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.
You know, anyone can make broad accusations. It's easy to do, and often those who participate in such behaviour, do so only because they themselves cannot formulate a specific and coherent defense of their own.
Oh, you have just described yourself and the majority of theists to a tee.
Quote:
I would suggest you forget your simplistic quote-mine defense, and actually try answering a questions put to you.
You have no argument as has been amply presented in this thread by others, I have no desire to debate anything with you until you come to the party and explain from your buybull the age of the earth namely
Age of the Victoria Waterfalls (±100k)
Age of the Kango and Sudwala caves (oldest in the world) and in particular the age of stalactites and stalagmites
Antarctic Ice cores in excess of 600k years and counting
Lake and delta varves
Age of the Blyde river canyon paralleled with the Grand canyon
Oldest tree in the world >9000 years
Quote:
Case in point. Henry Gee states. Once we realize that Deep Time can never support narratives of evolution, we are forced to accept that virtually everything we thought we knew about evolution (IS WRONG)...
So the approach was not ideal, changes to analyze better is BTW an ongoing quest of science, you have brought nothing new to the table.
Quote:
Would you agree with that statement? Yes or No.
Maybe, like I said, I am not a follower of Gee, he is just one of many scientists.
Actually, my forte is geography and geology, I use that to dismiss YEC simply by the evidence of the age of the earth. I am not learned in evolution theory, but what I read makes perfect sense and is far more logical and convincing than your insta-poof version of your buybull.
Your arguments is like saying the sky is pink while all the rest of humanity knows it is blue, one must then assume you are eating hallucinogenic mushrooms or licking psychoactive toads.
The only reason I cite Gee is because he himself has said somthing truthful that a number of believers in evolution are still not aware of. And that is, the fossil record has no evidence for evolution.
Come on, you're not fooling anyone but yourself. And based on your avoidance of my specific criticisms of your quote mining of Gee, it seems like even you know deep down that you're not being honest.
I guess it's the only way to keep thinking that you know better than the author himself what he acutally meant :
"This idea, that one cannot assert ancestor-descendant relationships a priori, is often wilfully misconstrued by creationists that evolution can’t be true, whereas in fact evolution is axiomatic." - Henry Gee
Everything I have stated, was stated by Henery Gee. He may not of said everything at the sametime, yet he said everything here. And here's another one of his statements.
Once we realize that Deep Time can never support narratives of evolution we are forced to accept that virtually everything we thought we knew about evolution, (IS WRONG). Do you agree with that statement? YES or NO.
Do you agree that you are a trolling, myopic, lying, bigoted idiot who can not admit he knows nothing of what he is talking about? YES or NO.
Hint: if you answer in truth that you gawd is claimed to prefer, the answer is yes.
Gee, is just one of many who are now coming out of the closet here. The fact that he is considered a high profile person in science, may be do to the fact that he is the editor for Nature magazine. Gee truly believes in Evolution, yet, his beliefs may be considered by some evolutionist as heresy. Yet, his beliefs are consistant with the evidence. And unlike others in his field, he appears willing to share those beliefs, especially on the fossil record, and what it does not reveal about evolution.
All of which means what? He can get his opinions published so that they can be misapplied by the likes of you?
This does not make him an expert and makes you pathetic.
BTW, in you typical fashion, you try again to deflect and not answer the question. Running a magazine does not make him the expert you decree him. Another lie by deflection from you (LIAR).
Come on, you're not fooling anyone but yourself. And based on your avoidance of my specific criticisms of your quote mining of Gee, it seems like even you know deep down that you're not being honest.
I guess it's the only way to keep thinking that you know better than the author himself what he acutally meant :
"This idea, that one cannot assert ancestor-descendant relationships a priori, is often wilfully misconstrued by creationists that evolution can’t be true, whereas in fact evolution is axiomatic." - Henry Gee
Thanks. Gee's own comment further down is worth reading in the light of Campbell's claims that Gee's comments implied that he was one the evolutionists 'coming out of the woodwork' and saying that the popular concept of evolution was inaccurate, (Creationist translation "evolution is false")
"The first thing to say is that everyone has an ancestor – of course they do – that’s a given. The problem is that one can never know if a fossil you might dig up definitely is your ancestor, or not, or the ancestor of anything you can name. The most you can assert is some degree of cousinhood. (This idea, that one cannot assert ancestor-descendant relationships a priori, is often wilfully misconstrued by creationists that evolution can’t be true, whereas in fact evolution is axiomatic.) For this reason, evolutionary relationships expressed cladistically show all the taxa, living or extinct, on what seems to be the same temporal plane, with no implication of specific ancestor-descendant relationships. Again, it’s important to stress that this strategy does not deny the existence of ancestry and descent, only that specific instances can never be known,"
So, no. We cannot demonstrate neat lines of ancestry with all the gaps filled. But that does not give the slightest support to the creationists idea that there are no evolutionary links and they are all separately created creatures.
We know there is natural selection. We can see evolutionary links in many kind of creatures. The fossil evidence gives support to the working of evolution over long periods of time. The biological work shows further family links. Gaps or not, all the evidence so far supports evolution and none supports creation.
I can see what Campell 34 means, but he is really concentrating on particular statements and over-applying them in a way that is really not valid. And apparently editing in his own views and grafting them into sentences where they never belonged.
You know, anyone can make broad accusations. It's easy to do, and often those who participate in such behaviour, do so only because they themselves cannot formulate a specific and coherent defense of their own.
Admitting your own inadequacy finally?
Quote:
I would suggest you forget your simplistic quote-mine defense, and actually try answering a questions put to you.
I would suggest that you try another line of attack. You have been totally discredited by using this attempt, and misapplying it at that.
Quote:
Case in point. Henry Gee states. Once we realize that Deep Time can never support narratives of evolution, we are forced to accept that virtually everything we thought we knew about evolution (IS WRONG)...
Attempting to place into evidence as fact only the ideas and misconceptions you support. Suppose you are correct. Suppose that deep time can never support narratives of evolution. Your following statement does not follow as being the only alternative (much as you wish it was). You are once again placing your own desires as the only possible thing that can be true. You don't even know the meaning of truth.
Quote:
Would you agree with that statement? Yes or No.
Even though you have no authority for continually demanding a yes or know answer and will not provide them yourself (COWARD) I will answer you. NO.
Nature, is one of the worlds most distinguished science publication on earth, and Henry Gee, the British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist just happens to be the senior editor. And gee, is also considered a leader in the field of evolutionary science.
By whom? You? That would be points against the magazine. Additionally, being an editor merely means that he does no field work and is publishing opinions. Everybody has opinions and most would appear to differ from his. Whereas all differ from your fantasies.
Quote:
To suggest Henry Gee is not a (high profile) person in his field. Your really telling me. You don't know what your talking about.
To pretend that is field is of such scope that all should bow down and worship his opinions, even mis-stated as you present them, show that once again you don't know what you are talking about (WHAT'S NEW?).
I've already pointed out that you are conveniently ignoring the word in bold, which makes an enormous difference in what Gee is saying. You either don't understand it or you're intentionally ignoring it. So let's think about this for a second. Are numerous people in this thread who actually know how evolution and science works misinterpreting Henry Gee, or is it the guy who has proven he doesn't understand either misinterpreting him? Hmm....I'm sure I know your answer. You think you are the only one in this entire thread who truly understands what Henry Gee is really saying here, because you've read a few sentences of his work. Never mind the fact that, if you read all the sentences surrounding the ones you quote, his words take on a whole different meaning. I'd also like to know this: If Henry Gee and Steven J. Gould don't believe the fossil record provides any evidence whatsoever for evolution, why do you think they believe it to be true?
Lamplight, I can't speak for Steven Gould other than he believes there are fossils that do suggest evolution, yet they are few. Henry Gee on the other hand states the fossils are simply (GONE). So why does he believe in Evolution? All I can say right now is, he believes in evolution. Yet fully rejects the idea that the fossil record shows us anything that would support his belief. I would love to ask him that question, and I believe a number of others would (PAY) just to hear his answer.
The fossil record is without question coming under attack. And many of it's main believers our now giving up on it's ability to show us any evolution. Mary Leakey of all people, a person who spent much of her life searching for such, gave her final conclusion to Associated Press. And this was just three months before she died. And I quote.
"Since scientists can never prove a particular scenario of human evolution"
Leakey said "all these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, (THAT'S A LOT OF NONSENSE)." 12/9/1996
And Gee and Leakey are not alone with this opinion.
So why does he believe in Evolution? All I can say right now is, he believes in evolution. Yet fully rejects the idea that the fossil record shows us anything that would support his belief. I would love to ask him that question, and I believe a number of others would (PAY) just to hear his answer.
I haven't followed the thread closely enough to see in which way you quote-mined him this time... But you do realise that the fossil record is not the main line of evidence for the theory of evolution, right? The study of our genome for example, or molecular biology, is far more convincing.
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.
