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 don't know because I haven't the quote in context, but, going by your previous methods, it is taken out of context to imply that because it is not known in detail (a total mystery) the evolutionary process is unproven, untrue and a myth. It isn't. The supportive evidence is so strong that, though all the details may not be known, the evidence that it occurred is overwhelming.
I don't know because I haven't the quote in context, but, going by your previous methods, it is taken out of context to imply that because it is not known in detail (a total mystery) the evolutionary process is unproven, untrue and a myth. It isn't. The supportive evidence is so strong that, though all the details may not be known, the evidence that it occurred is overwhelming.
That is certainly misrepresented. As has already been pointed out.
"This leads Gee to ask:
Does this mean we have, at last, a sign that the roots of humanity go directly back to the divergence with chimps, and that the legions of ape-men and near-humans discovered over the past 70 years are a side-issue, irrelevant to the main course of human evolution?
Gee's answer is "no". He maintains that Toumaï is a "very small tip of a very deep iceberg, just a sample of what might have been a huge diversity of creatures living between four and 10m years ago." As was the case with the quote mine of Gee previously addressed in Quote #4.14, he is pointing out and arguing against the tendency, even among scientists, to "see evolution in terms of a linear chain of ancestry and descent" instead of as a "bush" with many collateral cousins. Thus, there are no "missing links", not because evolution is false, but because simple chains are poor metaphors for the prolific nature of life. Or, as Gee explains:
People and advertising copywriters tend to see human evolution as a line stretching from apes to man, into which one can fit new-found fossils as easily as links in a chain. Even modern anthropologists fall into this trap . . .
Gee, like any good scientist, is never satisfied and complains that "we know desperately little of the course of human evolution". He will doubtless continue to do so no matter how much we learn in his lifetime. But the broad conclusions scientists have drawn regarding human descent are supported by ample evidence, of which the "legions of ape-men and near-humans discovered over the past 70 years" are just a part. Gee's understandable desire to know more is no excuse to distort what he has said concerning what we do know."
It is, as I show above, taken out of context and misrepresented to look as though it supports your argument, which it doesn't.
"Gee, like any good scientist, is never satisfied and complains that "we know desperately little of the course of human evolution". He will doubtless continue to do so no matter how much we learn in his lifetime. But the broad conclusions scientists have drawn regarding human descent are supported by ample evidence, of which the "legions of ape-men and near-humans discovered over the past 70 years" are just a part. Gee's understandable desire to know more is no excuse to distort what he has said concerning what we do know."
It is, as I show above, taken out of context and misrepresented to look as though it supports your argument, which it doesn't.
"Gee's understandable desire to know more is no excuse to distort what he has said concerning what we do know".
I am sure that you are so bought into Bible- based creationism that you have lost all objectivity. You can no longer be troubled to find out out what evolutionists are actually saying but can only cut and paste out of context misrepresentations with your own editing to suit your own conclusions. And you won't even listen when we point out how you are being dishonest, because that does not suit your belief - system. The statements, in their original context, are so obvious in saying that evolution is amply supported by the evidence, never mind that not all evidence is there and not all sequences are clear, that you go into denial and insist that your out of context misrepresentations are the true meaning.
And all of your examples have been shown to be out of of context, misrepresented by your source, amended by you and answered, by us, 'No' - they do not say what you claim they say. Not if you look at the original quotes in context.
And is is you that has a serious problem. it is Faith.
1. There is no fossil evidence. Henery Gee and others tell you this much.
And the only thing that is overwhelming, is your belief that such evidence exist. And if such evidence existed, and was overwhelming, all believers in evolution would be on the same page, and this debate would not be taking place. Your evidence, exist only in your mind.
2. And what Gee is pointing out, is there is no missing link, because there is no evidence to be found in the fossil record. Of course he believes it was once there, yet he clearly points out, that science cannot find them. And that is because to much time has passed, and they (are gone.) And he also points out, that if they could find them, they could never put them together, 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). This is what Gee is telling you. (DID YOU MISS THAT POINT?) Or do you just ignore what Gee's saying and dismiss his own words? And then try to add to your arguement by copying someone's else's material? Which suggest that (GEE WAS JUST COMPLAINING THAT WE KNOW LITTLE OF THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVOLUTION). What Gee really said, is that the fossils that would prove evolution (ARE GONE). I have not distorted Gee's words. I have imbraced them. Yet, it appers to me, you have ignored them. And that is why rather than state what Gee actually said, you posted someone else's spin on Gee's clear statement. Which reduced what Gee actually said. To him simply complaining about the lack of knowledge of human evolution. While they fully ignored Gee's statement about the fossils being gone from the fossil record . Who's playing the shell game here?
I am bought into the Bible, because we do have historical evidence for it's reality. And that evidence is not disputed by the greater body of Archeologist. And you will not see the firestorm of debate over that evidence, because it is clear and obvious. Unlike what is presented as evidence for evolution. And I might add here, I personally have bought into the Bible, because I have had some real encounters with it's Author.
And my faith in the Bible is built on evidence, not STORYTELLING.
Campbell34;10551399]But the broad conclusions scientists have drawn regarding human descent (ARE SUPPORTED) by ample evidence, of which "legions of ape-men and near-humans discovered over the past 70 years?"
sanspeur, you have just fully ignored everything Henery Gee has been telling you.
You must have a reading comprehension problem...The words above are Gee's, not mine...By the way it is spelled Henry, not Henery.
Quote:
The scarcity of fossils, means that it is (EFFECTIVELY IMPOSSIBLE) to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in (ANY VALID WAY), whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, (OR CHAINS OF ANCESTRY AND DESCENT.
I agree that the fossils do not tell the complete story, but without them we would know little or nothing about the species that preceded the ones on earth today...They are still valid evidence for evolution regardless of your wishful thinking.
Quote:
Gee has told you, that 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)-amusing, perhaps even instructive, (BUT NOT SCIENTIFIC).
How many times are you going to repeat this?
Quote:
sanspeur, your legions of ape-men is a (BEDTIME STORY) according to Henery Lee, and it is also (UNSCIENTIFIC). You have an old preception of evidence being shown in the fossil record. This belief is now being refuted.
"legions of ape-men and near-humans discovered over the past 70 years"......Those were Henry Gee's words, not mine. Are you saying that Gee refutes his own words?
Quote:
And as far as your ape men go this is what Sarel Elmer, and Irven DeVore editiors of Life, The Primates (1985) page 15, states.
Again...Gee's ape men, not mmine.
Quote:
"Unfortunately, the fossil record which would enable us to trace the emergence of the apes is still hopelessly incomplete. We do not know either when or where distinctively apelike animals first began to diverge from monkey stock... Unfortunately, the early stages of (MAN'S EVOLUTIONARY PROGRESS) along his own individual line remain (A TOTAL MYSTERY.")
Another mined quote....Why am I not surprised? I'll look this quote up to find the context it was said in and get back to you.
Quote:
Your belief that we have legions of ape-men for evidence (IS A MYTH). And other believers in evolution are telling you this.
1. There is no fossil evidence. Henery Gee and others tell you this much.
And the only thing that is overwhelming, is your belief that such evidence exist. And if such evidence existed, and was overwhelming, all believers in evolution would be on the same page, and this debate would not be taking place. Your evidence, exist only in your mind.
2. And what Gee is pointing out, is there is no missing link, because there is no evidence to be found in the fossil record. Of course he believes it was once there, yet he clearly points out, that science cannot find them. And that is because to much time has passed, and they (are gone.) And he also points out, that if they could find them, they could never put them together, 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). This is what Gee is telling you. (DID YOU MISS THAT POINT?) Or do you just ignore what Gee's saying and dismiss his own words? And then try to add to your arguement by copying someone's else's material? Which suggest that (GEE WAS JUST COMPLAINING THAT WE KNOW LITTLE OF THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVOLUTION). What Gee really said, is that the fossils that would prove evolution (ARE GONE). I have not distorted Gee's words. I have imbraced them. Yet, it appers to me, you have ignored them. And that is why rather than state what Gee actually said, you posted someone else's spin on Gee's clear statement. Which reduced what Gee actually said. To him simply complaining about the lack of knowledge of human evolution. While they fully ignored Gee's statement about the fossils being gone from the fossil record . Who's playing the shell game here?
I am bought into the Bible, because we do have historical evidence for it's reality. And that evidence is not disputed by the greater body of Archeologist. And you will not see the firestorm of debate over that evidence, because it is clear and obvious. Unlike what is presented as evidence for evolution. And I might add here, I personally have bought into the Bible, because I have had some real encounters with it's Author.
And my faith in the Bible is built on evidence, not STORYTELLING.
All I can say is that since I am not a god, I cannot perform a miracle that will remove your blindness... You have bought into the bible myths, hook line and sinker, and other than going through years of de-programming I see no hope that you will ever see the truth that stares you in the face....Your methods of "debate", if I can even call it that, are totally dishonest.
You must have a reading comprehension problem...The words above are Gee's, not mine...By the way it is spelled Henry, not Henery.
I agree that the fossils do not tell the complete story, but without them we would know little or nothing about the species that preceded the ones on earth today...They are still valid evidence for evolution regardless of your wishful thinking.
How many times are you going to repeat this?
"legions of ape-men and near-humans discovered over the past 70 years"......Those were Henry Gee's words, not mine. Are you saying that Gee refutes his own words?
Again...Gee's ape men, not mmine.
Another mined quote....Why am I not surprised? I'll look this quote up to find the context it was said in and get back to you.
Once again, Gee's words, not mine.
No sanspeur, I think you have the reading comprehension problem. Because the words above were not spoken by Gee. The chapter in question was speaking (ABOUT) Gee. It was not Gee that was speaking.
Gee, like any good scientist is never satisfied and complains that we know desperately little of the course of human evolution----------------------
-----But the broad conclusion scientist have drawn regarding human descent are supported by ample evidence.
(Gee, did not say that.) It is Gee who states (there is no evidence in the fossil record). Gee said that evidence (is gone.)
Has Gee or any of the other folk you have quoted stated that creationism is then true?
(NO!)
Why would Gee say creationism is true? He believes in evolution, yet he also believes we can never prove evolution by the fossil record, because all the evidence needed to make the connection between fossils is (GONE).
All I can say is that since I am not a god, I cannot perform a miracle that will remove your blindness... You have bought into the bible myths, hook line and sinker, and other than going through years of de-programming I see no hope that you will ever see the truth that stares you in the face....Your methods of "debate", if I can even call it that, are totally dishonest.
Gee makes very plain that all the evidence in the fossil record that would prove evolution is gone. He stated this in his book. In Search For Deep Time. Do you believe his statement. YES or NO.
Why would Gee say creationism is true? He believes in evolution, yet he also believes we can never prove evolution by the fossil record, because all the evidence needed to make the connection between fossils is (GONE).
Do you agree with Gee's statement? Yes or No?
Okay, I'm confused. You continually cite Gee as proof of your allegation that evolution is false, yet also say he does not believe in creationism and does believe in evolution.
It would appear that you are arguing with yourself or you need to up to dose on your meds......
Some paleontologists are also suggesting that people may not have originated in Africa. They are leaning toward Asia now. That is my thing - any theory should be treated and taught as just that. How long did we teach the "Earth was Flat" before some one disproved. I just get so aggravated at people accepting theory as truth and teaching the bunk in our schools.
The flat earth was a christian thing. Prior to them the Greeks already knew the earth was round 600 years before the RCC announced it was flat.
The evolution of man is filling in the gaps day by day, and those who still claim it not true are rapidly disappearing.
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.
