Is evolution dead? (hell, genesis, bible, quotes)

[saltine]

A reliable source quoted darwin as saying "if the missing link is not found within 100 years, scrap the theory" I think the theory is just that, and has reached its conclusion.

[jabogitlu]

Okay.

1. Which reliable source?

2. You say you think the theory has reached its conclusion. How can a theory reach a conclusion and a terminus? And more importantly, why do you think so?

[saltine]

1. My brother, the minister and Navy SeaBee. A very intelligent, educated man. My reliable source. Needless to say I trust him with my life.
2. If Darwin were alive in 1964 he would conclude his theory void.

[GCSTroop]

This is from the evowiki page in response to what you have just done which is "quote mine".

"Quote-mining" is a term much used in the talk.origins newsgroup. It refers to the Creationist practice of extracting (mining) quotations from their proper context so as to make the quoted-mined person appear to be saying something very different than what he really did say. Here is a basic example of an out-of-context (i.e., mined) quote:
"There is no God." (Psalms 14:1)
If you check your Bible, you will find that those four words, in that order, really do occur in Psalms 14:1. However, you will also find that the author of Psalms was not denying the existence of God; rather, he was making a point about those persons who are foolish enough that they deny the existence of God. A more honest quotation, with the mined words in bold, would be:
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (Psalms 14:1)
Other techniques are available to the dedicated quote-miner. For example, if you can't find any continous series of words which say what you want them to say, you may be able to find two unrelated passages which, when juxtaposed, do say what you want them to say:
"The Lord . . . is evil." (Genesis 8:21)
Again, if you check your Bible, you will find those four words do indeed occur in that order within Genesis 8:21 -- but you will also find that there are a number of other words in Genesis 8:21 which somehow failed to make it into the quotation. Here is a more complete excerpt from Gen 8:21, with the quote-mined words in bold:
"...the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil..." (Genesis 8:21)
The practice of quote-mining is roundly despised for its inherent dishonesty, and is one more reason that real scientists tend to view Creationists as intellectually dishonest.
You can also mine a quote without changing the sentence it came from. Sometimes surrounding sentences provide context. It is very common for scientists to begin an article describing a position the remainder of the article refutes. Carefully chosen sentences can thus appear to support the position the article is opposed to.
Yet another version of the same is to redefine terms used in quoted material. The classic example are the hundreds of quotes where scientists deny the existance of "macroevolution", where the scientists mean "a special process of evolution that leads to speciation", a defunct idea from the 1960's and before. Creationists define the term differently ("Evolution beyond the created kind"), then present the quotes from scientists as if they were in agreement with the creationists.
Real scientific research does not consist of merely quoting other scientists, but either going out into nature or doing research in a laboratory to gather physical evidence to support a position or claim.
Misrepresenting a professional person can be damaging to them and is therefore immoral. It may even lay the quote-miner open to legal charges.

[saltine]

[quote=GCSTroop;1803128]This is from the evowiki page in response to what you have just done which is "quote mine".

Very well, I understand your point. I will look for it to determine if it was taken out of text.

[GCSTroop]

This is rather long, but I suggest you read this project on quote mining. If it doesn't answer your questions than I don't know what will, but like I said it is very long. It just shows how out of context creationists often like to quote people.

Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists

Actually, try this link instead. Scroll down about midway through the page and it has all of the Darwin misquotes with the misquote, the actual quote, and an explanation.

Quote Mine Project: Contents Sorted by Author

[saltine]

[quote=GCSTroop;1803284]This is rather long, but I suggest you read this project on quote mining. If it doesn't answer your questions than I don't know what will, but like I said it is very long.
I didn't ask a question. Like I said, I get your point, now I will find out if the quote was taken out of context and I will get back on it. We will see. I don't think anyone is immune to quote mining.

[doss1]

The Darwin theory has already been predated by Augustine centuries before. The only reason we talk so much about Darwin is because he was alive in modern times.

[AT9]

Evolution is certainly not dead, but it is dying.

[satanoid]

Darwin, while acknowledged as the father of our understanding of evolution today, is by no means the only man (or woman) who supported, or continue to support the idea.

Every respectable geneticist, anthropologist, zoologist - and hell, anyone with a basic understanding of scientific principles agree that evolution is the most likely scenario for how we have become what we are today.

So, you seek to tear down evolution as a fanciful pipe dream of a long dead madman: what do you propose happened?

An invisible sky wizard snapped his fingers, let us ride dinosaurs and created millions of different species of insects for grins?