Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)
Options
Comments
-
... for the obvious reason that 'quote mining' is in the eye of the beholder ... and doesn't have any objective validity ... and doesn't actually exist.PopePalpatine wrote: »I've just checked the forum charter, unfortunately quote mining isn't a bannable offence.
This charge of 'quote mining' is predominantly a feature of the Creation-Evolution debate ... and is rolled out by Evolutionists when a quote from a fellow Evolutionist makes a very telling comment on the actual invalidity of Evolution.
Let's take the most recent such charge of 'quote mining' by Quartermain:-
He presents the following supposed 'full quote' to try and prove that my cited quote somehow misrepresented the 'full' quote:-
My quote was:-
"In any case, no real evolutionist . . . uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. . . ."
The supposed 'mine' from which I quoted is this:
"Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." (page 830)
In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."
"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy. (page 831)
"These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." (page 832)"
My point was that there is no fossil evidence for Evolution ... and in support of this point I quoted an evolutionist admitting that "no real evolutionist, (whether gradualist or punctuationist), uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation."
... and the fact that fossil evidence does not provide evidence for evolution is actually further emphasised in the rest of the 'full' quote that you put up ... and I further quote from your quote:-
"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy."
So I am correct that fossil evidence does not provide evidence for Evolution ... and my quote was a perfectly reasonable and a fair presentation of the fact that this is admitted by Evolutionists.
I'll deal with the other supposed 'quote mine' later.
For now, to avoid confusion, please show where I misrepresented Dr Mark Ridley's quote on the fact that the fossil evidence does not provide evidence for Evolution.0 -
I just did, old boy. I shouldn't have to again.This charge of 'quote mining' is predominantly a feature of the Creation-Evolution debate ... and is rolled out by Evolutionists when a quote from a fellow Evolutionist makes a very telling comment on the actual invalidity of Evolution.
Which is JC-ese for "when a creationist gets caught in a lie".
Since, as you assert, quote mining doesn't exist, I can comfortably do this:
- Ken Ham, Did Eve really have an Extra Rib?: And other tough questions about the Bible (2002)...We may as well not believe any of the Bible.
Suddenly, Ken Ham sees the light and returns to atheism! See how it works? You can't ignore the rest of what he's saying so that you can be proven right about one single point. The entire point of Ridley's statement is that the fossil record is a damn fine piece of evidence for evolution, but it's not even close to the best evidence we have. He quite plainly states that this does not mean that evolution is unproven. Hence the other piece you skipped over:The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy
But do continue in spreading your dishonesty around with a nice big garden fork.0 -
Please do not engage in diversion Quartermain ... you made an allegation against me of quote mining / misrepresentation ... now please stand up you allegation that my point that there is no fossil evidence for Evolution ... was invalidly/unfairly supported by my quote from Dr Ridley that "no real evolutionist, (whether gradualist or punctuationist), uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation."
Come on ... you just cannot accuse somebody of lying/misrepresentation and then not stand up your allegation ... unless you want to be seen as the person that is an actual liar (about me)!!!The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy.
... none of which have anything to do with the fossils ... and my point was that there is no fossil evidence for evolution.
... so how have I misrepresented Dr Ridley on the fact that the fossil record doesn't provide evidence for Evolution?0 -
... so how have I misrepresented Dr Ridley on the fact that the fossil record doesn't provide evidence for Evolution?
By ignoring his other work entirely, and focusing on one single sentence from an outdated source. I quote from his later work, "Evolution", Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 1993."In other respects, as we saw at the beginning of the chapter (Section 3.1) the fossil record provides important evidence for evolution. Against alternatives other than separate creation and transformism, the fossil record is valuable because it shows that the living world has not always been like it is now. The existence alone of fossils shows that there has been some kind of change, though it does not have to have been change in the sense of descent with modification.”
Is that good enough for you?0 -
I cannot be held responsible if he changes his mind ... my quote remains valid, once I'm not misrepresenting his quote at the time.Quatermain wrote: »By ignoring his other work entirely, and focusing on one single sentence from an outdated source. I quote from his later work, "Evolution", Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 1993.
Quote:
"In other respects, as we saw at the beginning of the chapter ... the fossil record provides important evidence for evolution. Against alternatives other than separate creation and transformism, the fossil record is valuable because it shows that the living world has not always been like it is now. The existence alone of fossils shows that there has been some kind of change, though it does not have to have been change in the sense of descent with modification.”
Is that good enough for you?
In any event, the second half of the above quote continues to support the fact that whatever the fossils show ... it isn't Evolution i.e. change in the sense of descent with modification
Quote:- "the fossil record is valuable because it shows that the living world has not always been like it is now. The existence alone of fossils shows that there has been some kind of change, though it does not have to have been change in the sense of descent with modification.”
... so even after your quoting from two separate books, the fact remains that Dr Ridley still continues to be very circumspect about fossils providing support for Evolution ... which is and was my basic point.
I'm not denying he was and is an Evolutionist nor am I saying that he has no evidence for Evolution ... he clearly thinks that he does ... all I'm saying is that he has said that fossils do not provide evidence for Evolution ... and that is true ... and not quote mining.0 -
Advertisement
-
I never said or implied any such thing.Quatermain wrote: »What's that?! Even *more* simplistic quote-mining designed to make it look as though Dr Futuyma, president of the Society for the Study of Evolution, and of the American Society of Naturalists, also editor of Evolution and the Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, admits to creationism?
I merely said that Dr Futuyma shares my view that there are only two basic alternatives when it come to origins ... Evolution and Creation. This doesn't imply that he is any less committed to Evolution (or that I am any less committed to Creation) than we are.
OK, lets look at the supposed truncation and see whether it weakens or strengthens my point:-Quatermain wrote: »Quote:
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."
Note that the quoted fragment ends with a full stop, as though he had finished his sentence. We continue.
Quote:
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence, for no natural process could possibly form inanimate molecules into an elephant or a redwood tree in one step. If species were created out of nothing in their present form, they would bear within them no evidence of a former history; if they are the result of historical development, any evidence of history is evidence of evolution."
- Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, New York: Pantheon Books, 1983. Page. 197.
Your approach to the subject is rapidly approaching outright lies by this stage. You even went so far as to leave out the subtitle of the book: "The Case for Evolution".
"... for no natural process could possibly form inanimate molecules into an elephant or a redwood tree in one step. If species were created out of nothing in their present form, they would bear within them no evidence of a former history; if they are the result of historical development, any evidence of history is evidence of evolution."
The first bit emphasises that something appearing fully formed in one step could only be by non-natural processes i.e. direct creation.
The next sentence further develops this point.
None of this detracts in any way from the initial point in the quote "that Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things."
... so any truncation didn't lead to any misrepresentation of the main point made in the quote by Dr Futuyma ... and the point that I was making, that there are only two basic origins alternatives ... Evolution and Creation.0 -
I never said or implied any such thing.
I merely said that Dr Futuyma shares my view that there are only two basic alternatives when it come to origins ... Evolution and Creation.
OK, lets look at the supposed truncation and see whether it weakens or strengthens my point:-
"... for no natural process could possibly form inanimate molecules into an elephant or a redwood tree in one step. If species were created out of nothing in their present form, they would bear within them no evidence of a former history; if they are the result of historical development, any evidence of history is evidence of evolution."
The first bit emphasises that something appearing fully formed in one step could only be by non-natural processes i.e. direct creation.
The next sentence further develops this point.
None of this detracts in any way from the initial point in the quote "that Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things."
... so any truncation didn't lead to any misrepresentation of the main point made in the quote by Dr Futuyma ... and the point that I was making, that there are only two basic origins alternatives ... Evolution and Creation.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of living things. Evolution explains the origin of species.
Nobody knows how life got started, not even you.
The initial point is flawed because you have made the false assumption that life could only start in one of two ways.
You then set up the two opposing views but you misrepresent one of those views by claiming that a theory that has nothing to do with the origin of life is on the table as an explaination of the origin of life.
Then you take the theory that has nothing to do with the origin of life and show how it doesn't explain the origin of life.
Then we are left in a situation where we conveniently dont need to provide evidence for Creation as we have debunked the supposed only other possible alternative.
Its nonsense and its dishonest.
I've asked before, why do you think that so many people choose to believe Evolution rather than Creationism?0 -
The point is that either life started and proceeded via a gradual natural process of change leading to increasingly complex and sophisticated organisms or they arose fully formed via some kind of creation process.Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of living things. Evolution explains the origin of species.
Nobody knows how life got started, not even you.
The initial point is flawed because you have made the false assumption that life could only start in one of two ways.
This point is made very succinctly and eloquently by Dr Futuyma in this Quote (and he is correct):
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence, for no natural process could possibly form inanimate molecules into an elephant or a redwood tree in one step. "
... but the point is that if the origin of life was via natural processes, it too also had to be via a gradual natural process of change leading to increasingly complex and sophisticated molecular structures that somehow 'sprang into life' ... this is the point that Dr Futuyma makes when he says that:You then set up the two opposing views but you misrepresent one of those views by claiming that a theory that has nothing to do with the origin of life is on the table as an explaination of the origin of life.
Then you take the theory that has nothing to do with the origin of life and show how it doesn't explain the origin of life.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things."
I agree with you that this isn't satisfactory ... and I promised that I would address the evidence for Creation ... but a 'firefight' broke out over quote mining that necessitated me to defend my good name ... before I could present the evidence for Creation that you want ... and Safehands is drooling over in heated anticipation!!!Then we are left in a situation where we conveniently dont need to provide evidence for Creation as we have debunked the supposed only other possible alternative.
Who says Creationism isn't sexy???:D :eek:Ooooh JC, I'm really drooling here waiting. Deal with it now... please.
... anyway ... that's it for tonight ... I'm off to bed!!!
It's a good question ... and my answer, for what it is worth, is because Evolution has the perception of being scientifically validated ... while Creationism is linked in people's minds to religion.I've asked before, why do you think that so many people choose to believe Evolution rather than Creationism?
The fact that (Pondkind to Mankind) Evolution hasn't been scientifically validated ... and Direct Creation has ... doesn't seem to be able to overcome the stereotypes that have been established in many people's minds about Evolution and Creationism.0 -
The point is that either life started and proceeded via a gradual natural process of change leading to increasingly complex and sophisticated organisms or they arose fully formed via some kind of creation process.
This point is made very succinctly and eloquently by Dr Futuyma in this Quote (and he is correct):
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence, for no natural process could possibly form inanimate molecules into an elephant or a redwood tree in one step. "
... but the point is that if the origin of life was via natural processes, it too also had to be via a gradual natural process of change leading to increasingly complex and sophisticated molecular structures that somehow 'sprang into life' ... this is the point that Dr Futuyma makes when he says that:
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things."
It's a good question ... and my answer, for what it is worth, is because Evolution has the perception of being scientifically validated ... while Creationism is linked in people's minds to religion.
The fact that (Pondkind to Mankind) Evolution hasn't been scientifically validated ... and Direct Creation has ... doesn't seem to be able to overcome the stereotypes that have been established in many people's minds about Evolution and Creationism.
How can Evolution be part of the group that exhausts the possible explanations of the origin of life when it does not attempt to explain the origin of life?
So people are basically "brainwashed" to believe Evolution? Interesting. How do you think that might happen?
Well, convince me then. Show me how Creation has been scientifically validated. I am open to changing my mind. Nothing you've posted so far is convincing.
Lets say I accept that Evolution is false. I refuse to believe that there is only one option. You are still gonna have to prove the Creation Theory.
So lets hear it.0 -
Please do not engage in diversion Quartermain ... you made an allegation against me of quote mining / misrepresentation ... now please stand up you allegation that my point that there is no fossil evidence for Evolution ... was invalidly/unfairly supported by my quote from Dr Ridley that "no real evolutionist, (whether gradualist or punctuationist), uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation."
Come on ... you just cannot accuse somebody of lying/misrepresentation and then not stand up your allegation ... unless you want to be seen as the person that is an actual liar (about me)!!!
... none of which have anything to do with the fossils ... and my point was that there is no fossil evidence for evolution.
... so how have I misrepresented Dr Ridley on the fact that the fossil record doesn't provide evidence for Evolution?
You clearly were quote-mining. You presented the mined quote as evidence that scientists state there is no fossil evidence for evolution (something science disagrees with you about FYI).
Dr. Ridley was actually stating that there are other and clearer evidence for the mutability of species.
So not only did you remove the context of the quote, but you changed it to mean something it clearly doesn't when viewed in context.
It's a cut-and-dry case of obvious quote-mining.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Advertisement
-
Yea JC, we all know your position on evolution so let's park that! Get on to your evidence for creationism.The point is that either life started and proceeded via a gradual natural process of change leading to increasingly complex and sophisticated organisms or they arose fully formed via some kind of creation process.
This point is made very succinctly and eloquently by Dr Futuyma in this Quote (and he is correct):
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence, for no natural process could possibly form inanimate molecules into an elephant or a redwood tree in one step. "
... but the point is that if the origin of life was via natural processes, it too also had to be via a gradual natural process of change leading to increasingly complex and sophisticated molecular structures that somehow 'sprang into life' ... this is the point that Dr Futuyma makes when he says that:
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things."
I agree with you that this isn't satisfactory ... and I promised that I would address the evidence for Creation ... but a 'firefight' broke out over quote mining that necessitated me to defend my good name ... before I could present the evidence for Creation that you want ... and Safehands is drooling over in heated anticipation!!!0 -
Dr Ridley wasn't saying this ... he clearly stated that "no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation."You clearly were quote-mining. You presented the mined quote as evidence that scientists state there is no fossil evidence for evolution (something science disagrees with you about FYI).
Dr. Ridley was actually stating that there are other and clearer evidence for the mutability of species.
I will repeat what I said about the allegation of 'quote mining' ... where I proved that I didn't take the quote out of context nor misinterpret what he said.So not only did you remove the context of the quote, but you changed it to mean something it clearly doesn't when viewed in context.
It's a cut-and-dry case of obvious quote-mining.
Perhaps you will reply to what I said in my post refuting the original allegation of quote mining, citing exactly how I quote mined ... instead of repeating an unfounded general allegation of quote mining:-
Did Dr Ridley not say?
Quote;-
In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."
... so why would no real evolutionist use the fossil record as evidence in favour of evolution, if the fossil record actually provided any evidence for Evolution?
... and did Dr Ridley not say?
Quote:-
"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy."
... so why would the three kinds of evidence for evolution not include the fossil record as evidence in favour of evolution, if the fossil record actually provided evidence for Evolution?
So I am correct that fossil evidence does not provide evidence for Evolution ... and my quote was a perfectly reasonable and a fair presentation of the fact that this is admitted by an Evolutionist.
... and I didn't therefore use a quote in a manner that didn't reflect what the author said/seems to think.
If we cannot quote (and debate) what people plainly say, the English language will lose all meaning ... and the Boards.ie will be defunct.
I also fully accept that a truncated/selected quote can be used misleadingly and is reprehensible ... but this is not the case in this instance.0 -
Dr Ridley wasn't saying this ... he clearly stated that "no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation."
I will repeat what I said about the allegation of 'quote mining' ... where I proved that I didn't take the quote out of context nor misinterpret what he said.
Perhaps you will reply to what I said in my post refuting the original allegation of quote mining, citing exactly how I quote mined ... instead of repeating an unfounded general allegation of quote mining:-
Did Dr Ridley not say?
Quote;-
In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."
... so why would no real evolutionist use the fossil record as evidence in favour of evolution, if the fossil record actually provided any evidence for Evolution?
... and did Dr Ridley not say?
Quote:-
"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy."
... so why would the three kinds of evidence for evolution not include the fossil record as evidence in favour of evolution, if the fossil record actually provided evidence for Evolution?
So I am correct that the quote says that fossil evidence does not provide evidence for Evolution ... and my quote was a perfectly reasonable and a fair presentation of the fact that this is admitted by an Evolutionist.
... and I didn't therefore use a quote in a manner that didn't reflect what the author said/thought.
you posted the following:4. No Fossil Evidence.
It used to be claimed that the best evidence for evolution was the fossil record, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils have not yet yielded a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
"In any case, no real evolutionist . . . uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. . . ." (Dr Mark Ridley, Professor of Zoology at Oxford University, "Who Doubts Evolution?" New Scientist (vol. 90; June 25, 1981), p. 831.)
even the most cursory of glances at the text shows it to be modifed text. I mean, it's not even a complete sentence rather a collection of fragments."In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."
"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy."
In its complete form we can see the doctor was not saying that there is no fossil record but that there are better examples of evidence for evolution. Which are what the critics (e.g. creationists) should be focussed on.
So as you can see, you quote-mined a fragment of a quote and proposed the doctor was stating in the article that there is no fossil evidence for evolution. This wasn't what the doctor was saying.
You've give a meaning to a fragment of the text after removing it from its original context. This is quote mining, simple as.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
... but the basic message is the same which is that no real evolutionist uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation ... and this fully supports my contention that the fossil record doesn't provide evidence in favour of evolution.you posted the following:
Originally Posted by J C View Post
4. No Fossil Evidence.
It used to be claimed that the best evidence for evolution was the fossil record, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils have not yet yielded a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
"In any case, no real evolutionist . . . uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. . . ." (Dr Mark Ridley, Professor of Zoology at Oxford University, "Who Doubts Evolution?" New Scientist (vol. 90; June 25, 1981), p. 831.)
even the most cursory of glances at the text shows it to be modifed text. I mean, it's not even a complete sentence rather a collection of fragments.
He is clearly saying that there are traditionally three kinds of evidence for evolution and these don't include 'fossil evidence'.Quote:
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."
"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy."
In its complete form we can see the doctor was not saying that there is no fossil record but that there are better examples of evidence for evolution. Which are what the critics (e.g. creationists) should be focussed on.
In combination with the initial statement that "no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation", it effectively dismisses the idea that fossils provide any evidence for Evolution ... which is precisely my point also.
I didn't use a quote in a manner that didn't reflect what the author said/seems to think.So as you can see, you quote-mined a fragment of a quote and proposed the doctor was stating in the article that there is no fossil evidence for evolution. This wasn't what the doctor was saying.
You've give a meaning to a fragment of the text after removing it from its original context. This is quote mining, simple as.
If we cannot quote (and debate) what people clearly say, the English language will lose all meaning ... and the Boards.ie will be defunct0 -
OK, let's cut to the chase ... please tell me, in your own words, what Dr Ridley is saying in the full quote below about the validity of the fossil record as evidence for evolution:-
Quote:
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."
"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy."0 -
OK, let's cut to the chase ... please tell me, in your own words, what Dr Ridley is saying in the full quote below about the validity of the fossil record as evidence for evolution:-
Quote:
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."
"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy."
Dr Ridley is saying nothing about the validity of fossil records. He is listing three areas of evidence that creationists need to consider when arguing against evolution.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
JC, what is your evidence for creationism? Come on, you are going round in circles here trying to debunk evolution. Outline your evidence for creation, please.OK, let's cut to the chase ... please tell me, in your own words, what Dr Ridley is saying in the full quote below about the validity of the fossil record as evidence for evolution:-
Quote:
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."
"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy."0 -
Yes, three areas of evidence for evolution (that explicitly don't include fossil evidence) ... and he also states explicitly that "no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation."Dr Ridley is saying nothing about the validity of fossil records. He is listing three areas of evidence that creationists need to consider when arguing against evolution.
I think it is both fair and reasonable to claim that this supports the contention that fossils don't provide evidence for evolution ... and I therefore wasn't quote mining.0 -
I think it is both fair and reasonable to claim that this supports the contention that fossils don't provide evidence for evolution ... and I therefore wasn't quote mining.
I think it is fair and reasonable to claim that any evidence for evolution is better than the evidence you have for creationism JC.0 -
Not the point at issue between myself and SW.I think it is fair and reasonable to claim that any evidence for evolution is better than the evidence you have for creationism JC.
There is no point in me proceeding with the debate, if unfounded allegations of mis-quotation are being made against me ...
... so I can only proceed to address your request in relation to the evidence for creation, when I have fully vindicated my bona fides in relation to quotes that I use.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Do you accept my bona fides in relation to the quotes I have used?
Your quotes have been shown to be taken out of context to try and bolster your position. Its been shown at least 3 times now.
Further, even taking the quote out of context does not disprove evolution, or make a case for creationism.
Why is that? Because creationism is still a faith based belief trying to pass itself off as a science. It has no factual evidence, requires the submission of critical faculties and its only source of evidence is a book from a primitive time and place.
Evolution is fact, plain and simple. And, if it were to be disproven, it will be done so in a laboratory, not in a church or from ancient texts from an ignorant desert tribe.
But, take heart, science is true weather you believe in it or not, and this is especially true of Evolution. We are (I am so glad to say) not created, we are evolved primates and are related to every living thing on earth, which is a much more beautiful and harmonious thing than being created to a deity that we must for some reason love.0 -
Do you accept my bona fides in relation to the quotes I have used?
I accept that you have no evidence for the creationist position, so you continually attack any position adopted by those who don't accept creationism. Attack is the best form of defence.
Your position on creationism is untenable, groundless and unsubstantiated.0 -
Do you accept my bona fides in relation to the quotes I have used?
How old is the earth and when did the first humans appear?A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
silverharp wrote: »How old is the earth and when did the first humans appear?
That's easy, the Earth is about 10 billion years old, give or take 6 months. Man is around for about 10,000 years, the dinosaurs were around for 60 million years, give or take a year or so.
I love quiz questions! I think JC would get zero points for that one though. He's not very good at history, try him on fantasy tales and he will get top marks. He's great at it!0 -
Not the point at issue between myself and SW.
There is no point in me proceeding with the debate, if unfounded allegations of mis-quotation are being made against me ...
... so I can only proceed to address your request in relation to the evidence for creation, when I have fully vindicated my bona fides in relation to quotes that I use.
I'm really not that interested in pulling you up on the quotes you use. They represent your opinion on the topic of evolution, which I have read several times. I am interested on hearing anyone present any evidence for creationism. It's the one thing you have said you can do but you never have.0 -
Not just my opinion on Evolution ... but the various opinions of Evolutionists on Evolution as well.I'm really not that interested in pulling you up on the quotes you use. They represent your opinion on the topic of evolution, which I have read several times. I am interested on hearing anyone present any evidence for creationism. It's the one thing you have said you can do but you never have.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement