Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

timberlandko wrote:

Now, while I suppose at least some of the purported quotes in the piece of crackpottery gunga supplied might check out less to the piece's - and gunga's - discredit than its lead-off "reference", I suspect quite a few would fail the smell test if subjected to it. I see little point pressing that further; per falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (the time-honored basic legal principle that testimony which is false in part is false in total), gungas attempted justification stands impeached.

I think Gunga has been fooled by those quotes as well. They were quote-mined by someone else, Gunga just repeated them.

The real question is why does Gunga WANT to believe those things. Gunga is skeptical of evolution and of scientists, but he swallows the deceptions of the creationists whole. He displays a predisposition for accepting only the information he WANTS to believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary; A distinctly religious behavior.

0 Replies

chiso wrote:

Eorl wrote:
Chiso,

That you won't take the time (or make the effort) to even read the post says far more about you than it does about anyone else, and it certainly devalues any further input from you on the subject.

I think the reason you haven't read it, and that no one on here has read it, is that everyone realizes the waste of time it will be. I think we've all made a good choice there.

With all respect, chiso, that Eorl and others participating in this discussion did read the post in question is well evidenced, both in subsequent posts to this discussion, and in other communications which have come my way subsequent to my having submitted that post. In particular point of fact, I call your attention to This maporsche post, which post specifically is the post you Addressed. I submit that maporsche's general observation "... This is an important post/point ... Because of that I'm sure it will be overlooked by the creationists here." and Eorl's observation, directly in reference to your commentary relevant thereto, " ... That you won't take the time (or make the effort) to even read the post says far more about you than it does about anyone else, and it certainly devalues any further input from you on the subject." are more than adequately well validated by your most recent commentary and by that of yours which intervenes between your most recent offering and the post which evidently you haven't read, but rather would prefer to have summarized for you. If you want easy answers, find them where you may - you'll find damned few easy answers are good answers, and fewer yet will be found in the sort of legitimate, informed, objective, fact-based, evidence-driven scientific or academic discussion you evidently consider to be a waste of time.

Your choice.

0 Replies

"Quote Mining": The accusation you invariably hear when you post any sort of a selection of what serious scholars have had to say about evolution and evolutionites over the last 70 years. The simple reality is that if evolution were a "fact" as is claimed and all the evidence supported it, as is also claimed, then no such collections of quotes coming from major league kinds of scholars damning it and describing the total lack of evidentiary support would exist.

Quoting out of context?? Again, there is a tremendously simple way to avoid being quoted as having said something: don't say it. Requires no thought, no energy, nothing at all, just keep your mouth shut, while breathing through your nose.

The basic reality which an unbiased observer will begin to grasp, sooner or later, reading through such litanies of statements, is that people with any real claim to brains and talent who have taken any sort of a hard and honest look at evolution, are rejecting it in growing numbers.

The basic reality is that evolution is being defended by second raters, dead wood, and blowhards, as one easily observes on forums such as this one.

0 Replies

Quote:

The basic reality is that evolution is being defended by second raters, dead wood, and blowhards, as one easily observes on forums such as this one.

Gunga, your reality is contrary to science.

1 Can you name an accredited college that offers an advanced degree in Creationist or ID "science"?

2Your adherence to some kind of Creationist "literature" is mostly accomplished by posting quote mined or self published work to either present counterfactual evidence that some of the greater minds in evolution are actually agreeing with you rather than, in reality, they are making a point essentially opposite of the quote miner(who, as ros said , is probably someone other than you)

3What does the standard science of today (accepted, peer reviewed, testable and USEABLE in application) say? It announces a version of an evidence based reality that is 180 degrees of yours

Those three points above are three "tests" of generally accepted practice used by the Courts in establishing the relevance of scientific testimony regarding a subject. ( Present Standards in education, present standards in technical literature, and present standards of practice)
Each year We have many cases in the US regarding applied science. So far the requirements under "DAubert" usually go under challenge and ultimate dismissal. Stuff that fails the DAubert excluded testimony usually includes Creationism, any Theistic reasoning and bases of scientific laws, Magic, various subcategories of mysticism and shamanism, etc. The courts dont have time for taking evidence from bullshit artists when it comes to applied science. SO I guess you can include the US legal system.

See you guys in a week.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

The basic reality which an unbiased observer will begin to grasp, sooner or later, reading through such litanies of statements, is that people with any real claim to brains and talent who have taken any sort of a hard and honest look at evolution, are rejecting it in growing numbers.

We've demonstrated your inaccuracies and deceptions many times in this thread (and others), yet you continue to try to sell your snake oil.

We can already see from the comments on this thread that nobody is buying it. You need to find an audience that is easier to deceive, maybe a playground full of kids (although many kids are sharp enough to spot a huckster), or a revival tent somewhere.

You can live in denial all you want, but evolution is real, it happened, it's happening and it's here to stay. Reality trumps denial. You lose.

0 Replies

gunga, "Quote Mining", "Quoting out of context", "Misrepresentation", "Fabrication", "Fraud" and the like are charges levied when those disreputable practices are employed - likely that's why you might sense such charges so frequently are laid against those who forward the proposition you attempt to advance. Your preferences and silly protestations notwithstanding, neither you nor any other proponent of your propostion ever has produced either evidence or rational, valid argument for that proposition. Yours is and consistently is demonstrated to be a misinformed, misdirected, contrarian, minority POV rejected wholesale by the academic, scientific, judicial, legislative, philosophic, and theologic communities. By definition, and as demonstrated more than amply through the practice of its proponents, your proposition and its manner of presentation are illegitimate. Your contributions to related discussions on these boards well illustrate the academic paucity, ethical disregard, and intellectual bankruptcy with which your proposition and its proponents are charged. By the evidence provided through your posting history, it reasonably may be inferred you persist in grievous error through no fault of your own; you opine as you do wth such zeal and persistence as to indicate you are functioning at the peak of your abilities. In that, you are far from alone; your fellows on these boards - and throughout all the venues wherein you and compatriots participate as is common to your proposition and its proponents - conform to the standard so closely as to justify the label "stereotypival".

Great job - keep it up.

0 Replies

Quote:

.....blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.......

I know, I know, every one of those guys making those kinds of statements truly believes in evolution and I and others are involved in some nefarious scheme to find ways to take their words out of context to make it seem otherwise.

For instance:

Quote:

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are
great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax
ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."

(Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

That guy's obviously an evolutionist through and through. I mean, what kind of context could contain that statment and yet amount to an endorsement of evolution? Kind of strains the imagination, doesn't it?

For instance:

Quote:

The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove
the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do."

(Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before
the American Chemical Society.)

That's because evolution is a pseudoscientific ideological doctrine and not a real science theory of any sort.

For instance:

Quote:

"The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in
number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation."

(Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as
Christian Heritage College, "It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.")

I mean, you can tell that guy's an evolutionite through and through just by imagining the context that must have been stripped out of, can't you?

For instance:

Quote:

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the
evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have
abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical
persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances,
regretfully."

(Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

Yet another committed evolutionist being quoted out of context...

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Yet another committed evolutionist being quoted out of context...

Nope. All those fellows are creationists. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, Bliss is Curriculum Director Institute for Creation Research, so what do you expect him to say? He adheres to their mission statement "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

I don't think you get brownie points for quoting creationists saying evolution didn't happen.

0 Replies

gunga, wading back into the quote mine, wrote:

Quote:

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are
great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax
ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."

(Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

That guy's obviously an evolutionist through and through. I mean, what kind of context could contain that statment and yet amount to an endorsement of evolution? Kind of strains the imagination, doesn't it?

Tahmisian, a noted nuclear physicist and a key figure in the development of electron microscopy, who died over 2 decades ago, made that remark in 1959. Tahmisian also was a rabid Christianist and staunch opponent of evolution. In 1957, he said THIS

Quote:

I was disturbed with Dr. Adolph's reconciliation of the theory of evolution with the Bible (See J.A.S.A. vol. 8, no. 3). He implies that Heb. 11:3, shows that men may have evolved. On the contrary man thinks that evolution happened but the Bible states that he was created by God. Jesus said God made them male And female (Matth. 19:4). The presence of fossils ,in various geological strata is explained by the destruction of pre-Adamic life (Jer. 4:23-26). The Lord also turned the earth upside down (Isa. 24:1). In antithesis to Dr. Adolph's explanation of Psalms 139: 115-16 after praying I prefer to read it thus: My sub.stance (mortality to immortality) was not hid from thee (it was predestined), when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought (immorality wrought through His faithfulness) in the lowest parts of the earth (He descended into hell with my sins). Thine eves did see my substance (immortal Bride of Christ), yet being unperfect (while the number of the chosen for the formation of the Bride of Christ is not completed); and in thy book (book of life)) all my members (the chosen) were written, which in continuance were fashioned (Christ's Bride is fashioned in continuance by the addition of the saints from every generation), when as yet there was none of them (elected even before our existence).

In conclusion my prayer may be as stated in I Cor. 2:5 "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."

Quote:

For instance:

Quote:

The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove
the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do."

(Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before
the American Chemical Society.)

That's because evolution is a pseudoscientific ideological doctrine and not a real science theory of any sort.

Dr. Millikan, another noted physicist (1923 Nobel Laureate in Physics for work pertaining to the electron), son of a Congregationalist minister, was a devout, practicing Christian, and spirited oponent both of The Big Bang and evolution, who died in 1953.

Quote:

For instance:

Quote:

"The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in
number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation."

(Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as
Christian Heritage College, "It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.")

I mean, you can tell that guy's an evolutionite through and through just by imagining the context that must have been stripped out of, can't you?

Do you even read what you copy and paste? The Reverend Dr. Bliss - of the former Christian Heritage College, now called San Diego Christian College, a school facing Accredidation Woes (note: 1 page .pdf download) - among the co-founders of The Institute For Creation Research? Well, at least this one's not a physicist, and he hasn't been dead for decades, but still - c'mon.

Quote:

For instance:

Quote:

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the
evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have
abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical
persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances,
regretfully."

(Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

Yet another committed evolutionist being quoted out of context...

Back to physicists again - this one a noted conservative Christian, long time foe of evolution, and author of numerous articles, essays, and books of Christian apologetics from an ultra-orthodox Catholic perspective - largely focussing on his disagreement with "Scientistic Belief" (his term) - quoted here saying:

Quote:

Know from the start that all truth derives from the Word of God and thus partakes of the sacred. Cultivate purity, knowing that this constitutes a precondition to the reception of truth. Learn once more to revere what is worthy of reverence. Cast off the profane and irreverent persona of the modern intellectual, and cultivate the spirit of discipleship. Learn to receive the gift of faith; know that faith is the seed of wisdom.

Just what sort of stupid game are you trying to play here, gunga?

0 Replies

Pauligirl wrote:

I don't think you get brownie points for quoting creationists saying evolution didn't happen.

Ha, too funny Laughing

0 Replies

I see. So now you're abandoning the claim that I took every single one of those quotes out of context and substituting the claim that all or most of the scholars in question are ethically compromised by Christianity??

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

I see. So now you're abandoning the claim that I took every single one of those quotes out of context and substituting the claim that all or most of the scholars in question are ethically compromised by Christianity??

The propoganda you've been posting contains a combination of deceiptful tactics, not just one.

We need a filter:

1. First take out all quotes from people who are obviously biased by their religion.

2. Next take out all quotes which have been taken out of context and were never meant to be interpreted the way they are portrayed.

I wonder what we would have left.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

I see. So now you're abandoning the claim that I took every single one of those quotes out of context and substituting the claim that all or most of the scholars in question are ethically compromised by Christianity??

Straw man, gunga, by several particulars, large among which would be that no matter from where/from whom quotes are mined, no matter to what purpose, the scurrilous practice of quote mining remains quote mining, meriting its perpetrator naught but opprobrium and that perpetrator's thus-embarrased discourse naught but the contempt and dismissal accorded same by those of ethically less mean discourse as may be subjected to any such display of intellectually bankrupt, academically fraudulent, self-discrediting forensic malfeasance.

Further, regardless the author or the context, operationally, the ethical compromise lies in the practice of the reprehensible tactic of quote mining. Your attempted justification, in common with your proposition, is indefensible, unworthy of reasoned, informed, analytic, respectful consideration; it is in and of itself contemptible.

Your persistent presentation of barrelsfull of red herrings not merely occasions, nor even simply invites, but but rather it absolutely demands the sniping which comes your way. You fashion, mount, and ignite your own pyre.

Great job - keep it up.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Pauligirl wrote:
I don't think you get brownie points for quoting creationists saying evolution didn't happen.

Ha, too funny

A great circular argument.

'Anyone who agrees with you is disqualified as a source because they agree with you.'

If someone is a PhD in their field and come to recognize the weaknesses in the evolutionary arguments, suddenly they are no longer qualified to address the subject, eh?

You're gonna have to do better than that.

Why don't you address why you think their specific statement is erroneous instead of using a circular argument?

0 Replies

I found this on one of the links Gunga provided several pages back (The Revolution Against Evolution). Watching the pot call the kettle black, is comical to say the least.

Here it is in its original form. Enjoy.

Quote:

RAELIAN DISCLAIMER

The Revolution Against Evolution, http://www.rae.org is not associated with the Raelians http://www.rael.org. The Raelians claim to be creationists, but not in the Biblical sense. Instead they believe that life was imported from outer space by aliens. Their god is a UFO driver. Our group, Revolution Against Evolution, is made up of traditional Biblical Christians who believe in a supernatural creator God, and his son Jesus Christ. We in no way believe that this Christ was a space alien. We do suspect, however, that the god the Raelians serve and believe in is a counterfeit, either of their own imagination, or demonic in nature. Our creator God of the Bible is not a super-technological god; He is a supernatural God.

In addition, the Raelians are strong advocates of cloning. We have sincere reservations about the practice, as we believe that this is messing with God's natural order of things, and too little is known about the effects of the procedure.

We hope to expand upon this page as we research this further. I used to think that this was too bizarre to be taken seriously. Judging by some of the e-mail we get by mistake, we have to rethink this.

This was just the first thing I ran across. I'm sure there's more insanity out there just waiting to be found. Smile

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Pauligirl wrote:
I don't think you get brownie points for quoting creationists saying evolution didn't happen.

Ha, too funny

A great circular argument.

'Anyone who agrees with you is disqualified as a source because they agree with you.'

If someone is a PhD in their field and come to recognize the weaknesses in the evolutionary arguments, suddenly they are no longer qualified to address the subject, eh?

You're gonna have to do better than that.

No, rl, if you're to make any headway for your proposition, you're going to have to do much, much better than persist in such transparent straw man argument as your apparent one-trick-pony performance heretofore so amply has illustrated. The argument presented is not, as you dishonestly allege, "'Anyone who agrees with you is disqualified as a source because they agree with you ... If someone is a PhD in their field and come to recognize the weaknesses in the evolutionary arguments, suddenly they are no longer qualified to address the subject", it is that, all other considerations aside, the inherently invalid practice of quote mining, however employed, is dishonest.

Quote:

Why don't you address why you think their specific statement is erroneous instead of using a circular argument?

Straw man; apart from the fact specific exposure and refutation of error in many instances throughout this discussion explicitly has been provided, the specious, absurd presentations and defenses of the Creationist/ID-iot proposition stand unambiguously, conclusively, decisively unmasked, laid bare, refuted, and rejected by the scientific, academic, theologic, philosophic, judicial, and legislative communities, in concert, without substantive dissent. Now, while the weight of consensus opinion from any one of those communities at the very least would present significant inconvenience to your proposition, the actual state of affairs, the congruence of directly relevant, legitimate, authoritative, consensus opinion amounts to established fact; Creationism/ID-iocy is bullshit.

The only circular argument operational in the entire matter is "It appears to me inconceivable that things might appear to be as they appear without having been brought to appear as they do through the action of a designer, therefore, since inconceivable is that other than that there must be a designer, obviously, there is a designer", which, in effect and in practice, is the founadational Ignoratio Elenchi, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, Petitio Principii, Argumentum ad Ignorantum material fallacy which comprises the basic, essential category error from which your terminally flawed proposition proceeds. If not for ignorance, superstition, arrogance, and deceit, your proposition would have no capital to invest.

On the other hand, there is little cause to expect your proposition might soon exhaust such capital as is at its disposal.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

If not for ignorance, superstition, arrogance, and deceit, your proposition would have no capital to invest.

Those forces can supply tons of money & political influence etc. Man's history has at its core at least as much bad stuff as good stuff, that so many people (even today) are religious emphasizes this.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Pauligirl wrote:
I don't think you get brownie points for quoting creationists saying evolution didn't happen.

Ha, too funny

A great circular argument.

'Anyone who agrees with you is disqualified as a source because they agree with you.'

If someone is a PhD in their field and come to recognize the weaknesses in the evolutionary arguments, suddenly they are no longer qualified to address the subject, eh?

You're gonna have to do better than that.

Why don't you address why you think their specific statement is erroneous instead of using a circular argument?

"

Quote:

Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."

(Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

Actually, I think Dr. Tahmisian should have done better. He's not offered any facts, just an opinion.
I ran across this a while back.. Dr. pepper could have be talking about Tahmisian here:

Quote:

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "Does not!"
[email protected]

0 Replies

Simply because a man of science (presumed or real) offers a personal opinion, is no reason in and of itself, to give such an opinion credence, without the rigors of scientific discipline to back it up.

History is full of scientists that did good work plus made unsubstantiated nonscientific claims.

0 Replies

Pauligirl wrote:

Actually, I think Dr. Tahmisian should have done better. He's not offered any facts, just an opinion.

Pauligirl,

Do you think the two sentences quoted here are all there was of the Tahmisian statement?

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know