Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[PsychoSarah]

You know you can quote that piece of nonsense all you want and it still,doesn't prove evolution. Its still full of supposition and assumption. Dolphins with legs and reptile birds are just two of them. Dolphins don't have legs but it is supposed that the fetal,process shows evolution Reptile birds are assumed to be proof while there is no evidence of the evolution. They just appear and it is assumed they evolved.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

-_- of course, when you oversimplify observed evidence to the point of absurdity and act as if that simplified version is an accurate representation, the evidence is going to sound stupid. Anything can be made to sound stupid and nonsensical that way if it is a complex enough topic.

Simplified neuron: what evidence is there that thoughts come from tiny bits with strings on them that are electrified?

Simplified sign language: what evidence is there that some language of flailing the fingers and hands about exists?

Simplified lungs: What evidence is there that some airbag in our chests takes in oxygen and pushes out CO2 like a whoopie cushion?

You get the idea. Btw, dolphins and whales do have vestigial bone reminents for legs. What would be the point of some creator making creatures with useless body parts that are anatomically analogous to structures with function in other animals?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, even though the prophets of the church of naturalism reluctantly admit it is a matter of faith and a priori commitment to naturalism, their Godless flock refuses to accept this.

We refuse to accept it because these scientists and non-scientists alike say nothing of the sort! How would you like it if people went around saying that the Bible says "There is no God." (Psalm 14:1), because by using your 'logic', that's what it says

So whatever brings them to a Christian forum to discuss our origins is completely beyond me.

If you don't want to talk to non-believes, then don't come to the part of the forum that is open to non-believers. Simple.

 

[Hieronymus]

We refuse to accept it because these scientists and non-scientists alike say nothing of the sort!

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So, even though the prophets of the church of naturalism reluctantly admit it is a matter of faith and a priori commitment to naturalism, their Godless flock refuses to accept this.
So whatever brings them to a Christian forum to discuss our origins is completely beyond me.

No, what has been presented are quote mines. There are actual biologists, thought not many, that went from being evolution supporters to being creationists, but for some reason or another, I almost never see them quoted. I could find you some names, if you want.

Quote mining is one of the most irritating debate plagues that continues to persist, because a good portion of the people that use them aren't aware of the prevalence of that dishonest tactic, and they get so invested in defenses of their position based on these quote mines that they never fact checked that they refuse to acknowledge it when it is shown that the quotes that they relied on are dishonestly taken out of context.

Also, I am here to improve my social skills when dealing with disagreement.

 

[Hieronymus]

No, what has been presented are quote mines.

Thank you too.
Not that i'm happy with the conclusion though, i think it's pretty sad.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks for proving my point.

It has been shown to you that the quotes you posted in the OP, and in subsequent posts, have been cut-up, altered and basically butchered to twist the original meaning in to something they did not originally mean, that the people you 'quoted' do in fact support the theory of evolution, and you have continually and intentionally refused to accept that fact and have continued to be dishonest.
If anyone refuses to accept facts on this thread, it is you yourself.

 

[rjs330]

-_- of course, when you oversimplify observed evidence to the point of absurdity and act as if that simplified version is an accurate representation, the evidence is going to sound stupid. Anything can be made to sound stupid and nonsensical that way if it is a complex enough topic.

Simplified neuron: what evidence is there that thoughts come from tiny bits with strings on them that are electrified?

Simplified sign language: what evidence is there that some language of flailing the fingers and hands about exists?

Simplified lungs: What evidence is there that some airbag in our chests takes in oxygen and pushes out CO2 like a whoopie cushion?

You get the idea. Btw, dolphins and whales do have vestigial bone reminents for legs. What would be the point of some creator making creatures with useless body parts that are anatomically analogous to structures with function in other animals?

Ahh... Now you,are getting it! We know these things Because they are provable by observation and experimentation. Evolution does not have that. By their own,admission they cannot observe their theory because it takes so long to take place. Its an,impossibility. And no matter how hard one tries you can't turn one thing into something else. So it can't be proven by experimentation. Evolution is not true science. Its a belief system.
.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thank you too.
Not that i'm happy with the conclusion though, i think it's pretty sad.

I said more than that. You know most of the people quoted out of context here not only disagree with the implications of the quote mines and can be demonstrated to not have meant what the quotes implicitly do out of context, but also they have addressed the quote mines directly. It's bad enough having to debate people that constantly use quote mines, but seeing the angst that people express when their words are the ones being twisted is painful.

It hurts the creationist side too. Biblical quote mines are almost as prevalent as quote mines of scientists. Furthermore, it bogs down debates with useless garbage. It wouldn't matter if Dawkins actually did renounce evolution, if he didn't disprove it, what he says won't be relevant to the validity of the theory. And trust me, there is much more to be gained from disproving evolution than there is from defending a theory you have the evidence to disprove. Nobel Prize, the front cover of magazines... Anyone that disproved the theory would become a respectably wealthy celebrity overnight, likely become a household name for generations to come, get all the grants for research they wanted. It should come to no shock that plenty of nonbeliever scientists dedicate their lives to disproving it. I'd do it in a heartbeat if I could.

 

[rjs330]

We refuse to accept it because these scientists and non-scientists alike say nothing of the sort! How would you like it if people went around saying that the Bible says "There is no God." (Psalm 14:1), because by using your 'logic', that's what it says



If you don't want to talk to non-believes, then don't come to the part of the forum that is open to non-believers. Simple.

Well like I said earlier. The quotes made are true quotes and even taken in context still make admissions. The admissions are not necessarily that evolution is false. They can be admissions of the difficulty of the theory. It doesn't mean they don't believe in the theory or think it's a hoax but they are going to believe anyway. I believe they genuinely believe in the theory. Even with the difficulties. But at that point they cling to the idea that it's science because that's what they believe. Where as it's not real sciencebitsa. Belief system. A dogma.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well like I said earlier. The quotes made are true quotes and even taken in context still make admissions. The admissions are not necessarily that evolution is false. They can be admissions of the difficulty of the theory. It doesn't mean they don't believe in the theory or think it's a hoax but they are going to believe anyway. I believe they genuinely believe in the theory. Even with the difficulties. But at that point they cling to the idea that it's science because that's what they believe. Where as it's not real sciencebitsa. Belief system. A dogma.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

They say nothing of the sort. They categorically state that evolution is a scientific fact, not a religious belief.
Also, does it not smack of desperation for a Christian to call evolution a 'religion' when you are a member of one of the big four religious groups in the world?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ahh... Now you,are getting it! We know these things Because they are provable by observation and experimentation. Evolution does not have that. By their own,admission they cannot observe their theory because it takes so long to take place. Its an,impossibility. And no matter how hard one tries you can't turn one thing into something else. So it can't be proven by experimentation. Evolution is not true science. Its a belief system.
.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

The time it takes for an organism to evolve is variable, due to differences in generation time and mutation frequency, as well as environmental changes. This is why single celled organisms are great for the general experimental observation of evolution. Also, evolution occurs generation to generation, so we always see it. For example, humans descended from populations that were devastated by the Bubonic Plague actually have a good portion of their population partially immune to the HIV virus. They still get it and can transmit it, but even with limited to no treatment, the disease never advances to AIDS. This is because those people with traits that allowed them to survive infection from the plague also had traits that make cells harder for HIV to infect. If we never developed HIV treatments, those with a resistance to it would become far more prevalent in the population to the point that not being partly immune would be abnormal.

We can directly observe the 40-60 mutations in your DNA that you don't share with either of your parents, so you can't say mutation doesn't happen. We have also directly observed beneficial mutations in humans. For example, the extended family in Europe that is, for all intents and purposes, immune to having high cholesterol and all the medical problems associated with it. There is a smaller family with bones so strong, it makes that guy from Unbreakable look like fine china. We have located the mutations that cause these traits, which have no apparent negative side effects.

 

[rjs330]

No, what has been presented are quote mines. There are actual biologists, thought not many, that went from being evolution supporters to being creationists, but for some reason or another, I almost never see them quoted. I could find you some names, if you want.

Quote mining is one of the most irritating debate plagues that continues to persist, because a good portion of the people that use them aren't aware of the prevalence of that dishonest tactic, and they get so invested in defenses of their position based on these quote mines that they never fact checked that they refuse to acknowledge it when it is shown that the quotes that they relied on are dishonestly taken out of context.

Also, I am here to improve my social skills when dealing with disagreement.

I commend your reason for being here. We all can get a little fervent in our arguments and sometimes step,over the line into personal attacks. Even Christians, which would be sinful by the way. I have probably done that At some point even though I don't try too. Sometimes my flesh just gets in my way.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Hieronymus]

Well like I said earlier. The quotes made are true quotes and even taken in context still make admissions. The admissions are not necessarily that evolution is false. They can be admissions of the difficulty of the theory. It doesn't mean they don't believe in the theory or think it's a hoax but they are going to believe anyway. I believe they genuinely believe in the theory. Even with the difficulties. But at that point they cling to the idea that it's science because that's what they believe. Where as it's not real sciencebitsa. Belief system. A dogma.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I think there's a lot of theophobia behind it, why they can't allow a divine foot in the door.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I commend your reason for being here. We all can get a little fervent in our arguments and sometimes step,over the line into personal attacks. Even Christians, which would be sinful by the way. I have probably done that At some point even though I don't try too. Sometimes my flesh just gets in my way.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I absolutely agree, but will you consider what I said in the rest of my post? If you want to demonstrate that what we perceive to be quote mines aren't, you could always quote them in context using a reliable source, such as a newspaper of reasonable reputation, a video of the context in which the quote is said with a time frame for when it happens, etc. If it isn't a quote mine, that fact can be easily demonstrated. If it is, you'll see that for yourself in your search for the context, and know not to use that quote.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think there's a lot of theophobia behind it, why they can't allow a divine foot in the door.

I've been a seeker for 8 years. I hate being an atheist, the implications of death being the end of my existence has both put me on the edge of committing suicide, and just barely held me back with the fear of oblivion. I can't enjoy my life at all some days, thanks to not being able to tear my mind away from my own inevitable demise.

Basically, I have no reason to go against a theistic position, beyond caring about honesty. And I have on multiple occasions purposely put flaws in my arguments against Noah's flood and the like to make it easier for creationists to attack my position. The majority of the time, however, people are so ignorant of their own position and the one that they are debating against that they don't even call me out on it. Most of the time, the people that correct me are evolution supporters and fellow atheists. If this isn't a clear sign that a lot of the people I debate against are extremely misinformed, I don't know what is.

You can't imagine how disappointing my experiences on this site have been in terms of the debate aspect (the social learning thing has worked really well). I might not be here for the purpose of being proven wrong, but I'd love to be.

 

[Hieronymus]

I said more than that.

I know, but i didn't find it interesting enough to comment on.
(No offence.)

 

[PsychoSarah]

I know, but i didn't find it interesting enough to comment on.
(No offence.)

Fair enough. At least you didn't go off on an unrelated tangent.

For your own benefit though, I recommend getting quotes directly from the source to avoid accidentally using quote mines... or to design ones tailored to your purposes if that's how you want to play. No point in the embarrassment of using a well known quote mine sincerely, and no point in trying to fool people that transparently.

 

[rjs330]

They say nothing of the sort. They categorically state that evolution is a scientific fact, not a religious belief.
Also, does it not smack of desperation for a Christian to call evolution a 'religion' when you are a member of one of the big four religious groups in the world?

I never said they think it's a religion. They think it's science. I said it's a religion. I don't mean,it's a religion with a church and pastors,etc. I mean it's a faith system. A belief. A dogma. Evolution is true in their eyes even though it's an unproven and unprovable theory. That is a belief system much like a religion is a belief system. I can't prove the eternal existance of God, yet I believe in the eternal existence of God.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[The Cadet]

They admit the theory can't be proven and admit that divine creation can't be thought of as a possibility.

No such thing was ever said by Dobzhansky.

@rjs330 in fact, Dobzhansky was a devout orthodox Christian.

So, even though the prophets of the church of naturalism reluctantly admit it is a matter of faith and a priori commitment to naturalism, their Godless flock refuses to accept this.
So whatever brings them to a Christian forum to discuss our origins is completely beyond me.

There are no "prophets of the church of naturalism". If Dawkins came forward tomorrow and said, "Evolution is totally wrong and unscientific, we have no transitional fossils, and the whole thing is a hoax", you know what would change? His standing in the scientific community, nothing more. Because we don't simply go on "person X said this", we actually follow the scientific research and peer-reviewed literature. I know the concept of not taking people on their word might be foreign to someone who keeps repeating the same mistake based on misguided trust of a bunch of demonstrated liars, but it's true! Dobzhansky is not noteworthy because he's a prophet, he's noteworthy because of his contributions to the scientific literature.

And, of course, you're glossing over that most of the quotes examined turned out to be misquoted, out-of-context, outright fabrications, or otherwise dishonest, but why let a simple thing like intellectual honesty get in the way of declaring victory?

"I'm sorry" my rear end.

 

[rjs330]

There are Christians who believe in evolution. I am not one of them obviously.
I believe the Genesis account to be the accurate account of creation. I have not seen or heard any evidence that has convinced me otherwise. I'm order for believers to believe in evolution you must discount the Genesis account and believe it is allegory and not truth. I rather put my faith in what the Bible says rather than what man believes.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk