Is God Scientifically Explicable?

[Hollie]

Berlinski "The Devil's Delusion"....
"Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

"Before one accepts the support of such “smart scientists” simply because of their vocation, why not question this scientific atheism as merely yet another foolish intellectual fad, successor to academic Marxism, or feminism, or the various doctrines of multicultural tranquility? Could not the rise of militant atheism be a reaction, albeit a cautious- even pusillanimous- one, to the violence of Islamic religiosity?"

You make the ignorant assertion of “scientific atheism as merely yet another foolish intellectual fad…” (well, actually, you didn’t offer anything but cut and paste).

You may be surprised to learn that science is not an atheistic endeavor. Science will often refute biblical claims but that is a function of knowledge supplanting myth, fear and superstition. Ultimately, and as the only means to support your mysticism, you will demand that any number of events happened purely as an intervention of the gods, i.e., via an undemonstrated series of miracles and supernatural events, all unsubstantiated, all unproven, all categorically denied by mountains of evidence to the contrary. Which is fine-- that's strictly religious belief. Just let’s not pretend that your religious beliefs (miracles and supernatural events) are in any way supportable or demonstratble.

Massive dissertations could be penned on the psychology (pathology), motivating such misology. Not that it would matter, because there are those who live in a world where facts and evidence are often refused when they threaten belief in the “supermagical”, intended to comfort us. But there it is, plain as day. "Don't attack my cherished beliefs with facts and evidence, because I need my security blanket." That is precisely what this kind of argumentation sounds like, to theism's utter shame.

 

[Hollie]

The co-author of Darwin's theory was Alfred Wallace.

Unlike Darwin, Wallace believed a Creator guided the process of evolution, playing a key role throughout history in the inbreathing of spirit in mankind and bestowing mental faculties to humans. Wallace called his advocacy for a Creator his "little heresy" because of the opposition it drew from the scientific community….Wallace is something of a 'missing link' between early evolutionary theory and today's Intelligent Design movement: Alfred Russel Wallace - Conservapedia

You should occasionally acquaint yourself with facts. They’re a wonderful thing.
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial (Pennsylvania),
(Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial | NCSE)

was a complete, utter and thorough trashing of Christian creationism masquerading as a scientific theory.

Should the teaching of Christianity in public schools become widespread, the harm it would cause our nation would be tragic. As fundie Christians would have it, school children would be taught that the Bibles are literally true and that soundly based scientific principles, when not accord with the biblical interpretation, would cease to be fact. They would be confused because fear, ancient superstition and myth masquerading as science would be used to instill fear and superstition.. Children in public schools should be encouraged to explore their curiosity about nature, science and the natural world and to use their curiosity to arrive at the facts of a matter by rational deduction framed by the discipline of the scientific method. Any attempts to indoctrinate our public school children with false information, fear instilling doctrines and ancient superstitions based on the unscientific hypotheses of christian creationists would be a tragedy.

There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution. There is a well accepted, solidly established body of evidence showing that evolution is observable and testable. Although knowledge of some of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs is incomplete, much is known about how evolution works.

 

[edthecynic]

Similarly, the Big Bang origin of the universe required energy. And Newton stated that mass and energy are interchangeable, but that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. But something must have created the energy, at what we might call ‘the beginning.’

a. Now, before one attempts to explain away the obvious problem by inserting the term ‘infinity,’ let’s agree that infinity does not exist in the real world. So, without ‘infinity,’ it follows that everything in the universe is finite, therefore had a beginning….and, an end.

Again you show your complete lack of understanding the most basic principles of science even when you state them correctly.

In one sentence you correctly state the First Law of Thermodynamics, that energy CANNOT be created, and then in the very next you state that energy MUST be created at the "beginning." But according to science, what began at the "beginning" was TIME, not energy which already existed. Again the fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, so you must prove that energy can be created, as you claim, you can't just pontificate that it must be created.

Again, as far as "infinity" goes you create a false choice, if there is a beginning there must be an end so therefore there can be no infinity. What you fail to recognize is that the beginning and end could just as easily be points on a CYCLE that repeats infinitely.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Berlinski "The Devil's Delusion"....
"Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

"Before one accepts the support of such “smart scientists” simply because of their vocation, why not question this scientific atheism as merely yet another foolish intellectual fad, successor to academic Marxism, or feminism, or the various doctrines of multicultural tranquility? Could not the rise of militant atheism be a reaction, albeit a cautious- even pusillanimous- one, to the violence of Islamic religiosity?"

You make the ignorant assertion of “scientific atheism as merely yet another foolish intellectual fad…” (well, actually, you didn’t offer anything but cut and paste).

You may be surprised to learn that science is not an atheistic endeavor. Science will often refute biblical claims but that is a function of knowledge supplanting myth, fear and superstition. Ultimately, and as the only means to support your mysticism, you will demand that any number of events happened purely as an intervention of the gods, i.e., via an undemonstrated series of miracles and supernatural events, all unsubstantiated, all unproven, all categorically denied by mountains of evidence to the contrary. Which is fine-- that's strictly religious belief. Just let’s not pretend that your religious beliefs (miracles and supernatural events) are in any way supportable or demonstratble.

Massive dissertations could be penned on the psychology (pathology), motivating such misology. Not that it would matter, because there are those who live in a world where facts and evidence are often refused when they threaten belief in the “supermagical”, intended to comfort us. But there it is, plain as day. "Don't attack my cherished beliefs with facts and evidence, because I need my security blanket." That is precisely what this kind of argumentation sounds like, to theism's utter shame.

Remember when you wrote ‘There are a number of fallacies, false accusations, foolish claims in the above cut and paste.’ [http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/280175-omg-science-attacks-religion.html]…and then went on to post fallacies, false accusations, and foolish claims, bolstered by….get this: by cut and paste quotes!

Heck, Collie…you’re a barrel of monkeys! Well.....at least one monkey.

 

[there4eyeM]

Razor sharp!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The co-author of Darwin's theory was Alfred Wallace.

Unlike Darwin, Wallace believed a Creator guided the process of evolution, playing a key role throughout history in the inbreathing of spirit in mankind and bestowing mental faculties to humans. Wallace called his advocacy for a Creator his "little heresy" because of the opposition it drew from the scientific community….Wallace is something of a 'missing link' between early evolutionary theory and today's Intelligent Design movement: Alfred Russel Wallace - Conservapedia

You should occasionally acquaint yourself with facts. They’re a wonderful thing.
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial (Pennsylvania),
(Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial | NCSE)

was a complete, utter and thorough trashing of Christian creationism masquerading as a scientific theory.

Should the teaching of Christianity in public schools become widespread, the harm it would cause our nation would be tragic. As fundie Christians would have it, school children would be taught that the Bibles are literally true and that soundly based scientific principles, when not accord with the biblical interpretation, would cease to be fact. They would be confused because fear, ancient superstition and myth masquerading as science would be used to instill fear and superstition.. Children in public schools should be encouraged to explore their curiosity about nature, science and the natural world and to use their curiosity to arrive at the facts of a matter by rational deduction framed by the discipline of the scientific method. Any attempts to indoctrinate our public school children with false information, fear instilling doctrines and ancient superstitions based on the unscientific hypotheses of christian creationists would be a tragedy.

There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution. There is a well accepted, solidly established body of evidence showing that evolution is observable and testable. Although knowledge of some of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs is incomplete, much is known about how evolution works.

If only you were more deeply educated in the subject....you might not embarrass yourself with statements such as:

"There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution."


1. Of these important issues, I would mention prominently the question of whether natural selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

So, this is natural selection at work? Blakeslee observes, with solemn incomprehension, “the creatures mutated but showed only modest increases in complexity.” Which is to say, they showed nothing of interest at all. This is natural selection at work, but it is hardly work that has worked to intended effect.

What these computer experiments do reveal is a principle far more penetrating than any that Darwin ever offered:
There is a sucker born every minute."

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190



2.David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)


3. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)



Jeeesszzz....I know I should feel guilty making you look like an idiot....but, heck,...let's be honest: you're an idiot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Similarly, the Big Bang origin of the universe required energy. And Newton stated that mass and energy are interchangeable, but that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. But something must have created the energy, at what we might call ‘the beginning.’

a. Now, before one attempts to explain away the obvious problem by inserting the term ‘infinity,’ let’s agree that infinity does not exist in the real world. So, without ‘infinity,’ it follows that everything in the universe is finite, therefore had a beginning….and, an end.

Again you show your complete lack of understanding the most basic principles of science even when you state them correctly.

In one sentence you correctly state the First Law of Thermodynamics, that energy CANNOT be created, and then in the very next you state that energy MUST be created at the "beginning." But according to science, what began at the "beginning" was TIME, not energy which already existed. Again the fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, so you must prove that energy can be created, as you claim, you can't just pontificate that it must be created.

Again, as far as "infinity" goes you create a false choice, if there is a beginning there must be an end so therefore there can be no infinity. What you fail to recognize is that the beginning and end could just as easily be points on a CYCLE that repeats infinitely.

At times, I say 'he can't be as dumb as he appears.'

Of course, I am wrong, and you are.


"But according to science, what began at the "beginning" was TIME, not energy which already existed."

Where did it come from?


Circular reasoning is covered here:
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I believe it even mentions your name.

 

[edthecynic]

Similarly, the Big Bang origin of the universe required energy. And Newton stated that mass and energy are interchangeable, but that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. But something must have created the energy, at what we might call ‘the beginning.’

a. Now, before one attempts to explain away the obvious problem by inserting the term ‘infinity,’ let’s agree that infinity does not exist in the real world. So, without ‘infinity,’ it follows that everything in the universe is finite, therefore had a beginning….and, an end.

Again you show your complete lack of understanding the most basic principles of science even when you state them correctly.

In one sentence you correctly state the First Law of Thermodynamics, that energy CANNOT be created, and then in the very next you state that energy MUST be created at the "beginning." But according to science, what began at the "beginning" was TIME, not energy which already existed. Again the fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, so you must prove that energy can be created, as you claim, you can't just pontificate that it must be created.

Again, as far as "infinity" goes you create a false choice, if there is a beginning there must be an end so therefore there can be no infinity. What you fail to recognize is that the beginning and end could just as easily be points on a CYCLE that repeats infinitely.

At times, I say 'he can't be as dumb as he appears.'

Of course, I am wrong, and you are.


"But according to science, what began at the "beginning" was TIME, not energy which already existed."

Where did it come from?


Circular reasoning is covered here:
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I believe it even mentions your name.

As I have said, the more condescending you are, the weaker your argument.

Energy doesn't "come from" (cannot be created) or go from (cannot be destroyed), energy IS.

It has already been proven by a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so the onus is on YOU to prove that energy "comes from" something!!!! A repeatable experiment is NOT circular reasoning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[there4eyeM]

Just to play with words -

-someone could answer the original question with, "Yes, science can explain God. It can absolutely be established without the slightest doubt possible that there are people that believe in God.
That explains God"...as someone might have said.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Again you show your complete lack of understanding the most basic principles of science even when you state them correctly.

In one sentence you correctly state the First Law of Thermodynamics, that energy CANNOT be created, and then in the very next you state that energy MUST be created at the "beginning." But according to science, what began at the "beginning" was TIME, not energy which already existed. Again the fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, so you must prove that energy can be created, as you claim, you can't just pontificate that it must be created.

Again, as far as "infinity" goes you create a false choice, if there is a beginning there must be an end so therefore there can be no infinity. What you fail to recognize is that the beginning and end could just as easily be points on a CYCLE that repeats infinitely.

At times, I say 'he can't be as dumb as he appears.'

Of course, I am wrong, and you are.


"But according to science, what began at the "beginning" was TIME, not energy which already existed."

Where did it come from?


Circular reasoning is covered here:
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I believe it even mentions your name.

As I have said, the more condescending you are, the weaker your argument.

Energy doesn't "come from" (cannot be created) or go from (cannot be destroyed), energy IS.

It has already been proven by a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so the onus is on YOU to prove that energy "comes from" something!!!! A repeatable experiment is NOT circular reasoning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where-did-the-energy-originate???


Hey....what are you doing here??
Shouldn't you be studying the Rush Limbaugh Show transcripts??

Get back to work!

 

[edthecynic]

At times, I say 'he can't be as dumb as he appears.'

Of course, I am wrong, and you are.


"But according to science, what began at the "beginning" was TIME, not energy which already existed."

Where did it come from?


Circular reasoning is covered here:
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I believe it even mentions your name.

As I have said, the more condescending you are, the weaker your argument.

Energy doesn't "come from" (cannot be created) or go from (cannot be destroyed), energy IS.

It has already been proven by a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so the onus is on YOU to prove that energy "comes from" something!!!! A repeatable experiment is NOT circular reasoning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where-did-the-energy-originate???


Hey....what are you doing here??
Shouldn't you be studying the Rush Limbaugh Show transcripts??

Get back to work!

It has been proven that energy cannot be created, the burden is on you to prove that energy needs to "originate" (be created).

 

[Hollie]

Berlinski "The Devil's Delusion"....
"Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

"Before one accepts the support of such “smart scientists” simply because of their vocation, why not question this scientific atheism as merely yet another foolish intellectual fad, successor to academic Marxism, or feminism, or the various doctrines of multicultural tranquility? Could not the rise of militant atheism be a reaction, albeit a cautious- even pusillanimous- one, to the violence of Islamic religiosity?"

You make the ignorant assertion of “scientific atheism as merely yet another foolish intellectual fad…” (well, actually, you didn’t offer anything but cut and paste).

You may be surprised to learn that science is not an atheistic endeavor. Science will often refute biblical claims but that is a function of knowledge supplanting myth, fear and superstition. Ultimately, and as the only means to support your mysticism, you will demand that any number of events happened purely as an intervention of the gods, i.e., via an undemonstrated series of miracles and supernatural events, all unsubstantiated, all unproven, all categorically denied by mountains of evidence to the contrary. Which is fine-- that's strictly religious belief. Just let’s not pretend that your religious beliefs (miracles and supernatural events) are in any way supportable or demonstratble.

Massive dissertations could be penned on the psychology (pathology), motivating such misology. Not that it would matter, because there are those who live in a world where facts and evidence are often refused when they threaten belief in the “supermagical”, intended to comfort us. But there it is, plain as day. "Don't attack my cherished beliefs with facts and evidence, because I need my security blanket." That is precisely what this kind of argumentation sounds like, to theism's utter shame.

Remember when you wrote ‘There are a number of fallacies, false accusations, foolish claims in the above cut and paste.’ [http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/280175-omg-science-attacks-religion.html]…and then went on to post fallacies, false accusations, and foolish claims, bolstered by….get this: by cut and paste quotes!

Heck, Collie…you’re a barrel of monkeys! Well.....at least one monkey.

How typical for the clueless. Your specious opinions are defenseless, you're unable to offer anything but snide remarks and pointless babble.

I'm afraid you're just another fundie zealot who is too ignorant to know when to keep quiet and listen and learn.

Your pointless attempts at sidestepping are noted - toothless testimony in failed support of a worthless claim.

 

[Hollie]

At times, I say 'he can't be as dumb as he appears.'

Of course, I am wrong, and you are.


"But according to science, what began at the "beginning" was TIME, not energy which already existed."

Where did it come from?


Circular reasoning is covered here:
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I believe it even mentions your name.

As I have said, the more condescending you are, the weaker your argument.

Energy doesn't "come from" (cannot be created) or go from (cannot be destroyed), energy IS.

It has already been proven by a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so the onus is on YOU to prove that energy "comes from" something!!!! A repeatable experiment is NOT circular reasoning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where-did-the-energy-originate???


Hey....what are you doing here??
Shouldn't you be studying the Rush Limbaugh Show transcripts??

Get back to work!

Where diid your gawds originate? Define for us the hierarchy of designer gawds who created your gawds and the designer gawds who created those gawds.

We see with regularity how fundie creationists will invert their positions, and thus their “reasoning” to account for their confused, befuddled gawds, but in the worldview where a hierarchy of designer gawds are responsible for all, this hardly matters because the conclusion is foregone. When all of the christian creationists’ arguments are pre-configured to prove gawds, there's no particular reason or need to be fussy about their details of construction.

It would certainly be more honest of fundie zealots to simply say "I Believe, therefore reason and evidence are meaningless," rather than keep trying to pretend their belief is based on any different merits than that they have a need to believe it. But fundie creationists are gob-smacked with belief, and you cannot hope to hold them to honest or consistent standards.

 

[Hollie]

The co-author of Darwin's theory was Alfred Wallace.

Unlike Darwin, Wallace believed a Creator guided the process of evolution, playing a key role throughout history in the inbreathing of spirit in mankind and bestowing mental faculties to humans. Wallace called his advocacy for a Creator his "little heresy" because of the opposition it drew from the scientific community….Wallace is something of a 'missing link' between early evolutionary theory and today's Intelligent Design movement: Alfred Russel Wallace - Conservapedia

You should occasionally acquaint yourself with facts. They’re a wonderful thing.
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial (Pennsylvania),
(Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial | NCSE)

was a complete, utter and thorough trashing of Christian creationism masquerading as a scientific theory.

Should the teaching of Christianity in public schools become widespread, the harm it would cause our nation would be tragic. As fundie Christians would have it, school children would be taught that the Bibles are literally true and that soundly based scientific principles, when not accord with the biblical interpretation, would cease to be fact. They would be confused because fear, ancient superstition and myth masquerading as science would be used to instill fear and superstition.. Children in public schools should be encouraged to explore their curiosity about nature, science and the natural world and to use their curiosity to arrive at the facts of a matter by rational deduction framed by the discipline of the scientific method. Any attempts to indoctrinate our public school children with false information, fear instilling doctrines and ancient superstitions based on the unscientific hypotheses of christian creationists would be a tragedy.

There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution. There is a well accepted, solidly established body of evidence showing that evolution is observable and testable. Although knowledge of some of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs is incomplete, much is known about how evolution works.

If only you were more deeply educated in the subject....you might not embarrass yourself with statements such as:

"There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution."


1. Of these important issues, I would mention prominently the question of whether natural selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

So, this is natural selection at work? Blakeslee observes, with solemn incomprehension, “the creatures mutated but showed only modest increases in complexity.” Which is to say, they showed nothing of interest at all. This is natural selection at work, but it is hardly work that has worked to intended effect.

What these computer experiments do reveal is a principle far more penetrating than any that Darwin ever offered:
There is a sucker born every minute."

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190



2.David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)


3. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)



Jeeesszzz....I know I should feel guilty making you look like an idiot....but, heck,...let's be honest: you're an idiot.

I thought you would be reduced to stuttering and mumbling.

When your pointless prattle consists of cutting and pasting (due to your inability to actually compose coherent sentences), you're left to your usual tactic of spamming with inane sidesteps as you hope to retreat for the exits.

With the rabid fundie dead-enders especially desperate in their feeble flailing about, I thought that I might render them more docile, massaging the 'gator's belly, if you will, by portraying images of a positive, reassuring attitude defiant of manifest reality.

 

[Hollie]

The co-author of Darwin's theory was Alfred Wallace.

Unlike Darwin, Wallace believed a Creator guided the process of evolution, playing a key role throughout history in the inbreathing of spirit in mankind and bestowing mental faculties to humans. Wallace called his advocacy for a Creator his "little heresy" because of the opposition it drew from the scientific community….Wallace is something of a 'missing link' between early evolutionary theory and today's Intelligent Design movement: Alfred Russel Wallace - Conservapedia

You should occasionally acquaint yourself with facts. They’re a wonderful thing.
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial (Pennsylvania),
(Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial | NCSE)

was a complete, utter and thorough trashing of Christian creationism masquerading as a scientific theory.

Should the teaching of Christianity in public schools become widespread, the harm it would cause our nation would be tragic. As fundie Christians would have it, school children would be taught that the Bibles are literally true and that soundly based scientific principles, when not accord with the biblical interpretation, would cease to be fact. They would be confused because fear, ancient superstition and myth masquerading as science would be used to instill fear and superstition.. Children in public schools should be encouraged to explore their curiosity about nature, science and the natural world and to use their curiosity to arrive at the facts of a matter by rational deduction framed by the discipline of the scientific method. Any attempts to indoctrinate our public school children with false information, fear instilling doctrines and ancient superstitions based on the unscientific hypotheses of christian creationists would be a tragedy.

There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution. There is a well accepted, solidly established body of evidence showing that evolution is observable and testable. Although knowledge of some of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs is incomplete, much is known about how evolution works.

If only you were more deeply educated in the subject....you might not embarrass yourself with statements such as:

"There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution."


1. Of these important issues, I would mention prominently the question of whether natural selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

So, this is natural selection at work? Blakeslee observes, with solemn incomprehension, “the creatures mutated but showed only modest increases in complexity.” Which is to say, they showed nothing of interest at all. This is natural selection at work, but it is hardly work that has worked to intended effect.

What these computer experiments do reveal is a principle far more penetrating than any that Darwin ever offered:
There is a sucker born every minute."

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190



2.David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)


3. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)



Jeeesszzz....I know I should feel guilty making you look like an idiot....but, heck,...let's be honest: you're an idiot.

How typical of creationists to lie.

I think you will find that limiting your education of the sciences and the natural world by scouring creationist websites for quote-mining material will only deepen your inability to separate "faith" from the science of evolution. I understand that you hope to denigrate the sciences by dragging them into the realm of supernaturalism, superstition and fables which are all inextricably linked to religious dogma but the consecrating success of evolutionary science undeniably separates it from your myths and legends. Not only is the supernaturalist deficient at supporting their claims but they are deficient at offering even the most basic of proofs for these silly claims.

You see, ultimately, you and the Christian creationist / zealot crowd have a credibility problem of your own… well… creation. When the fundies manufacture data, manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal in failed attempts to present a 6,000 year old earth, evolution as a fraud and science being subservient to bible teaching, your claims come crashing to the ground. These sad, diseased meanderings of scouring the bowels of the web and “quote mining” Christian creationist websites is a common tactic of fundies.

Both of your “quotes” are familiar and are manipulated, edited and parsed to misrepresent what the author actually wrote.

Review: Fatal Flaws | NCSE

In his chapter on "fossil follies", Hanegraaff quotes David Raup, the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (p 17). Hanegraaff's reference for this quotation is Paul Taylor's Illustrated Origins Answer Book. If he had read Raup's original article ("Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1979; 50 [1]: 22–9), he would have discovered what Raup really said on page 25 was this, with the portions quoted by Hanegraaff italicized:

[/i]”Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.”[/i]



Quote #54

Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps"

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,"Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)

Aside from the presence of a dash between "promise" and "that" in the original text, the quote is accurate. But does Kitts believe that these gaps disprove evolution? On page 468 we find this:
The claim has been repeatedly made that the fossil record provides a basis for the falsification of synthetic theory [Neo-Darwinism] and Simpson has demonstrated that this is not the case.

Kitts outlines several different hypotheses as to why the fossil record appears the way it does, among them Punctuated Equilibrium, but at no point does he abandon evolution as an explanation for what is seen.

- Jon (Augray) Barber

 

[PoliticalChic]

You should occasionally acquaint yourself with facts. They’re a wonderful thing.
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial (Pennsylvania),
(Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial | NCSE)

was a complete, utter and thorough trashing of Christian creationism masquerading as a scientific theory.

Should the teaching of Christianity in public schools become widespread, the harm it would cause our nation would be tragic. As fundie Christians would have it, school children would be taught that the Bibles are literally true and that soundly based scientific principles, when not accord with the biblical interpretation, would cease to be fact. They would be confused because fear, ancient superstition and myth masquerading as science would be used to instill fear and superstition.. Children in public schools should be encouraged to explore their curiosity about nature, science and the natural world and to use their curiosity to arrive at the facts of a matter by rational deduction framed by the discipline of the scientific method. Any attempts to indoctrinate our public school children with false information, fear instilling doctrines and ancient superstitions based on the unscientific hypotheses of christian creationists would be a tragedy.

There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution. There is a well accepted, solidly established body of evidence showing that evolution is observable and testable. Although knowledge of some of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs is incomplete, much is known about how evolution works.

If only you were more deeply educated in the subject....you might not embarrass yourself with statements such as:

"There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution."


1. Of these important issues, I would mention prominently the question of whether natural selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

So, this is natural selection at work? Blakeslee observes, with solemn incomprehension, “the creatures mutated but showed only modest increases in complexity.” Which is to say, they showed nothing of interest at all. This is natural selection at work, but it is hardly work that has worked to intended effect.

What these computer experiments do reveal is a principle far more penetrating than any that Darwin ever offered:
There is a sucker born every minute."

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190



2.David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)


3. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)



Jeeesszzz....I know I should feel guilty making you look like an idiot....but, heck,...let's be honest: you're an idiot.

I thought you would be reduced to stuttering and mumbling.

When your pointless prattle consists of cutting and pasting (due to your inability to actually compose coherent sentences), you're left to your usual tactic of spamming with inane sidesteps as you hope to retreat for the exits.

With the rabid fundie dead-enders especially desperate in their feeble flailing about, I thought that I might render them more docile, massaging the 'gator's belly, if you will, by portraying images of a positive, reassuring attitude defiant of manifest reality.

1.I notice you attempt to resort to that 'stuttering and mumbling' thing every time your posts are eviscerated.
It's what known as a "tell."


2. And..."pointless prattle" certainly isn't appropriate in response to a post which neatly skewers yours.

See, that's what gives you away as the dim-wit you are....you are unable to respond appropriately, and fall back on the same vapid jargon, no matter the substance to which you are, ostensibly, responding.

That's the result of programming, rather than thinking.


3. "as you hope to retreat for the exits."
I haven't gone anywhere.

See...now you've revealed your fear of my posts, and the hope that I'll stop smashing you. Hardly likely.



4. Enough chit-chat.
To the original point....in light of the fact that I provided evidence that you were incorrect, are you ready to agree you were this statement of yours, as is true of so much of what you write, is totally fallacious?

Here:
"There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution."


Beat you senseless, again, didn't I?

Ooopps!
Forgot...you started out senseless.

 

[Hollie]

If only you were more deeply educated in the subject....you might not embarrass yourself with statements such as:

"There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution."


1. Of these important issues, I would mention prominently the question of whether natural selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

So, this is natural selection at work? Blakeslee observes, with solemn incomprehension, “the creatures mutated but showed only modest increases in complexity.” Which is to say, they showed nothing of interest at all. This is natural selection at work, but it is hardly work that has worked to intended effect.

What these computer experiments do reveal is a principle far more penetrating than any that Darwin ever offered:
There is a sucker born every minute."

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190



2.David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)


3. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)



Jeeesszzz....I know I should feel guilty making you look like an idiot....but, heck,...let's be honest: you're an idiot.

I thought you would be reduced to stuttering and mumbling.

When your pointless prattle consists of cutting and pasting (due to your inability to actually compose coherent sentences), you're left to your usual tactic of spamming with inane sidesteps as you hope to retreat for the exits.

With the rabid fundie dead-enders especially desperate in their feeble flailing about, I thought that I might render them more docile, massaging the 'gator's belly, if you will, by portraying images of a positive, reassuring attitude defiant of manifest reality.

1.I notice you attempt to resort to that 'stuttering and mumbling' thing every time your posts are eviscerated.
It's what known as a "tell."


2. And..."pointless prattle" certainly isn't appropriate in response to a post which neatly skewers yours.

See, that's what gives you away as the dim-wit you are....you are unable to respond appropriately, and fall back on the same vapid jargon, no matter the substance to which you are, ostensibly, responding.

That's the result of programming, rather than thinking.


3. "as you hope to retreat for the exits."
I haven't gone anywhere.

See...now you've revealed your fear of my posts, and the hope that I'll stop smashing you. Hardly likely.



4. Enough chit-chat.
To the original point....in light of the fact that I provided evidence that you were incorrect, are you ready to agree you were this statement of yours, as is true of so much of what you write, is totally fallacious?

Here:
"There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution."


Beat you senseless, again, didn't I?

Ooopps!
Forgot...you started out senseless.

I can see you’re embarrassed at having been exposed as a fraud and a liar.

That’s too bad but the lies, misrepresentations and fraud was of your own doing.

Why would you choose to live your life governed by fear and superstition? Absent rigid and unquestioning adherence to a book that you worship as an alleged “divine word” from a god(s), your superstitions have everything to do with an existence based upon living in fear and trembling before the angry desert deity. As much as you would prefer to resist it, it is secular thinking and science which can illuminate those dark recesses of the mind and allow you to shed fear and ignorance of imaginary demons.

Just a word of advise: be careful with the falsified "quote-mining". Aside from that tactic making you look like a total bumpkin, it also reflects negatively on the christian notion of possessing those... you know... "higher morals"

Your posting lies tends to reduce the morals, thing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You should occasionally acquaint yourself with facts. They’re a wonderful thing.
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial (Pennsylvania),
(Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial | NCSE)

was a complete, utter and thorough trashing of Christian creationism masquerading as a scientific theory.

Should the teaching of Christianity in public schools become widespread, the harm it would cause our nation would be tragic. As fundie Christians would have it, school children would be taught that the Bibles are literally true and that soundly based scientific principles, when not accord with the biblical interpretation, would cease to be fact. They would be confused because fear, ancient superstition and myth masquerading as science would be used to instill fear and superstition.. Children in public schools should be encouraged to explore their curiosity about nature, science and the natural world and to use their curiosity to arrive at the facts of a matter by rational deduction framed by the discipline of the scientific method. Any attempts to indoctrinate our public school children with false information, fear instilling doctrines and ancient superstitions based on the unscientific hypotheses of christian creationists would be a tragedy.

There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution. There is a well accepted, solidly established body of evidence showing that evolution is observable and testable. Although knowledge of some of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs is incomplete, much is known about how evolution works.

If only you were more deeply educated in the subject....you might not embarrass yourself with statements such as:

"There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution."


1. Of these important issues, I would mention prominently the question of whether natural selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

So, this is natural selection at work? Blakeslee observes, with solemn incomprehension, “the creatures mutated but showed only modest increases in complexity.” Which is to say, they showed nothing of interest at all. This is natural selection at work, but it is hardly work that has worked to intended effect.

What these computer experiments do reveal is a principle far more penetrating than any that Darwin ever offered:
There is a sucker born every minute."

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190



2.David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)


3. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)



Jeeesszzz....I know I should feel guilty making you look like an idiot....but, heck,...let's be honest: you're an idiot.

How typical of creationists to lie.

I think you will find that limiting your education of the sciences and the natural world by scouring creationist websites for quote-mining material will only deepen your inability to separate "faith" from the science of evolution. I understand that you hope to denigrate the sciences by dragging them into the realm of supernaturalism, superstition and fables which are all inextricably linked to religious dogma but the consecrating success of evolutionary science undeniably separates it from your myths and legends. Not only is the supernaturalist deficient at supporting their claims but they are deficient at offering even the most basic of proofs for these silly claims.

You see, ultimately, you and the Christian creationist / zealot crowd have a credibility problem of your own… well… creation. When the fundies manufacture data, manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal in failed attempts to present a 6,000 year old earth, evolution as a fraud and science being subservient to bible teaching, your claims come crashing to the ground. These sad, diseased meanderings of scouring the bowels of the web and “quote mining” Christian creationist websites is a common tactic of fundies.

Both of your “quotes” are familiar and are manipulated, edited and parsed to misrepresent what the author actually wrote.

Review: Fatal Flaws | NCSE

In his chapter on "fossil follies", Hanegraaff quotes David Raup, the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (p 17). Hanegraaff's reference for this quotation is Paul Taylor's Illustrated Origins Answer Book. If he had read Raup's original article ("Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1979; 50 [1]: 22–9), he would have discovered what Raup really said on page 25 was this, with the portions quoted by Hanegraaff italicized:

[/i]”Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.”[/i]



Quote #54

Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps"

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,"Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)

Aside from the presence of a dash between "promise" and "that" in the original text, the quote is accurate. But does Kitts believe that these gaps disprove evolution? On page 468 we find this:
The claim has been repeatedly made that the fossil record provides a basis for the falsification of synthetic theory [Neo-Darwinism] and Simpson has demonstrated that this is not the case.

Kitts outlines several different hypotheses as to why the fossil record appears the way it does, among them Punctuated Equilibrium, but at no point does he abandon evolution as an explanation for what is seen.

- Jon (Augray) Barber

So....as you nowuse, and see the efficacy of what you formerly objected to, you're not objecting to "cut and paste" any longer?
Are you sure?
Quite a turn-around for you.
No doubt I'll be able to convince you in other areas as well......you know, 'convert' you.



"....the quote is accurate.."

And my other ACCURATE quotes, as well?


So....you admit that you were wrong in writing "There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution."

You were totally wrong?


Want to add this:

Steven J. Gould said: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)
Now, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?



Good news: you aren’t steeped in original sin…since you obviously haven’t eaten of the tree of knowledge.

 

[Hollie]

If only you were more deeply educated in the subject....you might not embarrass yourself with statements such as:

"There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution."


1. Of these important issues, I would mention prominently the question of whether natural selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

So, this is natural selection at work? Blakeslee observes, with solemn incomprehension, “the creatures mutated but showed only modest increases in complexity.” Which is to say, they showed nothing of interest at all. This is natural selection at work, but it is hardly work that has worked to intended effect.

What these computer experiments do reveal is a principle far more penetrating than any that Darwin ever offered:
There is a sucker born every minute."

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190



2.David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)


3. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)



Jeeesszzz....I know I should feel guilty making you look like an idiot....but, heck,...let's be honest: you're an idiot.

How typical of creationists to lie.

I think you will find that limiting your education of the sciences and the natural world by scouring creationist websites for quote-mining material will only deepen your inability to separate "faith" from the science of evolution. I understand that you hope to denigrate the sciences by dragging them into the realm of supernaturalism, superstition and fables which are all inextricably linked to religious dogma but the consecrating success of evolutionary science undeniably separates it from your myths and legends. Not only is the supernaturalist deficient at supporting their claims but they are deficient at offering even the most basic of proofs for these silly claims.

You see, ultimately, you and the Christian creationist / zealot crowd have a credibility problem of your own… well… creation. When the fundies manufacture data, manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal in failed attempts to present a 6,000 year old earth, evolution as a fraud and science being subservient to bible teaching, your claims come crashing to the ground. These sad, diseased meanderings of scouring the bowels of the web and “quote mining” Christian creationist websites is a common tactic of fundies.

Both of your “quotes” are familiar and are manipulated, edited and parsed to misrepresent what the author actually wrote.

Review: Fatal Flaws | NCSE

In his chapter on "fossil follies", Hanegraaff quotes David Raup, the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (p 17). Hanegraaff's reference for this quotation is Paul Taylor's Illustrated Origins Answer Book. If he had read Raup's original article ("Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1979; 50 [1]: 22–9), he would have discovered what Raup really said on page 25 was this, with the portions quoted by Hanegraaff italicized:

[/i]”Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.”[/i]



Quote #54

Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps"

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,"Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)

Aside from the presence of a dash between "promise" and "that" in the original text, the quote is accurate. But does Kitts believe that these gaps disprove evolution? On page 468 we find this:
The claim has been repeatedly made that the fossil record provides a basis for the falsification of synthetic theory [Neo-Darwinism] and Simpson has demonstrated that this is not the case.

Kitts outlines several different hypotheses as to why the fossil record appears the way it does, among them Punctuated Equilibrium, but at no point does he abandon evolution as an explanation for what is seen.

- Jon (Augray) Barber

So....as you nowuse, and see the efficacy of what you formerly objected to, you're not objecting to "cut and paste" any longer?
Are you sure?
Quite a turn-around for you.
No doubt I'll be able to convince you in other areas as well......you know, 'convert' you.



"....the quote is accurate.."

And my other ACCURATE quotes, as well?


So....you admit that you were wrong in writing "There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution."

You were totally wrong?


Want to add this:

Steven J. Gould said: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)
Now, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?



Good news: you aren’t steeped in original sin…since you obviously haven’t eaten of the tree of knowledge.

I'm afraid that spamming the thread is not going to allow you to conceal your intentional lies and falsified "quote-mining".

What a shame that fundie whackjobs are so often represented by people such as you who care not a whit for honesty, integrity or truth.

As you have demonstrated, you will resort to any manner of base depravity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I thought you would be reduced to stuttering and mumbling.

When your pointless prattle consists of cutting and pasting (due to your inability to actually compose coherent sentences), you're left to your usual tactic of spamming with inane sidesteps as you hope to retreat for the exits.

With the rabid fundie dead-enders especially desperate in their feeble flailing about, I thought that I might render them more docile, massaging the 'gator's belly, if you will, by portraying images of a positive, reassuring attitude defiant of manifest reality.

1.I notice you attempt to resort to that 'stuttering and mumbling' thing every time your posts are eviscerated.
It's what known as a "tell."


2. And..."pointless prattle" certainly isn't appropriate in response to a post which neatly skewers yours.

See, that's what gives you away as the dim-wit you are....you are unable to respond appropriately, and fall back on the same vapid jargon, no matter the substance to which you are, ostensibly, responding.

That's the result of programming, rather than thinking.


3. "as you hope to retreat for the exits."
I haven't gone anywhere.

See...now you've revealed your fear of my posts, and the hope that I'll stop smashing you. Hardly likely.



4. Enough chit-chat.
To the original point....in light of the fact that I provided evidence that you were incorrect, are you ready to agree you were this statement of yours, as is true of so much of what you write, is totally fallacious?

Here:
"There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution."


Beat you senseless, again, didn't I?

Ooopps!
Forgot...you started out senseless.

I can see you’re embarrassed at having been exposed as a fraud and a liar.

That’s too bad but the lies, misrepresentations and fraud was of your own doing.

Why would you choose to live your life governed by fear and superstition? Absent rigid and unquestioning adherence to a book that you worship as an alleged “divine word” from a god(s), your superstitions have everything to do with an existence based upon living in fear and trembling before the angry desert deity. As much as you would prefer to resist it, it is secular thinking and science which can illuminate those dark recesses of the mind and allow you to shed fear and ignorance of imaginary demons.

Just a word of advise: be careful with the falsified "quote-mining". Aside from that tactic making you look like a total bumpkin, it also reflects negatively on the christian notion of possessing those... you know... "higher morals"

Your posting lies tends to reduce the morals, thing.

See, there you go again: "a fraud and a liar"..." lies, misrepresentations and fraud"...

And as you do this, with no fraud, or lies, or misrepresentations are evident, the instability of your mental condition is evident.
You are truly a squirrel’s version of heaven.


And since it is not possible to take you seriously, I must hold you up to ridicule.

Remember the first thing you heard the paramedics say after your accident…”there must be another cerebral hemisphere around here somewhere…”
Sorry they couldn’t come up with it.