Is Evolution The Same as Scientology???

[Hollie]

c. "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 21

The above "quote" is worth reviewing as it typifies the fraudulent, sleazy and dishonest tactics that represent the lies of religious extremists.

The "quote" was immediately familiar as one cut and pasted by creationist hacks.


Quote #2.7

Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes




[Re: Evolution is a faith not based on evidence]

"When we descend to details we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change" - Darwin, 1863.

Representative quote miner: Treasures: Why Evolution!

First of all, the quote is from a "P.S." to a letter to G. Bentham, May 22, 1863 [Darwin, F., ed. 1905. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1. New York: D. Appleton & Co., p. 209-10].

As an aside, the main part of the letter is discussing, interestingly enough, the aspect of the fossil record that eventually lead to proposal of the theory of Punctuated Equilibria:



In essence, Darwin is saying that the stasis in the morphology of species found in the fossil record is partly due to the imperfection of the record itself and, possibly, partly due to differential rates of change in species. While Darwin's default position was for gradualistic change in species, such concepts are relative. He saw that some change in species could take much longer than others and, of course, the Punctuated Equilibria theorists only claim that change tends to come "rapidly" in geologic terms but over very long times in human terms.

Now to the actual quote:

P.S. -- In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. (1) On its being a vera causa, from the struggle for existence; and the certain geological fact that species do somehow change. (2) From the analogy of change under domestication by man's selection. (3) And chiefly from this view connecting under an intelligible point of view a host of facts. When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed [i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change. Bronn may ask in vain, the old creationist school and the new school, why one mouse has longer ears than another mouse, and one plant more pointed leaves than another plant. . . . the fact that they have not been modified does not seem to me a difficulty of weight enough to shake a belief grounded on other arguments.

Here Darwin is pointing that Natural Selection can be seen to operate and serves as a single coherent explanation for many diverse phenomena. Even if all the details of the individual phenomena are not known, the "consilience", in William Whewell's phrase, of his mechanism cogently explaining a wide range of events is, itself, support for its status as a "vera causa". [See Snyder, Laura J., "William Whewell", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).] Add to that the fact that the fossil record generally shows change in life over time and the clear analogy from animal breeding, and there is substantial support for his proposed mechanism.

As to the quote mined portion, Darwin is saying that, based on the fossil record (the only evidence available at the time, before genetics), there wasn't enough detail to say that a particular species was the descendant of a particular earlier species. By the same token, then, it would be impossible to show from the fossils that any particular species had changed into another. This is a "problem" with all fossil evidence, at least until and unless we can recover DNA or other genetic material. It constitutes some sort of refutation of evolution only to those who are determinedly hopeful of one and willfully ignorant.

The other point Darwin was making in the P.S. is that it is not necessarily possible to determine just what about a trait makes it advantageous, given the complexity of the interaction of the organism with the environment. In fact, Darwin is here warning against the "just so stories" that Stephen Jay Gould would inveigh against 120 years later. Once again, this is an excellent example of just how deeply and comprehensively Darwin understood his theory.

This quote mine is similar to Quote 82 but longer and without additional text (not from Darwin) that was included in Quote 82.

- John (catshark) Pieret

How kind of you to verify exactly what I claimed Darwin admitted!


You added this to the quote that I provided:
"grounded entirely on general considerations"


Is your intellect so very stunted that you fail to see that "grounded entirely on general considerations" is the very antithesis of physical evidence?

1. Let's be honest. You didn't claim anything. You just mindlessly cut and paste.

2. Your fraudulent quote-mine was of unknown source. Harun Yahya?.

3. Is your mind so corrupted that you have convinced yourself that lies and deceit are acceptable?

 

[Hollie]

science > religion

Pretty much. The Cambrian "explosion" really doesn't pose a challenge to evolution. The fossil record is notoriously imperfect, so I don't understand why creationists froth-at-the-mouth over this. There's a whole cottage industry of scientific illiterates that have made a living out of misquoting Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, etc. I really hate having to comment on such a topic.

We have a winner in the category of 'Unintentional Humor'!!


Here it is:

"The Cambrian "explosion" really doesn't pose a challenge to evolution. The fossil record is notoriously imperfect,.."


In a thread loaded with comments by the clueless.....you may be the winner of the 'Honorable Mention' award.

Hollie is perennial 1st place winner.


But YOU!

The proof of Darwin's contention doesn't exist.....and you explain that that "really doesn't pose a challenge."


Please don't tell me that you wasted money on an education.

Well actually, what is funny is watching as you backpedaling as your quote-mined lies are exposed.

I've now refuted the majority of your lies. I can see you're angry and embarrassed at your fraudulent "quotes" being expised as lies, but think of this as lessons you can use to improve yourself.

The Harun Yahya groupies you represent are comical with your science loathing agenda.

Have you somehow missed the fact that your sweaty, feverish attempts to attack Darwin are laughable in the face of 150 years of scientific discovery that supports evolution?

Your efforts would be best used at the Harun Yahya madrassah.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Traditional Religious "thought" is "don't think, memorize, repeat and believe".

Poor deanie.

I know you're feeling left out, so here is your lesson for today.

One need define science as either being based on empirical evidence, which, in this case would be fossil evidence of transitional stages leading to the trilobites and brachiopods of the Cambrian, ...

...or.....

...state that now, we accept extravagant extrapolation, arbitrary assumptions, and metaphysical speculation as the equal of proven fact.

Is that your position?



Basically,what you, and some other participants in the thread have done is subscribe to this argument:
" [The] strategy is to take advantage of the prestige that science enjoys in an age of technology, by asserting that anyone who disputes Darwinism must be an enemy of science, and hence of rationality itself."
Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip


Those who understand the issue don't fall into the trap that you have.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pretty much. The Cambrian "explosion" really doesn't pose a challenge to evolution. The fossil record is notoriously imperfect, so I don't understand why creationists froth-at-the-mouth over this. There's a whole cottage industry of scientific illiterates that have made a living out of misquoting Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, etc. I really hate having to comment on such a topic.

We have a winner in the category of 'Unintentional Humor'!!


Here it is:

"The Cambrian "explosion" really doesn't pose a challenge to evolution. The fossil record is notoriously imperfect,.."


In a thread loaded with comments by the clueless.....you may be the winner of the 'Honorable Mention' award.

Hollie is perennial 1st place winner.


But YOU!

The proof of Darwin's contention doesn't exist.....and you explain that that "really doesn't pose a challenge."


Please don't tell me that you wasted money on an education.

Well actually, what is funny is watching as you backpedaling as your quote-mined lies are exposed.

I believe that I've now refuted the majority of your lies. I can you're angry and embarrassed at your fraudulent "quotes" being expised as lies, but think of this as lessons you can use to improve yourself.

The Harun Yahya groupies you represent are comical with your science loathing agenda.

Have you somehow missed the fact that your sweaty, feverish attempts to attack Darwin are laughable in the face of 150 years of scientific discovery that supports evolution?

Your efforts would be best used at the Harun Yahya madrassah.

"I believe that I've now refuted the majority of your lies."

I never lie, and you have refuted nothing.

But....it would be eminently simple to refute my premise:


Simply provide evidence of transitional fossils leading to the brachiopods and trilobites.

Do so, and you win.



Or...you can continue with all of your pretenses.....but that would define you as an imbecile.
Well...balls in your court.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The above "quote" is worth reviewing as it typifies the fraudulent, sleazy and dishonest tactics that represent the lies of religious extremists.

The "quote" was immediately familiar as one cut and pasted by creationist hacks.


Quote #2.7

Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes




[Re: Evolution is a faith not based on evidence]

"When we descend to details we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change" - Darwin, 1863.

Representative quote miner: Treasures: Why Evolution!

First of all, the quote is from a "P.S." to a letter to G. Bentham, May 22, 1863 [Darwin, F., ed. 1905. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1. New York: D. Appleton & Co., p. 209-10].

As an aside, the main part of the letter is discussing, interestingly enough, the aspect of the fossil record that eventually lead to proposal of the theory of Punctuated Equilibria:



In essence, Darwin is saying that the stasis in the morphology of species found in the fossil record is partly due to the imperfection of the record itself and, possibly, partly due to differential rates of change in species. While Darwin's default position was for gradualistic change in species, such concepts are relative. He saw that some change in species could take much longer than others and, of course, the Punctuated Equilibria theorists only claim that change tends to come "rapidly" in geologic terms but over very long times in human terms.

Now to the actual quote:



Here Darwin is pointing that Natural Selection can be seen to operate and serves as a single coherent explanation for many diverse phenomena. Even if all the details of the individual phenomena are not known, the "consilience", in William Whewell's phrase, of his mechanism cogently explaining a wide range of events is, itself, support for its status as a "vera causa". [See Snyder, Laura J., "William Whewell", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).] Add to that the fact that the fossil record generally shows change in life over time and the clear analogy from animal breeding, and there is substantial support for his proposed mechanism.

As to the quote mined portion, Darwin is saying that, based on the fossil record (the only evidence available at the time, before genetics), there wasn't enough detail to say that a particular species was the descendant of a particular earlier species. By the same token, then, it would be impossible to show from the fossils that any particular species had changed into another. This is a "problem" with all fossil evidence, at least until and unless we can recover DNA or other genetic material. It constitutes some sort of refutation of evolution only to those who are determinedly hopeful of one and willfully ignorant.

The other point Darwin was making in the P.S. is that it is not necessarily possible to determine just what about a trait makes it advantageous, given the complexity of the interaction of the organism with the environment. In fact, Darwin is here warning against the "just so stories" that Stephen Jay Gould would inveigh against 120 years later. Once again, this is an excellent example of just how deeply and comprehensively Darwin understood his theory.

This quote mine is similar to Quote 82 but longer and without additional text (not from Darwin) that was included in Quote 82.

- John (catshark) Pieret

How kind of you to verify exactly what I claimed Darwin admitted!


You added this to the quote that I provided:
"grounded entirely on general considerations"


Is your intellect so very stunted that you fail to see that "grounded entirely on general considerations" is the very antithesis of physical evidence?

1. Let's be honest. You didn't claim anything. You just mindlessly cut and paste.

2. Your fraudulent quote-mine was of unknown source. Harun Yahya?.

3. Is your mind so corrupted that you have convinced yourself that lies and deceit are acceptable?

" Let's be honest. You didn't claim anything."

You make this so very easy for me.


All along, I've made one simple claim: there are no fossils showing the changes necessary to verify Darwin's premise, that a series of small changes lead one species into becoming another. Specifically, the key organisms of the Cambrian.

So...you are lying when you say "Let's be honest. You didn't claim anything"



And...

I provided a witness:

"The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Charles Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.



How very good of you to allow me to catch you in lies so regularly.
Regards.

 

[Hollie]

Traditional Religious "thought" is "don't think, memorize, repeat and believe".

Poor deanie.

I know you're feeling left out, so here is your lesson for today.

One need define science as either being based on empirical evidence, which, in this case would be fossil evidence of transitional stages leading to the trilobites and brachiopods of the Cambrian, ...

...or.....

...state that now, we accept extravagant extrapolation, arbitrary assumptions, and metaphysical speculation as the equal of proven fact.

Is that your position?



Basically,what you, and some other participants in the thread have done is subscribe to this argument:
" [The] strategy is to take advantage of the prestige that science enjoys in an age of technology, by asserting that anyone who disputes Darwinism must be an enemy of science, and hence of rationality itself."
Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip


Those who understand the issue don't fall into the trap that you have.

This is the same creationist hack you dumped into the thread previously.

This is the former lawyer who seems to think he has some ability to write authoritatively on biology.


Yeah, this creationist charlatan:

Critiques of Phillip Johnson

 

[Hollie]

How kind of you to verify exactly what I claimed Darwin admitted!


You added this to the quote that I provided:
"grounded entirely on general considerations"


Is your intellect so very stunted that you fail to see that "grounded entirely on general considerations" is the very antithesis of physical evidence?

1. Let's be honest. You didn't claim anything. You just mindlessly cut and paste.

2. Your fraudulent quote-mine was of unknown source. Harun Yahya?.

3. Is your mind so corrupted that you have convinced yourself that lies and deceit are acceptable?

" Let's be honest. You didn't claim anything."

You make this so very easy for me.


All along, I've made one simple claim: there are no fossils showing the changes necessary to verify Darwin's premise, that a series of small changes lead one species into becoming another. Specifically, the key organisms of the Cambrian.

So...you are lying when you say "Let's be honest. You didn't claim anything"



And...

I provided a witness:

"The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Charles Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.



How very good of you to allow me to catch you in lies so regularly.
Regards.

As we know, that "quote" was another of your fraudulent cherry-picking.


It's a common tactic of religious extremists.


Strange that with your feverish, sweaty, science-loathing cut and pasting, you always fail to identify how any of your cut and pasting supports any of your gawds.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Traditional Religious "thought" is "don't think, memorize, repeat and believe".

Poor deanie.

I know you're feeling left out, so here is your lesson for today.

One need define science as either being based on empirical evidence, which, in this case would be fossil evidence of transitional stages leading to the trilobites and brachiopods of the Cambrian, ...

...or.....

...state that now, we accept extravagant extrapolation, arbitrary assumptions, and metaphysical speculation as the equal of proven fact.

Is that your position?



Basically,what you, and some other participants in the thread have done is subscribe to this argument:
" [The] strategy is to take advantage of the prestige that science enjoys in an age of technology, by asserting that anyone who disputes Darwinism must be an enemy of science, and hence of rationality itself."
Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip


Those who understand the issue don't fall into the trap that you have.

This is the same creationist hack you dumped into thread previously.

This is the former lawyer who seems to think he has some ability to write authoritatively on biology.


Yeah, this creationist charlatan:

Critiques of Phillip Johnson

Here's a hint to make you better at this game.

Why quibble with who stated the fact.....it's still a fact.


After all, I respond to you, a certifiable mental deficient, don't I?

The truth is all we should be after.


And, in this case, the truth is that Darwin had a prob, he admitted it, and it is still unsolved.

And, that would remain just as true, if Bashar al-Assad said it, or even if you said it.



What possible error could you find in the statement?

 

[Kimura]

Traditional Religious "thought" is "don't think, memorize, repeat and believe".

Poor deanie.

I know you're feeling left out, so here is your lesson for today.

One need define science as either being based on empirical evidence, which, in this case would be fossil evidence of transitional stages leading to the trilobites and brachiopods of the Cambrian, ...

...or.....

...state that now, we accept extravagant extrapolation, arbitrary assumptions, and metaphysical speculation as the equal of proven fact.

Is that your position?



Basically,what you, and some other participants in the thread have done is subscribe to this argument:
" [The] strategy is to take advantage of the prestige that science enjoys in an age of technology, by asserting that anyone who disputes Darwinism must be an enemy of science, and hence of rationality itself."
Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip


Those who understand the issue don't fall into the trap that you have.

This is the same creationist hack you dumped into the thread previously.

This is the former lawyer who seems to think he has some ability to write authoritatively on biology.


Yeah, this creationist charlatan:

Critiques of Phillip Johnson

And...

 

[Hollie]

Poor deanie.

I know you're feeling left out, so here is your lesson for today.

One need define science as either being based on empirical evidence, which, in this case would be fossil evidence of transitional stages leading to the trilobites and brachiopods of the Cambrian, ...

...or.....

...state that now, we accept extravagant extrapolation, arbitrary assumptions, and metaphysical speculation as the equal of proven fact.

Is that your position?



Basically,what you, and some other participants in the thread have done is subscribe to this argument:
" [The] strategy is to take advantage of the prestige that science enjoys in an age of technology, by asserting that anyone who disputes Darwinism must be an enemy of science, and hence of rationality itself."
Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip


Those who understand the issue don't fall into the trap that you have.

This is the same creationist hack you dumped into thread previously.

This is the former lawyer who seems to think he has some ability to write authoritatively on biology.


Yeah, this creationist charlatan:

Critiques of Phillip Johnson

Here's a hint to make you better at this game.

Why quibble with who stated the fact.....it's still a fact.


After all, I respond to you, a certifiable mental deficient, don't I?

The truth is all we should be after.


And, in this case, the truth is that Darwin had a prob, he admitted it, and it is still unsolved.

And, that would remain just as true, if Bashar al-Assad said it, or even if you said it.



What possible error could you find in the statement?

Oh my, it is laughable to read that the fundie is trying to retreat to "facts".


The problem you have is one of continually presenting lies as "facts".


Your "quotes" are a disgraceful collection of out of context snippets that you hope will discredit science. Your "quotes" are typically fraudulent as it has been demonstrated in this thread.


You still cannot reconcile the fact that science has flourished since Darwin published his work. You are threatened by science because it conflicts with your extremist religious beliefs.


The result is that you spend inordinate amounts of time in feverish attempts to deride science when all you accomplish is to convince others that you are an unreasonable zealot.

 

[orogenicman]

c. "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 21

The above "quote" is worth reviewing as it typifies the fraudulent, sleazy and dishonest tactics that represent the lies of religious extremists.

The "quote" was immediately familiar as one cut and pasted by creationist hacks.


Quote #2.7

Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes




[Re: Evolution is a faith not based on evidence]

"When we descend to details we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change" - Darwin, 1863.

Representative quote miner: Treasures: Why Evolution!

First of all, the quote is from a "P.S." to a letter to G. Bentham, May 22, 1863 [Darwin, F., ed. 1905. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1. New York: D. Appleton & Co., p. 209-10].

As an aside, the main part of the letter is discussing, interestingly enough, the aspect of the fossil record that eventually lead to proposal of the theory of Punctuated Equilibria:



In essence, Darwin is saying that the stasis in the morphology of species found in the fossil record is partly due to the imperfection of the record itself and, possibly, partly due to differential rates of change in species. While Darwin's default position was for gradualistic change in species, such concepts are relative. He saw that some change in species could take much longer than others and, of course, the Punctuated Equilibria theorists only claim that change tends to come "rapidly" in geologic terms but over very long times in human terms.

Now to the actual quote:

P.S. -- In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. (1) On its being a vera causa, from the struggle for existence; and the certain geological fact that species do somehow change. (2) From the analogy of change under domestication by man's selection. (3) And chiefly from this view connecting under an intelligible point of view a host of facts. When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed [i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change. Bronn may ask in vain, the old creationist school and the new school, why one mouse has longer ears than another mouse, and one plant more pointed leaves than another plant. . . . the fact that they have not been modified does not seem to me a difficulty of weight enough to shake a belief grounded on other arguments.

Here Darwin is pointing that Natural Selection can be seen to operate and serves as a single coherent explanation for many diverse phenomena. Even if all the details of the individual phenomena are not known, the "consilience", in William Whewell's phrase, of his mechanism cogently explaining a wide range of events is, itself, support for its status as a "vera causa". [See Snyder, Laura J., "William Whewell", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).] Add to that the fact that the fossil record generally shows change in life over time and the clear analogy from animal breeding, and there is substantial support for his proposed mechanism.

As to the quote mined portion, Darwin is saying that, based on the fossil record (the only evidence available at the time, before genetics), there wasn't enough detail to say that a particular species was the descendant of a particular earlier species. By the same token, then, it would be impossible to show from the fossils that any particular species had changed into another. This is a "problem" with all fossil evidence, at least until and unless we can recover DNA or other genetic material. It constitutes some sort of refutation of evolution only to those who are determinedly hopeful of one and willfully ignorant.

The other point Darwin was making in the P.S. is that it is not necessarily possible to determine just what about a trait makes it advantageous, given the complexity of the interaction of the organism with the environment. In fact, Darwin is here warning against the "just so stories" that Stephen Jay Gould would inveigh against 120 years later. Once again, this is an excellent example of just how deeply and comprehensively Darwin understood his theory.

This quote mine is similar to Quote 82 but longer and without additional text (not from Darwin) that was included in Quote 82.

- John (catshark) Pieret

How kind of you to verify exactly what I claimed Darwin admitted!


You added this to the quote that I provided:
"grounded entirely on general considerations"


Is your intellect so very stunted that you fail to see that "grounded entirely on general considerations" is the very antithesis of physical evidence?

How kind of you to so readily demonstrate to everyone the breadth of your dishonesty. It must really please Jesus for you to lie on his account.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Poor deanie.

I know you're feeling left out, so here is your lesson for today.

One need define science as either being based on empirical evidence, which, in this case would be fossil evidence of transitional stages leading to the trilobites and brachiopods of the Cambrian, ...

...or.....

...state that now, we accept extravagant extrapolation, arbitrary assumptions, and metaphysical speculation as the equal of proven fact.

Is that your position?



Basically,what you, and some other participants in the thread have done is subscribe to this argument:
" [The] strategy is to take advantage of the prestige that science enjoys in an age of technology, by asserting that anyone who disputes Darwinism must be an enemy of science, and hence of rationality itself."
Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip


Those who understand the issue don't fall into the trap that you have.

This is the same creationist hack you dumped into the thread previously.

This is the former lawyer who seems to think he has some ability to write authoritatively on biology.


Yeah, this creationist charlatan:

Critiques of Phillip Johnson

And...

Logic and understanding are my twin sources.


Now....a science question for you:

If we leave a window open at either side of your head....would the wind gusts be measurable on the Beaumont Scale?
Need an anemometer be used?

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is the same creationist hack you dumped into thread previously.

This is the former lawyer who seems to think he has some ability to write authoritatively on biology.


Yeah, this creationist charlatan:

Critiques of Phillip Johnson

Here's a hint to make you better at this game.

Why quibble with who stated the fact.....it's still a fact.


After all, I respond to you, a certifiable mental deficient, don't I?

The truth is all we should be after.


And, in this case, the truth is that Darwin had a prob, he admitted it, and it is still unsolved.

And, that would remain just as true, if Bashar al-Assad said it, or even if you said it.



What possible error could you find in the statement?

Oh my, it is laughable to read that the fundie is trying to retreat to "facts".


The problem you have is one of continually presenting lies as "facts".


Your "quotes" are a disgraceful collection of out of context snippets that you hope will discredit science. Your "quotes" are typically fraudulent as it has been demonstrated in this thread.


You still cannot reconcile the fact that science has flourished since Darwin published his work. You are threatened by science because it conflicts with your extremist religious beliefs.


The result is that you spend inordinate amounts of time in feverish attempts to deride science when all you accomplish is to convince others that you are an unreasonable zealot.

"The problem you have is one of continually presenting lies as "facts".


Bet you can't name one.

 

[orogenicman]

PC, let's look at my post #12 and you point out where I am skirting around any issue.? And while you are doing that, please respond specifically to my thorough debunking of your quote mining claims about Darwin, Murchison, And Sedgewick.

Yeeshhh......anyone dares to criticize Scientology and they face all kinds of abuse, up to and including finding a rattlesnake in their mailbox!

This entire thread is born out of fear and ignorance: Fear of something you don't understand. You don't understand it and feel threatened by it so you attack it. It is irrational, and not based on reasoned understanding. And ignorance of the massive amounts of data that supports the theory of evolution. Ignorance of the benefits we all enjoy because of research that originated from the application of that theory. Research that continues to this day.

Perhaps not to that extent....but dare to criticize evolution theory and the vituperation and verbal abuse....including slander and lies.....is but a moment away!

Oh please.



Why don't you get a science education and find out?



Why should we be nice? Would you be nice to a pharmacist who sold you a pint of petroleum jelly and called it a cure for cancer? What we have here are utterly unqualified individuals spending fortunes (likely stolen from their congregations) to try to get naïve and undereducated people to believe that they are eminently qualified to tell people that the theory of evolution is a lie - a theory that is based on 150 year years of hard-won scientific enquiry.




Is he wrong? I don't think he is.



Why are we so incensed? Because you people think you can sit at the table at school board meetings across the country and pretend that you have equal academic status to decide what should and should not be taught in our science classrooms.



Utterly absurd. Science goes where the data leads it, and I think Berlinski, of all people, should understand this. David Berlinski is one of the principles of the Discovery Institute, the same religious organization that tried to get ID taught in the schools in Dover, Pennsylvania, the same organization that was roundhoused by a Bush-appointed Federal judge because they were misleading people into believing that ID was something other than what it actually was - creationism, which cannot, according to SCOTUS rulings, be taught in our public schools because it is a religious doctrine, not science.



The only ones deluding themselves are people like Berlinksi, who, by the way, has no professional credentials in paleontology, and is well known for quote mining.



Murchison was a brilliant stratigrapher, and correctly identified the Silurian system. However, no one had yet correctly identified the Ordovician, the Cambrian, or the precambrian, and he did not understand when he made that statement that Trilobites did not originate in the Silurian system. What's more, the eye did not originate in trilobites, since many other organisms before them also had eyes. Furthermore, neither Darwin nor any other evolutionary scientist since has suggested that there is an arrow of complexity in evolution, as I've pointed out to you MANY times. Species adapt to their environment. The more unstable the environment, the more adaptable they must be. The more stable the environment, the LESS adaptable they need to be. Darwin understood natural selection, but did not understand genetic drift - no one in his day did. Murshison was more of a Lamarkian at the time of his discovery of the Silurian system.

This is a classic example of taking quotes out of context - quote mining.



Write this down and stick it on the side of your monitor for future reference - ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL". Got it?



Let's see what he actually said (put it back into context):

http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/darwin/originspecies.pdf



Notice that what he is talking about is the fact that many strata that would be useful to science in answering these questions were not known to be available in Europe but that they WERE available in Russia and North America, which has vast deposits of Silurian and much older rocks, including all the rocks he needed to more fully use to describe his theory.

Keep in mind that these gentlemen were discussing the state of the science IN THEIR DAY. 150 years have transpired since these conversations took place. And in that time, we have advanced by orders of magnitude our understanding of the fossil and stratigraphic record. So here we have Berlinski trying to convince us that these 19th century conversations about what was then the unknown is applicable to today's science where they have long been addressed to the satisfaction of every geologist and biologist alive (except Berlinski, of course).



Let's read what he actually said, shall we"

If I did not think you a good tempered & truth loving man I should not tell you that. . . I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous-- You have deserted-- after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth-- the true method of induction. . .

Keep in mind that Sedgewick subscribed to the theory of catastrophism, which fell out of favor soon after his death. Darwin's research was one of several nails in the coffin that sank that theory, and so it should surprise no one that despite their long-time friendship, Sedgewick would be a bit upset with his findings.

Also note that in the very article where you took that quote, we find this:

He (Sedgewick) originally followed his collegue William Buckland in believing that the uppermost Pleistocene deposits had been laid down by the Biblical Flood, but retracted this belief after many of these deposits turned out to have been formed by glaciers, not floods. Sedgwick also did not object to evolution, or "development" as such theories were called then, in the broad sense -- to the fact that the life on Earth had changed over time. Nor was he a young-Earth creationist; he believed that the Earth must be extremely old. As Darwin wrote of Sedgwick's lectures, "What a capital hand is Sedgewick [sic] for drawing large cheques upon the Bank of Time!"

So in concluding, what we find here is a very poorly constructed attempt to make one believe (via quote mining) that the state of 19th century science is the state in which we find scientific enquiry today, that it has not progressed, that none of Darwin's questions or doubts have been resolved, when the fact of the matter is that none of them have NOT been resolved.

 

[orogenicman]

there are no fossils showing the changes necessary to verify Darwin's premise, that a series of small changes lead one species into becoming another. Specifically, the key organisms of the Cambrian

Why specifically the Cambrian? Why choose a time period that is poorly represented in the stratigraphic column? So you can ignore the rest and make claims that without further study appear to be correct? Why not choose the Ordovician, where the fossil record is much more complete? Perhaps because you don't want to be made out the fool that you are?

For instance, the first part of your claim "there are no fossils showing the changes necessary to verify Darwin's premise" is a lie, purely and simply. There are many fossils that demonstrate evolution. You like brachiopods, so lets talk about them. The Ordovician was a boom time for brachiopods, and saw them branch out into all the classes that exist even today. You want transitional fossils? Here you go:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

And here is a list of transitional species.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That said, as I've pointed out a half a dozen times, ALL species are transitional because DNA is not a static molecule. It changes with every new generation. You are transitional between your mother and your child. And on and on.

I might also add that YOU have yet to show us a single example that falsifies evolution, like that Cambrian-aged bunny rabbit you are supposed to be searching for.

 

[Hollie]

Here's a hint to make you better at this game.

Why quibble with who stated the fact.....it's still a fact.


After all, I respond to you, a certifiable mental deficient, don't I?

The truth is all we should be after.


And, in this case, the truth is that Darwin had a prob, he admitted it, and it is still unsolved.

And, that would remain just as true, if Bashar al-Assad said it, or even if you said it.



What possible error could you find in the statement?

Oh my, it is laughable to read that the fundie is trying to retreat to "facts".


The problem you have is one of continually presenting lies as "facts".


Your "quotes" are a disgraceful collection of out of context snippets that you hope will discredit science. Your "quotes" are typically fraudulent as it has been demonstrated in this thread.


You still cannot reconcile the fact that science has flourished since Darwin published his work. You are threatened by science because it conflicts with your extremist religious beliefs.


The result is that you spend inordinate amounts of time in feverish attempts to deride science when all you accomplish is to convince others that you are an unreasonable zealot.

"The problem you have is one of continually presenting lies as "facts".


Bet you can't name one.

I can identify several.

They are in this thread and represented by your cutting and pasting of dishonest "quote-mining". After I pointed out your creationist lies, you took no issue with cutting and pasting more lies.

It was a simple matter to search for your "quotes". Even with the several I was familiar with, putting your "quotes" into a web browser would yield three to four pages of the same falsified, edited and fraudulent "quote" listed on fundamentalist Christian websites.

 

[orogenicman]

So not only is she a liar, she is also a plagiarist. Which is not surprising considering that I've seen the quotes before.

 

[orogenicman]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY&feature=player_embedded]The burden of proof - YouTube[/ame]