, and he has specifically denied that he supports that conclusion, the answer would seem to be no.

 

I think this question should probably be directed to the subject matter expert you keep quoting.

 

 

Henry Gee, in his book In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life. Page 6. Perhaps you've heard of it?

 

Before you dive back in to the quote mine, the question isn't whether he's correct that cladistics is legitimate, the point is that he is claiming that it is in the book you quoted from, which means we have to take that in to account when determining what he meant in the statement you quoted.

 

You don't have to take my word that Henry Gee thinks fossils support evolution, because my next quote was him saying that fossils support evolution. Please try to stay focused.

 

  

No, it's still you, trying to interpret statements completely out of their context.

 

 

You call this a response?  Say it with me now....  "B A N K R U P T".

 

Or very easy, to PROVE both Henry GEE and my Interpretation of what he plainly said lol WRONG, Go ahead and show ONE FORMAL HYPOTHESIS then Experiment (Ya know "Science") regarding Fossils that supports ANYTHING whatsoever regarding evolution.......?? 

 

If not....

 

Come back when you have a "Coherent" argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can as long as you're not trying to turn "Hey, this particular claim about evolution can't be supported by evidence, but this different one can" in to "EVOLUTIONIST ADMITS THERE'S NO EVIDENCE".

 

If the evolutionist is admitting that there is no evidence, then the evolutionist is admitting that there is no evidence... You can't dismiss such an admission simply because despite admitting there is no evidence the person still BELIEVES in evolution...

 

As Enoch said you need to DEMONSTRATE how the quote was taken out of context... If its a quote of Gee claiming that there is scant evidence, then guess what that is what he is saying...

 

 

You aren't telling the truth, popoi, and quite frankly you are a mind-twisting, nit-picker who hates the truth.You are constnantly attempting to take clear-cut statements we make from both the laws of science and scientists we quote and Orwellianize them so it fits your neo-Darwinian dogma.

 

Enoch's documentation is impeccable (as usual) and your charge against him is ridiculous.

 

Doesn't stop atheists from trying ;)

 

 

I have no issues with what he said. The question is whether what he said supports the conclusion you're drawing from it. Since your conclusion is directly contrary to other statements he made, and he has specifically denied that he supports that conclusion, the answer would seem to be no.

 

Demonstrate this... IF Gee is stating that there is scant evidence AND there is an abundance of evidence then surely you'd see that this is a matter of self-contradiction on Gee's part...

 

However I see no problem with quoting evolutionists who admit there is scant evidence.... What is wrong with such?

 

 

Also you dodged supporting your claim that

 

"Then his statements can no longer be taken as authoritative by default."

 

Why? Is this the evolution-atheist gestapo where people are not allowed to have doubts or admit the problems to the current paradigm?...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the evolutionist is admitting that there is no evidence, then the evolutionist is admitting that there is no evidence... You can't dismiss such an admission simply because despite admitting there is no evidence the person still BELIEVES in evolution...

 

As Enoch said you need to DEMONSTRATE how the quote was taken out of context... If its a quote of Gee claiming that there is scant evidence, then guess what that is what he is saying...

And I have. I've presented quotes from the same work Enoch cited, as well as another work. Both of them contradict Enoch's interpretation. Mrchopper quoted from the second work earlier from a part where Gee talks specifically about Enoch's quote being taken out of context by creationists.

 

Demonstrate this... IF Gee is stating that there is scant evidence AND there is an abundance of evidence then surely you'd see that this is a matter of self-contradiction on Gee's part...

If Enoch's interpretation is correct, it's a contradiction, but we'd have to believe that Enoch knows what Gee meant better than Gee did, and ignore Gee's specific protests to the contrary.

 

However I see no problem with quoting evolutionists who admit there is scant evidence.... What is wrong with such?

Being dishonest is wrong.

 

Also you dodged supporting your claim that

 

"Then his statements can no longer be taken as authoritative by default."

 

Why? Is this the evolution-atheist gestapo where people are not allowed to have doubts or admit the problems to the current paradigm?...

"Henry Gee is an authority on fossils and should be believed" and "Henry Gee is wrong/self-contradicting/lying about fossils" are contradictory. You can't insist that one statement you interpret as agreeing with you be heard, while insisting that another that you interpret as disagreeing with you should be ignored without some reason to treat them differently. Enoch claimed that one was a factual statement and one wasn't, but didn't provide any reasoning beyond that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I have. I've presented quotes from the same work Enoch cited, as well as another work. Both of them contradict Enoch's interpretation.

 

Where... I can't find any from you...

 

 

Mrchopper quoted from the second work earlier from a part where Gee talks specifically about Enoch's quote being taken out of context by creationists.

 

Wrong on two counts...

 

1- The quote didn't reference Enoch's claims... its a bit hard to do that when Gee said it BEFORE Enoch's use of his quotes....

 

2- I demonstrated in post #340 that Gee is arguing against people who attempt to claim that he isn't an evolutionist or is against evolution... Enoch hasn't done this, all he has done is provide quotes from evolutionists (the intellectually honest ones) that admit to issues or flaws with evolution... THAT IS IT.

 

So what Gee stated doesn't relate to Enoch's use of his quotes...

 

 

If Enoch's interpretation is correct, it's a contradiction, but we'd have to believe that Enoch knows what Gee meant better than Gee did, and ignore Gee's specific protests to the contrary.

 

What do you believe "Enoch's interpretation" is?... All Enoch is doing is providing quotes from the intellectually honest evolutionists who admit to flaws with evolution... What is wrong with that?

 

Are you saying evolutionists aren't allowed to doubt evolution, and creationists aren't allowed to give credence to this doubt?

 

 

 

Being dishonest is wrong.

 

First you have to establish what is dishonest about quoting a person's admissions of doubt or admission of problems with their beliefs... If he said the words, then he said the words... You cannot deny that and there is nothing dishonest about that...

 

However I'd love to know by what framework you judge dishonesty to be wrong? Isn't it a selective advantage to be dishonest? So wouldn't it be encouraged if evolution and survival is all there is?...

 

"Henry Gee is an authority on fossils and should be believed" and "Henry Gee is wrong/self-contradicting/lying about fossils" are contradictory. You can't insist that one statement you interpret as agreeing with you be heard, while insisting that another that you interpret as disagreeing with you should be ignored without some reason to treat them differently. Enoch claimed that one was a factual statement and one wasn't, but didn't provide any reasoning beyond that.

 

Who said he is contradictory?... All he is doing is admitting to the weaknesses of his position, to do this demonstrates critical thinking and the ability to push past one's own bias, HOW IS THIS A BAD THING?

 

So I guess this IS the evolution-atheist gestapo where people are not allowed to have doubts or admit the problems to the current paradigm...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where... I can't find any from you...

Did you try?

 

Here's what I quoted:

 

What is in question, however, are the ways we interpret the evidence given to us by fossils. It's not that fossils don't provide us with primary evidence for evolution as a fact, because they plainly do so.

(from The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution, p. 104)

 

Based on that, would you say that Henry Gee believes that fossils provide evidence for evolution? Would you say that Henry Gee believes there is sufficient evidence of evolution? If a particular interpretation of another statement seems to indicate otherwise, which one should we believe is supported by his expertise?

 

1- The quote didn't reference Enoch's claims... its a bit hard to do that when Gee said it BEFORE Enoch's use of his quotes....

The specific quote was mentioned before the talk about creationists quote mining. Enoch's argument isn't new.

 

2- I demonstrated in post #340 that Gee is arguing against people who attempt to claim that he isn't an evolutionist or is against evolution... Enoch hasn't done this, all he has done is provide quotes from evolutionists (the intellectually honest ones) that admit to issues or flaws with evolution... THAT IS IT.

Enoch originally brought up his quote as an argument against mrchopper's statement "we have ample evidence to show that humans have evolved".

 

First you have to establish what is dishonest about quoting a person's admissions of doubt or admission of problems with their beliefs... If he said the words, then he said the words... You cannot deny that and there is nothing dishonest about that...

The wrong part is presenting a quote as doubt when it's not.

 

However I'd love to know by what framework you judge dishonesty to be wrong? Isn't it a selective advantage to be dishonest? So wouldn't it be encouraged if evolution and survival is all there is?...

Feel free to start another thread if you want to discuss this. I'm not interested in starting such a large tangent here.

 

Who said he is contradictory?

Enoch says that Henry Gee says the evidence for evolution is flimsy, and that we should listen to Gee because he's an expert. Gee himself says that the evidence isn't flimsy. All of those statements can't coexist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where... I can't find any from you...

 

 

 

Wrong on two counts...

 

1- The quote didn't reference Enoch's claims... its a bit hard to do that when Gee said it BEFORE Enoch's use of his quotes....

 

2- I demonstrated in post #340 that Gee is arguing against people who attempt to claim that he isn't an evolutionist or is against evolution... Enoch hasn't done this, all he has done is provide quotes from evolutionists (the intellectually honest ones) that admit to issues or flaws with evolution... THAT IS IT.

 

So what Gee stated doesn't relate to Enoch's use of his quotes...

 

 

 

What do you believe "Enoch's interpretation" is?... All Enoch is doing is providing quotes from the intellectually honest evolutionists who admit to flaws with evolution... What is wrong with that?

 

Are you saying evolutionists aren't allowed to doubt evolution, and creationists aren't allowed to give credence to this doubt?

 

 

 

 

First you have to establish what is dishonest about quoting a person's admissions of doubt or admission of problems with their beliefs... If he said the words, then he said the words... You cannot deny that and there is nothing dishonest about that...

 

However I'd love to know by what framework you judge dishonesty to be wrong? Isn't it a selective advantage to be dishonest? So wouldn't it be encouraged if evolution and survival is all there is?...

 

 

Who said he is contradictory?... All he is doing is admitting to the weaknesses of his position, to do this demonstrates critical thinking and the ability to push past one's own bias, HOW IS THIS A BAD THING?

 

So I guess this IS the evolution-atheist gestapo where people are not allowed to have doubts or admit the problems to the current paradigm...

 

What Henry Gee said:

 

That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course -- but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find. Just try this thought experiment -- let's say you find a fossil of a hominid, an ancient member of the human family. You can recognize various attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if that were actually the case. The reason is that fossils are never buried with their birth certificates. Again, this is a logical constraint that must apply even if evolution were true -- which is not in doubt, because if we didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here. Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution. [...]

 

I am a religious person and I believe in God. I find the militant atheism of some evolutionary biologists ill-reasoned and childish, and most importantly unscientific -- crucially, faith should not be subject to scientific justification. But the converse also holds true -- science should not need to be validated by the narrow dogma of faith. As such, I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally. In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.

 

I don't know about you, but the minute someone issues a public statement completely slamming me like that, I quit citing that person in support of my viewpoint. It's just a little thing I like to call honesty.

 

If he had never said otherwise, you could at least pretend like this person's viewpoint supports yours, but when he comes out and says "no fool, you're wrong," you should probably defer to his judgment.

Maybe you think you know more about what Gee means than Gee himself does.

If that's the case, you should have provided a little disclaimer saying, "by the way, Henry Gee disagrees with my interpretation of his words and calls us moral reprobates in the process".

 

That would have been the intellectually honest thing to do. But nah, why let a little thing like the author get in the way of your interpretation?

It's been about 12 years now since Gee issued that clarification, and Enoch and you are still happily abusing his words, as if Gee never said anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What Henry Gee said:

 

That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course -- but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find. Just try this thought experiment -- let's say you find a fossil of a hominid, an ancient member of the human family. You can recognize various attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if that were actually the case. The reason is that fossils are never buried with their birth certificates. Again, this is a logical constraint that must apply even if evolution were true -- which is not in doubt, because if we didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here. Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution. [...]

 

I am a religious person and I believe in God. I find the militant atheism of some evolutionary biologists ill-reasoned and childish, and most importantly unscientific -- crucially, faith should not be subject to scientific justification. But the converse also holds true -- science should not need to be validated by the narrow dogma of faith. As such, I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally. In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.

 

I don't know about you, but the minute someone issues a public statement completely slamming me like that, I quit citing that person in support of my viewpoint. It's just a little thing I like to call honesty.

 

If he had never said otherwise, you could at least pretend like this person's viewpoint supports yours, but when he comes out and says "no fool, you're wrong," you should probably defer to his judgment.

Maybe you think you know more about what Gee means than Gee himself does.

If that's the case, you should have provided a little disclaimer saying, "by the way, Henry Gee disagrees with my interpretation of his words and calls us moral reprobates in the process".

 

That would have been the intellectually honest thing to do. But nah, why let a little thing like the author get in the way of your interpretation?

It's been about 12 years now since Gee issued that clarification, and Enoch and you are still happily abusing his words, as if Gee never said anything.

 

 

 

That would have been the intellectually honest thing to do. But nah, why let a little thing like the author get in the way of your interpretation?

It's been about 12 years now since Gee issued that clarification, and Enoch and you are still happily abusing his words, as if Gee never said anything.

 

 

 

Ahhh, are you taking Medication?  I hope it's Prescribed.

 

How in the World did what Henry Gee said IN ANY WAY....Refute/Contradict or show HOW this is "Out of Context"....

 

 

"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps." {Emphasis Mine}
Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 1999,  p. 32
 
Please....?
 
ps.  I'm not the "Discovery Institute"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps." 

 

 

I'm still waiting for the skeptics to show us how this quote from Gee was 'quote mined' or taken out of context. Shall we call it a 'lie' until they do so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reported for deliberate quotemining, even after the author explicitly gave a clarification (see post #364)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask an honest question...

 

How many of you have read the book that the quote came from? The paragraph on either side of it? The preface? The table of contents?

 

Anyone here read anything other than that single quote out of context? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reported for deliberate quotemining, even after the author explicitly gave a clarification (see post #364)

 

Bring it On !!!!   :banana_vacation:

 

If your Baseless "bare" Assertion Fallacy is RENDERED Frivolous and Clumsily Contrived... of which, it most certainly is; will you Voluntarily Ban Yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GEE: I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally. In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.


 


The problem here is that he wasn't truthful and his statement contradicts what he said as Enoch quoted him.


 


Besides that, like he already told you: We are not Discovery Institute.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask an honest question...

 

How many of you have read the book that the quote came from? 

 

Not all of it, but some "Healthy Chunks".... I was laughing too hard to finish it

 

 

The paragraph on either side of it? 

 

 

Yep.

 

 

The preface?  The table of contents?

 

 

lol, I can't remember.  Does the Picture on the Front Cover hold any sway?

 

How about if we identified his favorite color?  OR if he's Republican or Democrat?

 

 

Anyone here read anything other than that single quote out of context? 

 

 

Baseless "bare" Assertion Fallacy: "out of context".  

 

To Validate your Baseless "bare" Fallacy Claim here.....you MUST SHOW "specifically" where and how this Specific Quote was taken "out of context"....?

 

As a matter of fact, you must show IN THE SAME BOOK where he said....

 

1. New fossils ARE NOT fitted into a Pre-Existing Story.

 

2. The chain of Ancestry and Decent ARE NOT a completely human invention created after the fact.

 

3.  The physical record IS NOT "modest".

 

4. Each fossil represents something OTHER THAN: an Isolated Point, no knowable connection to other given fossils, and NOT FLOATING AROUND in a OVERWHELMING SEA OF GAPS!!

 

 

Best Wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

GEE: I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally. In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.

 

The problem here is that he wasn't truthful and his statement contradicts what he said as Enoch quoted him.

 

Besides that, like he already told you: We are not Discovery Institute.

 

But you are creationists... so his criticism applies to you as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you are creationists... so his criticism applies to you as well. 

 

TEXTBOOK:

 

Stereotype (Fallacy)--- The general beliefs that we use to categorize people, objects, and events while assuming those beliefs are accurate generalizations of the whole group. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/168-stereotyping

 

 

Are you aware that Logical Fallacies....are Fallacious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for the skeptics to show us how this quote from Gee was 'quote mined' or taken out of context. Shall we call it a 'lie' until they do so?

It's been pointed out repeatedly that the author does not agree with the idea that evolution is poorly supported, and he has specifically objected to creationists using that quote to claim as such. If the author specifically saying "No, that's not what I meant" isn't enough, I doubt there's any evidence that's going to convince you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been pointed out repeatedly that the author does not agree with the idea that evolution is poorly supported, and he has specifically objected to creationists using that quote to claim as such. If the author specifically saying "No, that's not what I meant" isn't enough, I doubt there's any evidence that's going to convince you.

 

Excuse me? The man was inconsistent with his own statement and it's just like what Colin Patterson (of the British Natural Museum) replied to criticisms of his own neo-Darwinian comrades who were angry at him for being so candidly honest with creationist Luther Sunderland in his statements about evolution THAT HE LATER felt compelled to tone down his remarks greatly so that they would all feel justified in pooh-poohing those same candid remarks. In other words he embarrassed himself by being so truthful and felt it necessary to wiggle himself out of the corner he painted himself into. I remember it well. The same thing happened with Stephen J. Gould who made it exceedingly clear that there was no evidence for slow and gradual evolution and he openly promoted 'punctuated equilibrium' of the species. He likewise was very candid about the weakness in the theory, the lack of fossil evidence. But later he likewise felt it necessary to reassure his comrades that he did still believe in Darwinism. 

 

This is no different so don't even try to go there and use this tactic again when his direct statement was so very clear. But as it has been quoted and re-quoted about a dozen times or less:

 

...a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps." 

 

But I am not the least bit surprised you won't deal with this matter honestly...any more than you did with Biogenesis. You & your accidentalist comrades have no intention of dealing with these issues honestly because you are determined to cling to your fairytale.

 

It doesn't matter to us if you all think we are stupid or ignorant because we aren't going to let you (any of you) get away with this stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been pointed out repeatedly that the author does not agree with the idea that evolution is poorly supported

 

It's just not sinking into your Grey Matter is it?

 

His Agreement/Disagreement about his beliefs are Irrelevant. 

 

 

If the author specifically saying "No, that's not what I meant" isn't enough, I doubt there's any evidence that's going to convince you.

 

 

So he didn't mean...

 

1. New fossils are fitted into a Pre-Existing Story.

 

2. The chain of Ancestry and Decent ARE a completely human invention created after the fact.

 

3.  The physical record IS  "modest".

 

4. Each fossil represents: an Isolated Point, no knowable connection to other given fossils, and FLOATING AROUND in a OVERWHELMING SEA OF GAPS!

 

If so, then he probably shouldn't have wrote it then, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms