Which came first? plants or animals?

[KWCrazy]

Quote mining is when one takes a particular part of a quote out of context and then tries to imply the author said something he did not.

That, however, is rarely the case. Let's look at your example.

Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

Darwin's conclusions do not invalidate the question of the premise. It is NOT certainly that case that there is a range of evolution from imperfect eyes to perfect and complex eyes. Increasing complexity in regards to the eye has NOT been demonstrated and as such the original premise is not agreeably satisfied. While I don't cite Darwin much because his data is obsolete and his theory has been revised more times than Obama's explanation of Benghazi, quoting the bolded part would only be a quote mine if one were to state that Darwin threw up his hands and surrendered at irreducible complexity.

Even if physical existance is temporary, it does not mean it is not reality.

Reality is the sum total of everything that exists. Denying the existence of the supernatural denies reality.

We demand natural proof for the physical and natural. The earth and life on it are included.

No, atheists constantly demand conclusive physical proof of the suernatural; at least once in every major thread.

 

[KWCrazy]

Even the biblical authors admit that there is no god.

"There is no God."--Psalms 14:1

If you weren't worshipping at the altar of the Bible, you would see that.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
Why did you just call yourself a fool?

If you hadn't noticed, I rarely post verses without including the verses around them which put them into context. Nor do I, or most people, deliberately misquote anyone. However putting forward a premise does not require anyone to believe in your conclusion.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If you can't prove something exists or doesn't exist, making any conclusion on its existence is illogical. To say that the supernatural is definitively real is ridiculous, as is saying that it is definitively pure imagination is also ridiculous.

 

[Loudmouth]

Darwin's conclusions do not invalidate the question of the premise. It is NOT certainly that case that there is a range of evolution from imperfect eyes to perfect and complex eyes. Increasing complexity in regards to the eye has NOT been demonstrated and as such the original premise is not agreeably satisfied. While I don't cite Darwin much because his data is obsolete and his theory has been revised more times than Obama's explanation of Benghazi, quoting the bolded part would only be a quote mine if one were to state that Darwin threw up his hands and surrendered at irreducible complexity.

You just don't get it, do you?

People use that quote to suggest that Darwin did not believe in evolution because he couldn't figure out how the eye could evolve. This was not Darwin's position.

"I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class."
The Origin of Species: Chapter 6

That was his position. Creationists so often use that quote mine to make it look like Darwin held the exact opposite position. That is why we call it a quote mine.

 

[Loudmouth]

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
Why did you just call yourself a fool?

"There is no God."--Psalms 14:1

Why are you calling David a fool?

If you hadn't noticed, I rarely post verses without including the verses around them which put them into context. Nor do I, or most people, deliberately misquote anyone. However putting forward a premise does not require anyone to believe in your conclusion.

When it comes to quoting scientists, all of the sudden you quit including the context. <staff edit>

 

[AV1611VET]

If you can't prove something exists or doesn't exist, making any conclusion on its existence is illogical.

What if someone else proves [sic] it?

QV my Mariana Trench Challenge:

I challenge anyone here to show me why you believe the Mariana Trench exists.

It can be any software of your choice: charts, graphs, anecdotal testimony, hearsay, photographs, pdfs, Wikipedia, dictionary, drawings, a hunch, faith, newspaper article, book, magazine, peer reviewed journal, satellite image, sonar, blog, twitter entry, youtube, another post --- anything at all.

Please include your area of expertise and/or scientific interest when you reply.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What if someone else proves [sic] it?

QV my Mariana Trench Challenge:

If you want it be the worst of the worst kind of skeptics, you can go to the area yourself and look.

Thus, you can prove it exists. You can bring stuff back that exists only there, you can make a video of it, send machines to record its depth.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want it be the worst of the worst kind of skeptics, you can go to the area yourself and look.

Thus, you can prove it exists. You can bring stuff back that exists only there, you can make a video of it, send machines to record its depth.

Really?

I'm that rich, am I? I'm that adventurous? I'm that able to operate a minisub?

Or do I have to take someone else's word?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Really?

I'm that rich, am I? I'm that adventurous? I'm that able to operate a minisub?

Or do I have to take someone else's word?

You don't have to take 1 person's word on it, when it is a physical place on earth, it isn't hard to prove it exists. Also, you are arguing with an atheist which doesn't need to physically see a deity to feel that it's existence has been proven, so that I can't personally go to that trench and look at it with my own eyes directly isn't an issue.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't have to take 1 person's word on it, when it is a physical place on earth, it isn't hard to prove it exists. Also, you are arguing with an atheist which doesn't need to physically see a deity to feel that it's existence has been proven, so that I can't personally go to that trench and look at it with my own eyes directly isn't an issue.

I applaud your faith.

 

[Sayre]

"There is no God."--Psalms 14:1

Why are you calling David a fool?



When it comes to quoting scientists, all of the sudden you quit including the context. <staff edit>

A side note:

The Hebrew there is pretty interesting. It pretty much says "no God". It doesn't translate into English very well at all. It can just as easily translate to "No, God". A bit like a petulant child saying no to their parents. It isn't about disbelief but disobedience.

The context of the rest of the psalm gives us some more clarity...

2 The Lord looks down from heaven
on all mankind
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
3 All have turned away, all have become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.

So I think v2 and 3 condemns us all, and that everyone is the referent in v1. Far from being a slur against atheist, it is more in alignment with Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God".

 

[AV1611VET]

The context of the rest of the psalm gives us some more clarity...

2 The Lord...

No ... wrong.

Psalm 14:2 The LORD...

 

[Sayre]

No ... wrong.

Psalm 14:2 The LORD...

What? Go away.

 

[AV1611VET]

What? Go away.

Before I go:

Do you know the difference between "God" and "Lord" and "LORD"?

 

[Sayre]

Before I go:

Do you know the difference between "God" and "Lord" and "LORD"?

I wish you would go.

The forum software removes "all caps" text and replaces it with text where only the first letter is capitalised. So copy and paste can result in a change in capitalisation.

 

[[serious]]

Darwin's conclusions do not invalidate the question of the premise. It is NOT certainly that case that there is a range of evolution from imperfect eyes to perfect and complex eyes. Increasing complexity in regards to the eye has NOT been demonstrated and as such the original premise is not agreeably satisfied. While I don't cite Darwin much because his data is obsolete and his theory has been revised more times than Obama's explanation of Benghazi, quoting the bolded part would only be a quote mine if one were to state that Darwin threw up his hands and surrendered at irreducible complexity.

I was going to type this up from memory, but instead I'll just do a quick google and C&P. This quote mine is actually so common that it has it's own talk origins page:

Response:

The quote is taken out of context. Darwin answered the seeming problem he introduced. The paragraph continues,
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)
Darwin continues with three more pages describing a sequence of plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes, giving examples from existing organisms to show that the intermediates are viable.

Not only are intermediates possible, but examples of the type of structures which could form intermediates survive in some species to the present day. In fact, Darwin outlines several of these following the quote mine you provided. However, instead of cutting and pasting all of that I will instead provide yo a link to the whole chapter:
The Origin of Species (1872)/Chapter VI - Wikisource, the free online library

Now, we had a first approximation of the process 150 years ago. Since then, we've refined the proposal to far more robust series of steps.

These are outlined well on wikipedia:

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[[serious]]

Before I go:

Do you know the difference between "God" and "Lord" and "LORD"?

Spelling and capitalization.

 

[KWCrazy]

When it comes to quoting scientists, all of the sudden you quit including the context. <staff edit>

I was going to demand that you present evidence of your false accusation, but then I decided that it's not worth the time. I have no interest in conversing with you any longer. Ever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was going to demand that you present evidence of your false accusation, but then I decided that it's not worth the time. I have no interest in conversing with you any longer. Ever.

False outrage and false bravado on your part.

Now you may have not know that you have used a lying source, though there is really no excuse for that sin of yours. I am sure you have been told of this tendency of creationist sites to lie by quote mining in the past.

In the future you just need to represent this simple rule. Any time any creationist quotes a scientist who you would think would support evolution and the quote makes it look like the person said something to the opposite, if there is no link given to the scientist's original unedited statement then until proven otherwise that source did quote mine.

You will find this to be the case over 99% of the time.

 

[EternalDragon]

If you can't prove something exists or doesn't exist, making any conclusion on its existence is illogical. To say that the supernatural is definitively real is ridiculous, as is saying that it is definitively pure imagination is also ridiculous.

They do that with science all the time. Are you saying science is illogical?