Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have suspected this for awhile now as there really is no dialogue. It is like an adult with a cookie jar and keeps presenting cookies which we shoot down and then offers a new cookie. WC does not demonstrate any scientific acumen and probably does not realise we can highlight a sentence, do a google search and find the source he is pretending to proffer as his own thoughts.
But then we know all too well that YEC's usually do not come over too smart anyway.
Here is the contents of New Scientist for that date. Please tell us which article says what you claim......or is this more quote mining from yet another apologist site....namely the JW's??
The quote is midway in the section titled "An anti-science posture." I suspect that most of the bunny guy's information comes comes from the JW publication "The Watchtower"
I made no comment on any of that! You have yet to show me how/when I misquoted or misrepresented Henry Gee's writings.
"Explained" to me? Are you joking? You "explain" how a myth was formulated and you "explain" how to propagate that myth. Because of your total lack of hard evidence, I "explain" to you why I won't buy that junk and you pretend not to listen. I know what the book says and it is all speculation: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_44
So, that's how it CAN happen. But is that what really happened? How can you tell? Who observed and recorded it? By what stretch of the imagination can you call that a fact? None of this constitutes any "explanation!" ALL of it is guesswork and the product of a stimulated imagination.
Then you should correct HIM! Why should that concern me?
Show me the distortion on my part. That’s all I ask.
"Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination driven by prejudices and preconceptions. They reflect our modern ideas about the purposes of adaptive structures and about the progressive trend we think we see in the history of life up to humankind."
Think you can understand it now?
Yes. I see that Bowler is slightly tongue in cheek about the 'popular stories' about 'how' these evolutionary steps happened
Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first
amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for
flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct and how humans evolved from apes are just
products of our imagination driven by prejudices and preconceptions. They reflect
our modern ideas about the purposes of adaptive structures and about the
progressive trend we think we see in the history of life up to humankind. They cannot
be part of science because they cannot be tested against the fossil record.
But he also says this:
I welcome the critical side of the cladists' assault on the popular myths about
evolution, but I suspect that their effort to dismiss all historical narratives from
science is another product of the physics envy that occasionally tempts
paleontologists and geologists to adopt impossibly harsh methodological criteria. As
Ernst Mayr, among others, has argued, we need to recognize that studying the past
requires a different kind of relation between theory and evidence. There is not, as
Gee implies, a single kind of science, nor does the use of the imagination in itself
make a hypothesis unscientific.
There is another reason for concern, however, which derives from the public
perception of science. Paleontologists may want to impress their scientific
colleagues with the "hardness" of their new methodology--but if they tell us that all
efforts to explain the origin of new forms in the course of evolution are unscientific,
they leave up for grabs the whole area of how the natural world came into its present
form. If science admits that it cannot in principle explain origins, the creationists will
be only too willing to tell the public that alternative sources of information are
available. In these circumstances, do we really want to concede that science cannot
even ask the questions everyone would like to have answered?
The misrepresentation is that somehow Gees remarks, or Bowlers is discrediting the evidence that these evolutionary chages actually happened. The speculation is a how. Of course we have natural selection, we have DNA markers. But we were not there to see how it happened. That is not reason to argue that we cannot take it as supported by the best hard evidence that it did happen and through evolutionary steps.
That is your misrepresentation of what Gee says and what Bowler says he says, because you don't pay regard to the whole sense of what was written if you even read and comprehended it.
I'll emphasize: As Ernst Mayr, among others, has argued, we need to recognize that studying the past requires a different kind of relation between theory and evidence. There is not, as Gee implies, a single kind of science, nor does the use of the imagination in itself make a hypothesis unscientific.
It is sometimes represented that history, since we are studying the Hard evidence at second hand, is not a legitimate science like physics. The fact is that the methods of archeology and criminal forensics are considered reliable. If Gee's rather draconian parameters were applied to those, we could never have reconstructed the history of Egypt or convict a murderer unless we caught him on film. The hard evidence for evolution is compelling and I'd be happy to take you through it, if I thought you were willing to listen.
I might also mention that, since those writings the 'story' that feathers did develop from scales and birds from dinosaurs has become very massively supported by fossil evidence.
Quote:
Nope! That's another foolish statement. It is not possible for me to alter anyone else's post. Post 870 is just as you wrote it and anyone can see that. Check it and see for yourself.
I did not alter YOUR post! That is another false accusation.
My response is MY response and there's nothing dishonest about it.
Besides - how many times have you misquoted and misrepresented the Bible?
.
Look - we humans are equipped with attributes that are lacking in animals, i.e. wisdom, justice, power and love. All of these qualities should be used in such a way that they bring benefit to the world around us. Only then can we claim to have lived successful lives. Evolution does not equip us to do any of that, so it is useless in benefiting mankind and the earth.
.
Do you know what wisdom is? Do you think that is a necessary ingredient to a peaceful, productive and purposeful life?
You are not in a position to know if a certain course of action is wise until AFTER you see the results.
I see not even a trace of wisdom in following the evolutionary lifestyle. Maybe you can show me the WISDOM in evolution - how it has benefited mankind.
.
Yep! You're losing it, man.
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
Wilson
I'm sorry, but you are simply jamming your fingers in your ears. You refer to a Creationist website's take on Evolution theory which takes quotes out of context - we have been posting and explaining the context for the last dozen pages - and you deny that you have misrepresented (you change that to 'misquoted' which isn't it at all, it is selective quoting out of context). We have shown you that the quotes that deal with missing evidence and gaps in the fossil record (which is the 'hard evidence' that you deny exists do not in any way indicate that the evidence is not compelling taken overall, but you insist on misrepresenting it as though it proved that the whole thing is a myth.
it is obviously just denial to dismiss the genetic evidence, the present day proof of evolutionary change and fossil record of evolution and dismiss it all as speculation simply because none of us were there to see it. We can certainly see what happens from the traces. That is what criminal forensics do all the time. If that's good enough to have a criminal case on, it should be good enough to have a belief on. You can refuse to buy it, but it's clear that you you are simply in denial about the evidence.
You clearly altered what I posted by inserting your opinion into my text.
"First you altered post 870
How about giving reason a try?
To
How about giving reason (falsehood) a try?
and then
How about giving reason (your brand of falsehood) a try?"
I see that as bad manners.
I have been meticulous about quoting the Bible properly. You may disagree with me but I don't make my case by selectively quoting Bible authorities out of context
We have done the pointless 'what use is it' argument. This is about whether evolution is a fact. Your irrelevant argument, refuted several times and repeated yet again shows that you haven't just 'lost it' man, you never had it, man.
"Then you should correct HIM! Why should that concern a (fellow like) me?" You see how easy it is to alter someone's post? It should concern you because you repeated a quote intended to discredit evolution theory. We showed you that it did nothing of the sort when you understood the context of the whole passage that Gee wrote. Out of sheer intellectual honesty, that should concern you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsoncole
“Accepts the evidence” for what? Where, in this quote, do you see any acceptance?
You may not have noticed, but the focus of Dr. John Turner's comments was concerning the lack of evidence for PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM and not mainly about what causes gaps!
That's what we've been telling you. If you agree, then none of that has any bearing on whether evolution is fact or Theory (in the sense of unproven hypothesis, of course) Discussion about the way in which evolutionary steps happened in the past (and the PE debate is about HOW, not 'whether' it happened) is not relevant to the evidence that it dis happen. If you recognize that, why do you bring it up here? It is clear that you were using it to try to argue that evolution theory as a whole is not validated and there is no evidence to support it. In fact yu have said so often enough. You do not 'buy' the evidence of the fossil record. No 'toons' of speculative theories about how the changes took place for you.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-16-2012 at 03:27 AM..
I've yet to see you post anything close to the truth regarding the theory of evolution. So are you telling us that you are not a "true Christian"?
Wilson reminds me very much of C34 and he was an honourable man. So are they all; all honourable men. But we get this ferretting and fossicking around for evidence to support the conclusion - that Evolution Can't be true. So the evidence has to be denied and dismissed. Debates about whether this theory or that to explain the story of development in the fossil record is more speculation than science is wrenched out of context to make it seem that evolutionists don't themselves buy their own theories.
That is often combined with not really checking the support for their arguments, as we saw in that cut and paste about Shenanigens in the halls of science. This is at least intellectual dishonesty for Jesus, if not deliberate lying.
The irrelevant dickering about the good evolution has been to us and the attempt to turn the argument around by asking whether I don't misrepresent the Bible (I don't even mention tossing in Bible quotes as though they proved something) are all attempts to score some kind of points, by any means.
The funny thing is that it doesn't even matter. The evolution debate strictly has no place in Rand P, though I can see why Religious Fundamentalism has made it an issue.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but most of the stuff you just posted is just nonsense, as is the propaganda on the site you lifted it from.. Index - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site
Nope!
The article is taken from here: (AW 91 11/22 pp. 12-15) AW = AWAKE! which I have in a bound volume right here in front of me.
Didn't you see it right there in the post?
And......
What do you mean "nonsense?" Like it didn't happen at all?
Or like - you cannot refute it?
Or like - "Evolution is a fact" which is not a fact?
Nope!
The article is taken from here: (AW 91 11/22 pp. 12-15) AW = AWAKE! which I have in a bound volume right here in front of me.
Didn't you see it right there in the post?
And......
What do you mean "nonsense?" Like it didn't happen at all?
Or like - you cannot refute it?
Or like - "Evolution is a fact" which is not a fact?
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
Wilson
Which is an illustrated magazine of the JW's. Like a 'you are so wrong' point which actually isn't. And I believe that this bit of slander was given the right -about a few posts ago,
?????????
What gives you that idea?
Read the text again. You just might get it this time.
" Yet if by reason of my lie, the truth of God has been made more prominent to his glory, why am I also yet being judged as a sinner?" (Romans 3:7)
Well, you rather prove his point -and mine, not being truthful is ok so long as it promotes the 'Truth' of God. The 'Hey, what do a few untruths matter if some souls are saved?' line. If you lie to convince people that God is real, Christianity is true and Genesis is fact, that is not wrong. it is not a sin.
Hard to know when the guy doesn't post a link...I've got my wrists slapped for that.
Can't post links when the material is from a printed magazine or book that I own and not from a website. Credit is always included.
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
Wilson
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
not being truthful is ok so long as it promotes the 'Truth' of God. The 'Hey, what do a few untruths matter if some souls are saved?' line. If you lie to convince people that God is real, Christianity is true and Genesis is fact, that is not wrong. it is not a sin. 