Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-11-2012, 12:26 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,079 posts, read 20,474,239 times
Reputation: 5926

Advertisements

[quote=wilsoncole;22486224]There IS no evidence for evolution! There was no "quote mining." I got the information directly from here:Punctuated Equilibria
and was not quoting the [quote]

And I showed that you selected and misrepresented it. The only thing I was wrong about is that that you were doing it yourself, not cutting and pasting .

Quote:
That is nonsense! The material in a "dig" does not vanish and you should know that. If you are working the "dig," you should know where the material went.
Neither does the material in a fossil dig 'vanish', but if you claim (sor instance) that some of what should be there had gone before the dig started, the same applies to archaeology and you say as much here.

Quote:
That conclusion could be wrong! They may have DIED out or led off into exile and their descendants may very well be alive somewhere, like the coelacanth, sharing a different set of social values. See what I mean? You just made Gee's point:
" The first known fossil is thus no reliable guide to the date or the structure of the first member of its group. Nor, Gee insists, does the record tell us anything about the adaptations of the species we study."
But that does not mean that it is other than quite justified in concluding that the family were in residence and then left, though we may not know why or where they went, that they left is evident. That is the same with palaeontology. We may not know all the details the date of the first individual to change but what information we have about the change is reliable. Thus I explain to you what Gee is saying and it is NOT what you are saying. That is why you are taking his quotes out of context and you are misrepresenting it. Even if Evolution wasn't true, you would still be dishonest in misrepresenting what he actually argues.

Quote:
You really know nothing about the length of time nor the type of changes you think took place. The whole thing is a guessing game!
It certainly does not! You're just trying to justify Gould's idea about "punctuated equilibrium."
I don't need to. I don't know if I even buy into 'Punctured Equilibrium' anyway. All I buy is that the evidence shows an evolutionary progression over a long time and you simply ignore and dismiss that pretty clear evidence to justify Creationist ideas about a sort of instant creation.

Quote:
This is nonsense! Information is immaterial and cannot rightly be compared to fossils.
Well, I'm glad that you agree that the Gospel information is far less reliable than the fossil record, but your point is immaterial to the case that one does not need all the information to derive sound conclusions from what information there is.

Quote:
All of your "explanations" amount to trickery! There's the dishonesty!
“. . .because the tyrant must reach his end, and the bragger must come to his finish, and all those keeping alert to do harm must be cut off, those bringing a man into sin by [his] word, and those who lay bait even for the one reproving in the gate, and those who push aside the righteous one with empty arguments.” (Isaiah 29:20-21)
I have to say that it is your methods of midirection and misrepresentation that have been exposed and pointless quotes from Isiah will not alter that.

Quote:
"Discrediting the evidence?" What evidence?
Quote:

NO EVIDENCE AT ALL
"In an effort to explain how living things evolved, modern-day sociobiologists rely on Neo-Darwinism, which is a later version of Charles Darwin’s theory of slow, adaptive evolution. But a newer, rival theory—called “punctuated equilibrium” by Stephen Gould and others—holds that the production of new animal species occurred in comparatively sudden jumps, or “jerks.”
.
Punctuationists maintain that fossil evidence is in their favor. Why? Because intermediate animal forms are “not detectable in the fossil record,” observes Dr. John Turner in an issue of New Scientist. But the main difference between these two camps is that punctuationists claim that
(1) the “jerks” were generated, not by some form of Neo-Darwinian adaption, but by some process possibly still unknown and
(2) the “jerks,” according to Turner, “always accompany the branching of the evolutionary tree.”

“There is no good evidence for [these ideas],” concludes Dr. Turner. “I am tempted to say no evidence at all. Of the essential jerk theory, one can say as Gould did of sociobiology, that it brings no new insights, and can cite on its behalf not a single unambiguous fact.”

But since punctuated equilibrium is so popular among rival evolutionists, this also amounts to an unintended admission of how little, if any, evidence there is for the traditional evolutionary belief. Since neither theory can explain the gaps in the fossil record, both lack credibility.


I should like to know where you got that since it it accepts the evidence (about which you ask 'what evidence?') and tries to make a case by pointing up valid discussion about the causes of the gaps in that evidence.
.
Quote:
However, there is a fully satisfying explanation for fossil gaps, one that also agrees with modern genetics. It is found in the Bible’s statements that animals produce “according to their kinds” and that man is an independent creation of God.—Genesis 1:24; 2:7." (WT 84 7/15 p. 21)


Satisfying only if one is content with Goddunnit with 'kinds' attached to make it seem less of a non - explanation (which it isn't)
.

Now if you want to (at long last) start an evidence for Creation thread you could try to explain how the 'kinds' theory fits the evidence (fossil and genetic) and see whether it actually does, or how the late appearance of man in the fossil record fits your Genesis scenario.

And:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
"One thing I picked up about evolutionists in every thread that I have followed: they really believe education makes them superior beings; so much so that they establish and maintain a deep-seated contemptible demeanor meant for all who do not believe they way they do. Their haughty attitude reveals itself in the unrelenting contempt with which they hold religious people, the sarcasm, the insults, the useless attempts to intimidate believers." (Wilson)


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson
I suppose it must seem like that to someone who does not listen, does not learn, rejects evidence, tosses Bible - quotes about with intent to maim and pretty much shows that religion has made him this way.

And

Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
That durned TalkOrigins site, huh? Providing all this unmistakable, factual and logical evidence, which gets regularly quote-mined to selectively distort the facts it presents.

As in: T. Pagano, who claims that: The fossil record is in complete accord with the creationist model ...

Well, read this rebuttal, oh Genesis-loving lads & ladies, in it's short entirety:

From Randy Crum. At: The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: March 2011

"Here's what the fossil record should look like if Biblical creationism were true...
couple of fine posts, Rifleman. Creation theory utterly fails to match what we actually see in the fossil record and quotemining evolutionists, misrepresenting evolutionary theories and trying to make discussion look as though the 'neo Darwinists' are is disarray is all part of the essential dishonesty of Bible - literalist Creationism.

Whatever the faults and flaws with evolution a 6 day creation is so at variance with the evidence that it can only be held up by throwing out almost all of it.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-11-2012 at 12:43 PM..

 
Old 01-11-2012, 12:49 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,079 posts, read 20,474,239 times
Reputation: 5926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidkitty View Post
This is really too too funny that people actually in 2012 are still working hard to prove the biblical account and disprove evolution. Coming from someone with a degree in religion i can say that the bible is chock full of things that never happened, so the chances are it gives an accurate depiction of the creation is slim. Evolution is a fact because we know that creatures have evolved through biological study, and the fossil record. However since we cannot currently observe the evolution of a creature it still is labeled as a theory.
That's not why it is called a theory (in the sense of an explanation of observed data), but I don't deny that it still is a bother that the evolution of one species into what even the Creationists would accept was a different species is not to hand. We have to rely on the fossil evidence that this did happen, plus the DNA tracers. That should be good enough to give benefit of doubt, but we are up against Bible - literalist Faith here.

I may say that the eye was supposed to be a problem (though it never was for me and now is for no -one) and the feather was a bother for me and I had doubts about scales to feathers and flying dinosaurs. Not now. The evidence is compelling. Speciation in the macro way before our eyes still eluded us, but just one example in nature. That's do it.
 
Old 01-11-2012, 01:04 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,079 posts, read 20,474,239 times
Reputation: 5926
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
Nothing but the truth.
You mean they don't remain bacteria and viruses?

Can anyone expect truth from someone who sees nothing wrong with lying?

Do you agree with this statement?:
"Here's what the fossil record should look like if Biblical creationism were true. In the very lowest strata we should see no fossils at all. This is because, according to the Bible, all life originally existed in the Garden of Eden and nothing died there."

Is this statement true?

Quote-mining = distortion.
Am I right?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson
Yes. And you are still quotemining. You are distorting by selecting tems out of context.

You will triumphantly declare that the lowest strata indeed has no fossils. That is true, but devoid of context which is:

In the next levels of strata, we should see a fairly constant rate of fossils or a gradually growing rate of fossils. This would reflect the time after the Fall as life progressed all over the Earth. These strata should have fossils of all types of organisms, both bacteria and larger more complex organisms because all of them coexisted.

While the lowest strata of an earth before life would of course be devoid of fossils in either the evolutionary or Creationist scenario, the next stage would be a series of strata in which ALL KINDS of fossil animals and plants -even humans, would be found and in the evolutionary scenario, strata would show a progression of fossils from simple through fish to amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds and mammals with humans in the latest levels.

Now you tell me which we actually find? And before you even think it, don't try to pull the Paluxy tracks.
 
Old 01-11-2012, 01:17 PM
 
646 posts, read 630,675 times
Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
You are quotemining what he wrote ('allegedly' implies that you are just cutting and pasting from elsewhere, so I will give it you that you are not misrepresenting what he was saying on your own account). He is no apologist or pseudo - scientist, but it seems that you are lifting your material from someone who is.
You know exactly where I'm "lifting" it from! Here - I'll give it to you again:
Evolution - March 2000: Re: Beyond the Fossil Record ...
Quote:
You see, your religious beliefs wouldn't suffer from actually giving credit to evolution evidence. Like many Christians, you could simply take it that was the method by which God got it done.

How about giving reason (falsehood) a try?
That will NEVER happen! Not even a little bit!
Satan told Jesus:
[SIZE=2][SIZE=2][LEFT]“I will give you all this authority and the glory of them, because it has been delivered to me, and to whomever I wish I give it. You, therefore, if you do an act of worship before me, it will all be yours.”” (Luke 4:6-7)

I liken it to an act of worship to Satan!!!
.[/LEFT]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
Man was made in God's image. Evolution says otherwise. I will not give it the credit that belongs to Jehovah.
[SIZE=2][SIZE=2][LEFT]“. . .“You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.”” (Revelation 4:11)
[/LEFT]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
Religious people who succumb to that kind of pressure are people without integrity nor faith.
They are not fit representatives of the Creator and will receive nothing from him.

"Quote-mining" = distortion.
Am I right?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson


 
Old 01-11-2012, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
16,155 posts, read 12,791,427 times
Reputation: 2879
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
You mean they don't remain bacteria and viruses?
AH-HA!! Another gem that confirms your lack of understanding re evolution. I repeat again....STOP LOOKING FOR CROCODUCKS BUNNY!
 
Old 01-11-2012, 02:06 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,079 posts, read 20,474,239 times
Reputation: 5926
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
You know exactly where I'm "lifting" it from! Here - I'll give it to you again:
Evolution - March 2000: Re: Beyond the Fossil Record ...

That will NEVER happen! Not even a little bit!
Satan told Jesus:
[SIZE=2][SIZE=2][LEFT]“I will give you all this authority and the glory of
(irelevant preaching cancelled to save everyone's eyes)

"Quote-mining" = distortion.
Am I right?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

I still don't know whether any of that is valid or where it came from or how fair it is as it seems to collate a few mined quotes and build a explanation (which looks darned unfair if not ill -informed to me) of how it pretty much invalidates all of evolution theory.

The list of entries seems to have an overwhelming collection of 'evolution - bashers'.

But that's not what matters. What matters is that this

"Here is a review in American Scientist by the Darwinist historian Peter Bowler
of a book by paleontologist Henry Gee about the fossil record. According to
Bowler, Gee believes that:

"...all the old paraphernalia of evolutionary explanations must be dismissed
as unscientific speculation. All we can do is assess degrees of relationship.
We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise
testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came
about."

(Which we already explained is Gee explaining that the popular misconception of 'missing links' is a poor one and that taking it out of context and indeed the review of Bowler's work on the history of evolutionary thought - he is highly critical of creationism) has enabled someone with an axe to grind to misrepresent the dismissal of the 'old evolutionary explanations' as a call to dismiss all and every evolutionary explanation. And the evidence along with it of course.

While we cannot devise testable theories because the individuals at the moment of change are hardly likely to be preserved, that does not mean that applying observed and proven genetic adaptation as a theory of change is invalid, or that the 'degrees of relationship' are not perfectly good evidence of that relationship.

"Quote-mining" indeed = distortion.

Oh and, p.s As I thought; you were copying and pasting rather than reading the work quoted in enough detail to understand the point it was really making.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-11-2012 at 02:27 PM..
 
Old 01-11-2012, 02:16 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,494 posts, read 36,972,653 times
Reputation: 13964
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I still don't know whether any of that is valid or where it came from or how fair it is as it seems to collate a few mined quotes and build a explanation (which looks pretty unfair if not ill -informed to me) of how it pretty much invalidates all of evolution theory.

"Quote-mining" indeed = distortion.
It comes from this guy...The mined quotes are pre-packaged...

Stephen E. Jones: Creation/Evolution quotes: Evolution
 
Old 01-11-2012, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Warren, Michigan
5,298 posts, read 4,577,083 times
Reputation: 192
I have thought a lot about evolution, and studied much avialible science on it. As deep as I could go in a debate using science itself to dispute evolution, I found a simple principle that answers a lot of my personal questions and curosity on this most interesting subject. If you walk down a street and see a quarter on the ground, you can think someone probally dropped it. You continue in your walk and find 4 quarters on the ground, you can still assume they were dropped by mistake. You continue your walk and find 100 quarters on the ground, each standing on their edges, perfectly balanced; you can now correctly assume with absolutely no doubts that this was " Deliberately Done."

A personal study is like this walk. You can study science and this universe and you will continually find things that had to be deliberately done. You can assume with no doubts that the order and balance of things existing show astute deliberate design. So one has to make a choice in their study; their walk; Things done deliberately, or things got done on an incredible level of fortutious luck that has painted this universe with happenstance unadmitted miracles!
 
Old 01-11-2012, 03:23 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,079 posts, read 20,474,239 times
Reputation: 5926
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
It comes from this guy...The mined quotes are pre-packaged...

Stephen E. Jones: Creation/Evolution quotes: Evolution
Thank you.

"Welcome to my home page! My name is Stephen E. (Steve) Jones. I am in my sixties, married with two adult children and three grandchildren, an evangelical Christian and a member of a Church of Christ in a suburb of Perth, Western Australia."

That doesn't mean that we should dismiss everything he says, but so far it does seem that he relies on a mined quote and then building up an argument on some misperception of what the quote was actually intended to say.
 
Old 01-11-2012, 03:30 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,079 posts, read 20,474,239 times
Reputation: 5926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiel View Post
I have thought a lot about evolution, and studied much avialible science on it. As deep as I could go in a debate using science itself to dispute evolution, I found a simple principle that answers a lot of my personal questions and curosity on this most interesting subject. If you walk down a street and see a quarter on the ground, you can think someone probally dropped it. You continue in your walk and find 4 quarters on the ground, you can still assume they were dropped by mistake. You continue your walk and find 100 quarters on the ground, each standing on their edges, perfectly balanced; you can now correctly assume with absolutely no doubts that this was " Deliberately Done."

A personal study is like this walk. You can study science and this universe and you will continually find things that had to be deliberately done. You can assume with no doubts that the order and balance of things existing show astute deliberate design. So one has to make a choice in their study; their walk; Things done deliberately, or things got done on an incredible level of fortutious luck that has painted this universe with happenstance unadmitted miracles!
Well, that perhaps does encapsulate the disagreement. We think that it is arguable that all these things held up as fortuitous luck really are. There is a tendency to overlook the action of known natural processes even quite complex ones, and argue that it couldn't happen by 'chance'. It doesn't happen with snowflakes, crystals or anything else. No -one n their right mind would argue that they come together in their complexity by 'luck'. The processes are well known.l
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top