Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
Oh that's good. I'm accused of saying Gee said evolution is a Fairy Tale. And then when I ask what post I said that on. Now you say. I should look it up myself. Could it be you said that, only because you know my supposed statement does not exist?
And I see you always attack me, yet not once have you even tried to explain any of Gee's statements, could that be, because you yourself would be unable to explain away the obvious?
And Creationist were not the first one's to suggest that man came from monkeys. It use to be, that museum displays often showed man's early evolution was on the order of ape like. And supposed early man was often pictured this way in numerous text books as well.
|
I'm fed up with you trying to scrape a draw with dishonesty. I could look up the exact pages. You are seriously suggesting I invented your quotes when anyone browsing pages 45-55 can find them? Well I'll look them up just to show what a disgrace to Creationism you are -and that's saying something.
Not even tried to explain Gee's statement? Even true believers in YE creationism must be cringing with embarrassment. We have laboured on a dozen pages explaining Gee and all the other quotes that we could find. You even show that by saying that our explanations are just our opinion.
And you again change your tack trying to claw back some cheap points. It is a shame because you have actually made some good points if only you didn't try to turn them into a complete disproof of all the mass of evidence for evolution.
You first said that the 'present' theory of monkeys to men had been discredited. True. We showed that the theory had moved on, not been scrapped. You then claimed that creationists had shown that the monkeys to men theory would not do and I rightly pointed out that it's Creationists like you who cling to this theory because it's an easy strawman to knock down.
And now you try to fudge a link between the early monkeys to men theory -which was reasonable in view of the limited evidence they had - and try to argue that it's still essentially the same theory since it's still ape men.
Of course! The theory of evolution has not been scrapped. The monkeys to men theory has not been scrapped either, though you'd like to argue that it is. It's become more complex with more side - branches, dead-ends of primate evolution and new ideas on speciation. The basic evidence still supports the conclusion that primates have evolved and we are, on all evidence, one of the outcomes and present monkeys, chimps and lemurs are others.
You attempt to discredit that by arguing that it's somehow still the same as the fairy tale that was the best theory for which there was evidence in Darwin's time. That really shows up the tricky and dishonest arguments of Creationists.
And it's really a shame (goes into stroking mode
) becuae you have smarts and even some good points. It would just be better if you looked at both sides. I'd find it easier to do that if I wasn't constantly being called on to prove evolution up to the hilt or abandon it altogether.
Well, here's some of your quotes, chapter and verse.
To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the (SAME VALIDITY AS A BEDTIME STORY)--
Camp 45.6
because that knowledge was lost. And if anyone did put them together, that would amount to nothing more than (STORYTELLING,) which is not scientific.
3. Legions of Ape-men? You just missed Gee's entire arguement. You can't string anything together from the fossil record and try to prove evidence for evolution. That's nothing but (STORY TELLING).
Camp 47.3
Gee is telling you much more than monkey to man is a fairy tale. Gee states, that for anyone to claim a line of fossils represent a linage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested. He tells us, that such assertion carries the same validity as a (BEDTIME STORY)-
Camp 49.3
To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a linage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but as assertion that carries the same validity as a (BEDTIME STORY)-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific
Camp 54.6
The family tree was based on the fossil record. And it is that record that is collapsing. Gee clearly points out that trying to put such fossils in order, amounts to nothing more, THAN STORY TELLING
Yet Gee is telling you. Your belief that the fossil record supports evolution. Is a
Fairy Tale, based on stories you have invented, and molded by your own prejudices (underlining mine)
camp 58.10
finally, you seem to have avoided coming clean on this, which I asked on p. 49
Quote:
:
Gee states. That 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).
Let me ask you to be honest. "(IS WRONG)." Is that what Gee wrote or is that a interpretation by you or by some Creationist?
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
Is "(THAT'S A LOT OF NONSENSE.)" what Mary Leaky wrote or is it your addition or that of some creationist sticking their own view onto a scientific quote that at least can be made to look as though it supports it?
|
Recent post (KC's no. 2 above) seems to have caught you out putting your own take into an evolutionist's mouth for all the world like a Gospel - writer putting his own views into Jesus' mouth
You said "If you want to say that all fossils are transitionals, do so. Yet please do not suggest this is based on evidence found in the fossil record. Because it is obvious, the fossil record will not support such a conclusion."
I think this is where you go wrong and it shown that you are equivocating. You call 'transitionals' 'missing links'. Gee and others say there are no missing links since the fossils won't be there. True. The missing link 'bedtime story' envisages that from blob to bod has a neat sequence of 'missing links' of which more and more are being slotted into the sequence. That is the bedtime story. It is far more complex than that with a lot of evolutionary lines, many of which have so much missing that it is impossible to prove that one line led to another. That's what Gee and the others say and what we repeatedly explained.
You might have made a fair comment that this might call into question the whole theory of evolution. But you have instead opted for the trick of insisting that, since the 'missing link' is a myth, and transitional are 'missing links', transitionals therefore do not exist. You are playing a semantic trick here. Transitionals exist in profusion, though Creationists explain that evidence away as coincidental resemblances such as the foolish argument (probably not one of yours) that Ambulocetus could not have been a land animal because as a whale ancestor it had to be in the sea, right?
It is also worth restating that evidence for evolution is pretty much conclusive through biological and DNA research, even if not one fossil existed, though it would be a real embarassment if there were none. But fossils do exist, in profusion, and nothing found in the fossil record does other than support evolution, though it is not what is used as proof and the popular public idea and the Creationist insistence that it is the fossils that must be the 'proof' of evolution is, indeed, (NONSENSE) as you might put it.
But you should really get you head around the idea of what the evidence for evolution is, rather than what you would like it to be in order to reject it. And you should also realize that, even if you reject it, that does nothing whatsoever to prove Genesis, though I concede you might have removed the disproof of the literal reading of the Bible creation myth.
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.
