Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[Derek Meyer]

Please pick one of the quotes, we can discuss it in more detail and find out exactly what the quotee (is that a word?) meant.

Seeing that Hieronymous is reluctant to do it, I'll start with the first one provided.

the only alternative [to evolution] is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational. (LT More)

Who on earth is or was LT More and why is what he or she wrote somewhere important? Why does the quote start with a small letter? Why is the [to evolution] written in square brackets?

I think that old Hieronymous was not really committed to the truth when he copied that first so-called quote.

 

[Hieronymus]

Allegories can be true? I guess in the message they try to send...

Yes, something like that.
Allegorical yet with true implications.
This is a construction you have to uphold when you want to mix Genesis with naturalistic thinking and models

.
Even if creationism was absolutely true, these are two different women.

No, of course not.

You call this hostile? Hahahahahaha XD

Compared to the average atheist style it wasn't that bad perhaps.

 

[SteveB28]

I'm not sure, they look more like dogs, maybe a kind of their own "one of a kind", so to speak.
I would have to look it up somewhere yet to be determined...

In other words....."I haven't the faintest idea"......

 

[Derek Meyer]

Ar you suggesting truth is decided up on by the most popular opinion??

This one really, really was funny. Was that what Hieronymous got from all of this?

 

[Hieronymus]

In contrast, other people view observation as more reliable than the biblical texts that demands belief without evidence.

Gratuitous strawman (i think).
Or just a dumb or disingenuous remark perhaps.
Both sides have the same evidence and data to their disposal, both sides have their paradigms.
Obviously an intelligent cause has explanatory power, whereas dead unconscious things do not.

 

[Hieronymus]

And you actually believe that gibberish?

I guess it's gibberish to you.
What is it that you do not understand?

 

[Derek Meyer]

Gratuitous strawman (i think).
Or just a dumb or disingenuous remark perhaps.
Both sides have the same evidence and data to their disposal, both sides have their paradigms.
Obviously an intelligent cause has explanatory power, whereas dead unconscious things do not.

May I remind you that the biggest and largest Christian organisations accept the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, that the earth is billions of years old, etc.

 

[Jimmy D]

Seeing that Hieronymous is reluctant to do it, I'll start with the first one provided.

Who on earth is or was LT More and why is what he or she wrote somewhere important? Why does the quote start with a small letter? Why is the [to evolution] written in square brackets?

I think that old Hieronymous was not really committed to the truth when he copied that first so-called quote.

Hi Derek, I was actually talking to rjs330 who still seems to think that all these quotes are valid, despite the fact that a lot of them have demonstrated to be much less than that in this thread. I think Hieronymus at least realizes the problem with them even though his admission is very vague.

 

[Hieronymus]

May I remind you that the biggest and largest Christian organisations accept the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, that the earth is billions of years old, etc.

So?

 

[Derek Meyer]

Hi Derek, I was actually talking to rjs330 who still seems to think that all these quotes are valid, despite the fact that a lot of them have demonstrated to be much less than that in this thread. I think Hieronymus at least realizes the problem with them even though his admission is very vague.

I don't think that Hieronymus does realise anything like that. Hieronymous will keep on spreading the same untruths as being the truth. Till he or she dies. That's how creationists go about.

 

[Derek Meyer]

So?

You don't represent Christians. That's why.

 

[SteveB28]

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

Speciation has been observed.

 

[Hieronymus]

You don't represent Christians. That's why.

[iḿ sorry to say i get the idea] You're not even a Christian.
[sorry]

 

[Derek Meyer]

Speciation has been observed.

Speciation has been directly obseved.

 

[Derek Meyer]

You're not even a Christian.

According to SDA's and JW's I'm not a True Christian.

 

[Jimmy D]

Seeing that Hieronymous is reluctant to do it, I'll start with the first one provided.

Who on earth is or was LT More and why is what he or she wrote somewhere important? Why does the quote start with a small letter? Why is the [to evolution] written in square brackets?

I think that old Hieronymous was not really committed to the truth when he copied that first so-called quote.

From The quote mine project:

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." (Keith, Arthur, forward to 100th anniversary edition of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, 1959)

The quote that is attributed to Sir Arthur Keith is a figment of the creationists imagination. I researched that quote a month or two ago and could not find a trace of it. No library in the Atlanta metro area has this particular edition and neither Amazon nor Barnes and Noble has this edition. I am in nine newsgroups and no one in these NGs had a copy or had ever seen one. A search of the internet showed many references for this quote but every one of them was from a creationist site. It is also amazing because that Sir Arthur died in 1955 and the 100th anniversary edition would not have been issued until 1959. Tell me, did "God" write this for Sir Arthur from heaven?

As Tom points out this quote is indeed a figment of the creationists' imagination.

However, Sir Arthur Keith did indeed write an introduction to the Origin of Species (Keith, 1928), although he did so over 30 years before any centennial edition would have been printed. And considering that Keith died in 1955, he wouldn't have been in a position to write one had he wanted to. Did Keith write another introduction later in his life? This is doubtful as well, since the author of a later introduction to the Origin, W. R. Thompson, states right at the beginning of his own effort:

"When I was asked by the publishers of this new edition of The Origin of Species to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Arthur Keith, I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation. (Thompson 1958)"

Does the supposedly quoted material reflect Keith's views? Describing Darwin's arrival at the Galapagos Islands, Keith writes:

"And why should each of the islands have its own peculiar creations? Special creation could not explain such things."

We see that Keith doesn't believe that that special creation is an alternative at all, since he doesn't feel that it can explain the fauna of the Galapagos. And later on he writes:

"The Origin of Species is still the book which contains the most complete demonstration that the law of evolution is true."

It's obvious that Keith believes in evolution not because he doesn't like the alternatives, but because he believes evolution to be true.

So it's not so much a twisting of the truth as a downright lie.

One down......

 

[The Cadet]

Obviously an intelligent cause has explanatory power

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_power

Explanatory power is the ability of a hypothesis or theory to effectively explain the subject matter it pertains to. The opposite of explanatory power is explanatory impotence.

In the past, various criteria or measures for explanatory power have been proposed. In particular, one hypothesis, theory or explanation can be said to have more explanatory power than another about the same subject matter

- if more facts or observations are accounted for;

- if it changes more "surprising facts" into "a matter of course" (following Peirce);

- if more details of causal relations are provided, leading to a high accuracy and precision of the description;

- if it offers greater predictive power, i.e., if it offers more details about what we should expect to see, and what we should not;

- if it depends less on authorities and more on observations;

- if it makes fewer assumptions;

- if it is more falsifiable, i.e., more testable by observation or experiment (following Popper).

Emphasis mine. Let's go over them:

- The "intelligent cause" hypothesis offers no details of the causal relation. We have no idea how an intelligence might have achieved this goal, and simply saying "he spoke it into existence" doesn't help at all.
- The "intelligent cause" hypothesis offers exactly zero predictive power. There is no falsifiable prediction we can make based on "life is intelligently designed". Whereas we can make countless useful and falsifiable predictions based on the hypothesis that life evolved from a common ancestor (for example)
- The "intelligent cause" hypothesis assumes a supernatural being. 'Nuff said.
- The "intelligent cause" hypothesis is unfalsifiable, meaning that it is fundamentally useless, regardless of how well it explains the available evidence.

 

[Derek Meyer]

From The quote mine project:

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." (Keith, Arthur, forward to 100th anniversary edition of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, 1959)

The quote that is attributed to Sir Arthur Keith is a figment of the creationists imagination. I researched that quote a month or two ago and could not find a trace of it. No library in the Atlanta metro area has this particular edition and neither Amazon nor Barnes and Noble has this edition. I am in nine newsgroups and no one in these NGs had a copy or had ever seen one. A search of the internet showed many references for this quote but every one of them was from a creationist site. It is also amazing because that Sir Arthur died in 1955 and the 100th anniversary edition would not have been issued until 1959. Tell me, did "God" write this for Sir Arthur from heaven?

As Tom points out this quote is indeed a figment of the creationists' imagination.

However, Sir Arthur Keith did indeed write an introduction to the Origin of Species (Keith, 1928), although he did so over 30 years before any centennial edition would have been printed. And considering that Keith died in 1955, he wouldn't have been in a position to write one had he wanted to. Did Keith write another introduction later in his life? This is doubtful as well, since the author of a later introduction to the Origin, W. R. Thompson, states right at the beginning of his own effort:

"When I was asked by the publishers of this new edition of The Origin of Species to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Arthur Keith, I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation. (Thompson 1958)"

Does the supposedly quoted material reflect Keith's views? Describing Darwin's arrival at the Galapagos Islands, Keith writes:

"And why should each of the islands have its own peculiar creations? Special creation could not explain such things."

We see that Keith doesn't believe that that special creation is an alternative at all, since he doesn't feel that it can explain the fauna of the Galapagos. And later on he writes:

"The Origin of Species is still the book which contains the most complete demonstration that the law of evolution is true."

It's obvious that Keith believes in evolution not because he doesn't like the alternatives, but because he believes evolution to be true.

One down......

I'm still trying to figure out who LT More is or was and why anyone would listen to what he/she wrote or said or whatever he/she did...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're not even a Christian.

You do know that it's against forum rules to say that another poster who labels themselves as Christian is not a Christian, right?

 

[Hieronymus]

You do know that it's against forum rules to say that another poster who labels themselves as Christian is not a Christian, right?

But itś not against the rules to pose as one i guess...