Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   morality, charity according to evolution
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 243 (315023)
05-24-2006 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Wounded King
05-24-2006 4:51 AM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
The exact examples you are replying to are of organisms which are evolving to become less autonomous and arguably less complex.
Arguably less complex? What is becoming less complex? Actually I think the better question to pose, is, what is your definition of complexity, that anything would be becoming less complex?
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Wounded King, posted 05-24-2006 4:51 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Wounded King, posted 05-25-2006 6:44 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Shalini
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 243 (315025)
05-24-2006 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Hyroglyphx
05-08-2006 1:16 PM


Why should there be moral implications of evolution? Are there moral implications of gravity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-08-2006 1:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 243 (315030)
05-24-2006 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Chiroptera
05-24-2006 1:01 PM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
(By the way, my favorite piece of evidence is the hierarchical classification of species, but the fossil record is a good one as well
The Tree of Life. by Brig Klyce
What evidence lies in the classification of species being that there are no signs of gradation - just fully formed organism and lots of them? If you say there are signs of gradation then you are conceding that punctuated equilibrium doesn't exist. If you concede that there are no signs of gradations, then you have to abandon about 85% of the current evolutionary paradigm.
And what evidence lies in the fossil record, when, likely one of the most eminent evolutionists of all-time, (Gould) speaks about the shocking lack of such evidence in the fossil record? I could quote scores of evolutionists that agree with me.
Life is still mostly single-celled. It is true that over time there appears a species or two that is "more complex" than what has appeared before, but there is no indication that this is a "clear direction".
What? Give me a break... Lets take a look at the geological/biological timeline established by evolutionists:
We have first, the Archean era where anaerobic microbes along with photosynthetic bacteria come to life from an ambiotic soup, of sorts.
Then we have the Proterozoic era where aerobic microbes, photosynthetic bacteria, and prokaryotes evolved from extant organisms. Then we have the late Proterozoic era where eukaryotic forms such as protozoa organisms evolved.
Alright, are you following a pattern here? We are going from a few chemical compounds into microbes into eukaryotic, complex microbes. But lets continue to make extra certain.
Then we have the Cambrian era where simple aquatic organisms take form. Then we have the Cambrian epoch where bigger, more complex organisms arise. Then we have the Paleozoic era, and the Mesozoic, Cretaceous, Cenozoic, Phanerzoic, Devonian era, (not necessarily in that order, but you get the idea), and so on. In each era, bigger organism are said to have arose, culminating in a rich diversity of life, rife with complexity and more autonomy as time ambles along. Therefore, if ToE exists, then this is gradations that should be overwhelmingly, unmistakably, and painfully obvious.... But it isn't. Its so far from it that I question anyone's motives for contuining with it - especially those of you that know a great deal about it.
Don't take my word for it though:
http://www.history-timeline.com/.../early_evolution.gif/view
What this illustration illustrates corroborates everything I've been saying about your own theory. Simple -----> complex -----> more complex ----> highly evolved ----> highly intelligent. Now, where is the ambiguity?
Consider the colonization of North American
Your correlation between the migratory patterns of Sino-asiatic peoples doesn't compare to the clear direction that ToE elucidates for us.
Yeah, that's a problem. But continue to practice good hygiene, and learn to be polite and friendly to people and you'll be amazed at the results.
Please don't confuse my assertive nature with bad manners. I think I've been quite nice to you and all of my other counterparts, without becoming a doormat. As far as my hygiene goes, I take a shower at least twice a month... Sheesh.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Chiroptera, posted 05-24-2006 1:01 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by kuresu, posted 05-24-2006 11:25 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 202 by kuresu, posted 05-24-2006 11:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 243 (315032)
05-24-2006 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by CACTUSJACKmankin
05-24-2006 4:52 PM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." -D.M. Watson
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief." -Nils Heribert-Nilsson
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." -Newton Tahmisian
"When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it." -John Polkinghorne
"250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin." -David Raup
"Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels." - William Fix
"In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection---quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology." -Arthur Koestler)
"The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of special creation." -Colin Patterson
"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully." -Wolfgang Smith
"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written." -Hubert P. Yockey)
"Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress.....The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science....I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling." -Colin Patterson
"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." -Edwin Conklin
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." -George Wald
"The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that's all we know about it." -Colin Patterson
"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." -Ernst Chan
"There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "general theory of evolution," and the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis." -G. A. Kerkut
"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life's complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did." -Harold Urey
"The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs." -Pierre-Paul Grasse
"Meanwhile, their unproven theories will continue to be accepted by the learned and the illiterate alike as absolute truth, and will be defended with a frantic intolerance that has a parallel only in the bigotry of the darkest Middle Ages. If one does not accept evolution as an infallible dogma, implicitly and without question, one is regarded as an unenlightened ignoramus or is merely ignored as an obscurantist or a naive, uncritical fundamentalist." -Alfred Rehwinkel
"I suppose the reason we leaped at the origin of species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores." -Julian Huxley
"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable." -Arthur Keith
"Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleontology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about, but that is heresy." -David Pilbeam
"If I knew of any Evolutionary transitional's, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them in my book, 'Evolution'" -Colin Patterson
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution." -Stephen Jay Gould
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." -Stephan J Gould
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-24-2006 4:52 PM CACTUSJACKmankin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Alasdair, posted 05-24-2006 11:27 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 204 by Quetzal, posted 05-25-2006 12:22 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2590 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 200 of 243 (315034)
05-24-2006 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Hyroglyphx
05-24-2006 10:37 PM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
qsAlright, are you following a pattern here? We are going from a few chemical compounds into microbes into eukaryotic, complex microbes. But lets continue to make extra certain.
Then we have the Cambrian era where simple aquatic organisms take form. Then we have the Cambrian epoch where bigger, more complex organisms arise. Then we have the Paleozoic era, and the Mesozoic, Cretaceous, Cenozoic, Phanerzoic, Devonian era, (not necessarily in that order, but you get the idea), and so on. In each era, bigger organism are said to have arose, culminating in a rich diversity of life, rife with complexity and more autonomy as time ambles along. Therefore, if ToE exists, then this is gradations that should be overwhelmingly, unmistakably, and painfully obvious.... But it isn't[/qs]
I think this is where you have made a mistake. Those eras are known for their fossils. And correct me if I'm wrong, but large creatures stand a better chance of being noticed in geological stratum than mircobial life. Take a look at the taxonomy key, and you will find more microbial species in the bacteria and archea kingdoms (domains?) than you will find in the animal, plant, and fungal kingdom's combined. The protist Kingdom also has a huge amount of single-celled organisms. The only direction in NS is that of better fitness, and if a less complex organism reproduces better than it's more complex brethren, then it will have the advantage. Complexity is a relative term.
Oh, and since we are the only ones that we know of that have "high intelligence", how does that put us at the top of a "evolutionary chain"
Actually, his analogy of the N.American colonization by the Indians is quite good.
If evolution had the direction you posit, then why hasn't all life become intillegent, much less highly so?
By the way, the eras are the Pre-Camrian, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenezoic. The periods are COSDCP-Cambrian, Ordivican, silurian, devonian, carboniverous, permian. Then in the Mesozoic, its TJC--triassic, jurassic, cretaceous. And in the cenezoic, its either quarternary then tertiary, or vice versa.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-24-2006 10:37 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 12:09 AM kuresu has replied

  
Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5827 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 201 of 243 (315035)
05-24-2006 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Hyroglyphx
05-24-2006 11:13 PM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
So instead of responding to what he presented as a case for macroevolution, you just copy pasted a bunch of quote mines? Come on, give me a break.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-24-2006 11:13 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 12:23 AM Alasdair has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2590 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 202 of 243 (315036)
05-24-2006 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Hyroglyphx
05-24-2006 10:37 PM


Can we go back to the OP, please
NJ, what does this have to do with the OP. I wanted to discuss morality and charity, which lead to altruism, and how its not a problem for the evolutionary model. If you want to discuss along these lines, please take it to Chiroptera's "Evolution Simplified" thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-24-2006 10:37 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 243 (315046)
05-25-2006 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by kuresu
05-24-2006 11:25 PM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
I think this is where you have made a mistake. Those eras are known for their fossils. And correct me if I'm wrong, but large creatures stand a better chance of being noticed in geological stratum than mircobial life.
The geologic column illustrates different organisms found throughout different layers of strata, which in itself is replete with anamoles. As in, why certain species are rather precariously and inexplicably intermingled with other species that are said to have been extinct during that timeframe, or how some extinct creatures are found in higher strata while younger species are found lower. Meaning: Erosion should not make extinct creatures get above living creatures that are found lower or intermingled with extinct ones.
What I am referring to is the standard phylogenic tree of evolution found in most biology textbooks, which consequently and very clearly, demonstrates an alleged transition from simple to complex. Why anyone is pretending that it doesn't exist is beyond me. The phylogenic tree as it relates to the evolutionary model is so basic that its absolutely stultifying to only now dismiss it.
Can anyone at least agree that such a demonstrable 'tree' exists and that its purpose was to show how simple creatures evolved into more complex ones?
Complexity is a relative term.
Relative to what? Could you survive with one operable cell in your body? Actually, you wouldn't even have the body that you do if it weren't for an abundance of them. You couldn't reason, you couldn't speak, and your aversion towards it only speaks loudly that you don't agree that morality could have evolved either in the typical theory. Morality evolving is indicating that proceeding organisms are becoming more complex, more highly intelligent, and capable of reasoning on moral terms. But here we have a plethora of detractors stating that complexity is relative and that there is no direction from simple to complex, yet everyone of you has attempted describe, in great detail, how morality evolved from a lower state of simple tasks to a greater understanding of applicable survival skills. Clearly there is a level of conflicting premises, as you are trying to marry an incommensurate union.
Oh, and since we are the only ones that we know of that have "high intelligence", how does that put us at the top of a "evolutionary chain"
We aren't the only creatures with high intelligence. I don't think we can honestly consider a Dolphin to be simple. However, humans are vastly more intelligent than any other lifeform.
Actually, his analogy of the N.American colonization by the Indians is quite good.
You're entitled to your opinion. I don't think his illustration captured the essence that was intended or made any kind of corrolary. That's my opinion anyhow.
If evolution had the direction you posit, then why hasn't all life become intillegent, much less highly so?
Its not me that posits this, its evolutionists that do and always have.... I fully agree that there is no stepwise transitions. The problem is that this new subtheory undermines the old and renders it antiquated and ineffectual. It runs counter to everything we were initially taught concerning evolution.
By the way, the eras are the Pre-Camrian, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenezoic. The periods are COSDCP-Cambrian, Ordivican, silurian, devonian, carboniverous, permian. Then in the Mesozoic, its TJC--triassic, jurassic, cretaceous. And in the cenezoic, its either quarternary then tertiary, or vice versa.
Thanks for looking it up for me. In either case, if you view the creatures that are said to have inhabited those eras, you will see a marked increase in their complexity. That is, of course, unless you think a Nematode is on par with a Diplodocus.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by kuresu, posted 05-24-2006 11:25 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by kuresu, posted 05-25-2006 12:41 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5949 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 204 of 243 (315048)
05-25-2006 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Hyroglyphx
05-24-2006 11:13 PM


Woo Hoo! Quotemines. My Favorite
I'm only going to bother with the first six, since these are quite exemplary of creationist distortions. This is more illustrative than comprehensive.
DMS Watson (note the initials aren’t even correct in this misquote): Taken out of context and written in 1929, to boot. Full quote here. Verdict: out of date, deliberately out of context
Nils Heribert-Nilsson: geneticist, 1940’s-50’s. Believed enzymes were genes and that the moon was captured only 13,500 years ago - sort of Velikovsky lite. Verdict: out of date, crank
Newton Tahmisian: no reference. Allegedly a physicist, but the only actual references are from creationist sites. May possibly refer to Theodore Newton Tahmisian, a zoologist from the 1940’s. Need fuller citation. Verdict: unknown, but either unqualified or out of date.
John Polkinghorne: theoretical physicist and ordained Anglican minister. Verdict: unqualified
David Raup: completely out of context (full quote here). Verdict: deliberate lie
William Fix: non-scientist (as near as I can tell). anti-evolutionist. His alternative "theory" to evolution was something he called "psychogenesis". In a nutshell (literally), he believed that changes in lineages were driven by psychic powers. 'Nuff said. Verdict: crankiest of the cranky
So NJ, your brilliant refutation of evolution boils down to a collection of deliberately out of context, ancient, unqualified, and/or crank quotes? I for one am utterly convinced.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-24-2006 11:13 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 12:55 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 243 (315049)
05-25-2006 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Alasdair
05-24-2006 11:27 PM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
So instead of responding to what he presented as a case for macroevolution, you just copy pasted a bunch of quote mines? Come on, give me a break.
Well Alasdair, you see, the poster I was responding to gave a referrence supported by a logarithm concerning the parallels of the human and chimp genome. I was actually looking for a similar figured conveying the impossibility of chemical evolution for biological evolution to have ever taken place to begin with. But alas, I stumbled upon some great quotes spoken by some eminent evolutionists. I felt the need to share that information, being that they each know more about the theory than the comglomerate of all of us. Their testimony is so condemning, and they all seem to agree on the same points that are based soley on the inferences of science, that I couldn't contain my compulsion to share that with all of you. But if you'd like, I can go back address his points. And you could also participate by engaging us with something more than hyperbole.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Alasdair, posted 05-24-2006 11:27 PM Alasdair has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Alasdair, posted 05-25-2006 10:27 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2590 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 206 of 243 (315050)
05-25-2006 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Hyroglyphx
05-25-2006 12:09 AM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
Meaning: Erosion should not make extinct creatures get above living creatures that are found lower or intermingled with extinct ones.
from my lmited understanding in geology, erosion is not the only force that acts upon the stratum. Like if youhave uplifting, or a magma channel that disrupts the stadard stratum. It's been a while since I studied geology, but. . .
standard phylogenic tree of evolution found in most biology textbooks, which consequently and very clearly, demonstrates an alleged transition from simple to complex.
standard biology textbooks. Those are the ones used to introduce biology students, to, well, biology. They use easy to understand examples. IOW, it's easier to show evolution by showing the human tree moving from a relatively simple Austrolopithicus to H. sapiens sapiens. It's more difficult to show how "O" becomes "Q", because there is very little change, compared to show how "A" became "B", which has much change. Try looking for a phylogentic tree not found in a standard biology book.
Could you survive with one operable cell in your body? Actually, you wouldn't even have the body that you do if it weren't for an abundance of them
if I only had one cell in my body, I would still survive, becasue my body would be that cell. IOW, I would be a unicellular organism. Being able to reason and speak then wouldn't really matter.
If evolution had the direction you posit, then why hasn't all life become intillegent, much less highly so?
Its not me that posits this, its evolutionists that do and always have
actually, it is you that posited that evolution shows this pattern and its you that implies that all life is evolving towards this. No evolutionist that I know of would claim this direction.
There are many paths that can be taken to achieve survival in terms of reproductive fitness. Our ancestors just so happened to have become more complex. And we continue with this complexity, as it is apparently helping our survival. However, this does not mean that evolution has this direction of simple to complex, or any direction at all.
If I increase my reproductive fitness by becoming simpler, by say, removing some of my intelligence, or having a three-chambered heart, or something like that, then my descendents would keep this simplicity.
This is what I mean about complexity is relative:
a unicellular organism shares many of our chemical pathways, such as in the production of ATP. I am not more complex than it is in that sense. I am more complex than it in the sense that my body consists of trillions of cells communicating and working together. It depends on what you are measuring it terms of complexity.
Again, on the chemical pathway of ATP production, I'm not more complex. On terms of being multicellular, I am.
Morality evolving is indicating that proceeding organisms are becoming more complex, more highly intelligent, and capable of reasoning on moral terms
how is this the case? what's your support for this conclusion? Does morality require a high level of cognizance? Does a high level of cognizance require complexity? And what measure are you using for complexity? And how does this show that evolution has a direction towars making organisms more complex? (I'm assuming that's your goal with this statement).
What about that engineering maxin--simpler is better? A "simple" bacteria can survive for thousands, if not millions of years by remaining in stasis (as in spores). Does this make them more complex than us? What about trees and vines and whatnot living for millenia? We consider them simpler than us, right? And they're living longer than any animal. Do you realize how many offspring they can produce throughout their lifespan? And since NS favors those who produce more offspring (because their genes are more advantageous), why are all animals not becoming as "simple" as plants and bacteria?
As I've stated before, there are multiple paths toward achieving greater reproductive fitness.
And again, what does all this have to do with morality? (other than your assumed intent of showing that evolution makes things more complex by stating that morality requires greater complexity)?
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 12:09 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 243 (315052)
05-25-2006 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Quetzal
05-25-2006 12:22 AM


Re: Woo Hoo! Quotemines. My Favorite
DMS Watson (note the initials aren’t even correct in this misquote): Taken out of context and written in 1929, to boot. Full quote here. Verdict: out of date, deliberately out of context
First of all, the man said what he said. Had the quote looked something akin to: "The theory of evolution... is absurd... because there is... virtually no evidence... of any supporting data... This is why evolution is bogus."
Then I would say that there is something to scoff at... But it didn't. Secondly, the date he wrote is of no consequence. He wrote it in 1929... Uh-huh. And Darwin wrote his book in the 1858, which means that he compiled his data years prior. So, because he wrote it in the 1800's means we have to reject it? This hypocritical bit speaks volumes to me.
Nils Heribert-Nilsson: geneticist, 1940’s-50’s. Believed enzymes were genes and that the moon was captured only 13,500 years ago - sort of Velikovsky lite. Verdict: out of date, crank
Heh. If you ask me, I'd be more likely to believe in life germinating extra-terrestrially than believing nothing creates everything. But hey, that's just me.
Newton Tahmisian: no reference. Allegedly a physicist, but the only actual references are from creationist sites. May possibly refer to Theodore Newton Tahmisian, a zoologist from the 1940’s. Need fuller citation. Verdict: unknown, but either unqualified or out of date.
Yes, I believe that is the zoologist, Theodore Newton Tahmisian.
John Polkinghorne: theoretical physicist and ordained Anglican minister. Verdict: unqualified
Oh, so because he was a theist he is therefore unqualified to know anything scientific? That disqualifies a host of scholars, including but not limited to, Mendel, Pascal, Newton, etc... Believing that a fart in the wind can't produce or sustain life shouldn't be a disqualifier for scientific research. If anything, we should expect to see the opposite.
David Raup: completely out of context (full quote here). Verdict: deliberate lie
The man said what he said. Just like Gould, we know how he felt about evolution, but you can't get around what he clearly states. Again, if the quote was cut up and presented in some non-sensical, choppy dialogue, I'd say you have a very good point. But it isn't presented in any such manner. So if you want to call anyone a liar, tell the man who said, not condemn the ones reporting it.
William Fix: non-scientist (as near as I can tell). anti-evolutionist. His alternative "theory" to evolution was something he called "psychogenesis". In a nutshell (literally), he believed that changes in lineages were driven by psychic powers. 'Nuff said. Verdict: crankiest of the cranky
How many people on EvC are actual scientists, working in a field of science? And yet here we are chatting away as if we all have been out there on our hands and knees in the dirt examing the evidence. Does it disqualify us for speaking about what we have learned? No. If it does disqualify us, then we should cease and desist immediately.
So NJ, your brilliant refutation of evolution boils down to a collection of deliberately out of context, ancient, unqualified, and/or crank quotes? I for one am utterly convinced.
Well, now that you are convinced that the evolutionary theory in plenary is a fraud, how do you feel about accepting Jesus?
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Quetzal, posted 05-25-2006 12:22 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 05-25-2006 1:25 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 209 by anglagard, posted 05-25-2006 2:43 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 210 by Belfry, posted 05-25-2006 6:18 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5911 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 208 of 243 (315053)
05-25-2006 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Hyroglyphx
05-25-2006 12:55 AM


Re: Woo Hoo! Quotemines. My Favorite
How many people on EvC are actual scientists, working in a field of science? And yet here we are chatting away as if we all have been out there on our hands and knees in the dirt examing the evidence. Does it disqualify us for speaking about what we have learned? No. If it does disqualify us, then we should cease and desist immediately.
There are actually quite a few scientists here and many who have spouses for scientists.
Others of us (like me, an engineer) certainly have a good science background.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 12:55 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 10:11 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 914 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 209 of 243 (315059)
05-25-2006 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Hyroglyphx
05-25-2006 12:55 AM


Re: Woo Hoo! Quotemines. My Favorite
quote:
And yet here we are chatting away as if we all have been out there on our hands and knees in the dirt examing the evidence.
Geology field camp, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, summer 1981.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 12:55 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5163 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 210 of 243 (315072)
05-25-2006 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Hyroglyphx
05-25-2006 12:55 AM


Re: Woo Hoo! Quotemines. My Favorite
nemesis writes:
Secondly, the date he wrote is of no consequence. He wrote it in 1929... Uh-huh. And Darwin wrote his book in the 1858, which means that he compiled his data years prior. So, because he wrote it in the 1800's means we have to reject it? This hypocritical bit speaks volumes to me.
It's important when the quote indicates a lack of "logically coherent evidence." We have gained gobs of logically coherent evidence since 1929 that has supported and formed evolutionary theory. We don't rely on Darwin's data to support evolution.
Quotes taken out-of-context so that they seem to say something they weren't intended to say are indeed deceptive. Your argument that they "say what they say" is specious.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 12:55 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 10:29 AM Belfry has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024