This is amazing, but not surprising to see people make up an arbitary rule on quoting "authority" and then hypocritically misuse that same rule. If you can't see what I am talking about, something is deeply wrong with your level of education, and I guess next time an evolutionist quotes a creationist to dissect an aspect of their argument, that you will stand up and demand they not "dismiss him" on all of his ideas and theories conerning creationism.
Please stand up, and don't be a hypocrite.
"You can disagree with your authority and give the reasons why, but you cannot simply ignore or dismiss him when you don't like what he has to say."
The fact is Wallace isn't making an argument from authority but an argument from fact. He isn't appealing to authority as in these guys disagree with evolution, and makes it clear he is not doing that, but that on the contrary these men are ardent evolutionists.
What he is actually doing is claiming TalkOrigins overstate their case. He isn't even using the quotes to try and state they disprove evolution, just making clear the nature of the evidence.
And this is where TalkOrigins shows its intellectual seediness. Basically, what the creationists are doing is correcting the impression that there are thousands of fossils showing species to species transitions into major morhpological change. This is what immediately precedes the quotes in section.
"Its important that the reader understand up front thatin spite of such a clearly defined definitionthere is much disagreement among the leaders in paleontology concerning which specimens qualify as transitional and which supposed transitional forms fit into which lineages, and where.
What one authority defines as a transitional form between lineage A and lineage B can be (and often is) just as authoritatively declared not so when it is said to better fit between lineage X and lineage Y, or when a specimen is found in a position stratigraphically older than the first occurrence of lineage A or younger than Band all of these are common occurrences.
Other experts in morphology further complicate matters when they point out differences in physical characteristics so significant that evolutionists are forced to scrap one or another theory in phylogeny (developmental history) in spite of any existing similarities.
A very serious indictment of evolutionary spokespersons (such as Isaak) thus arises, as under the guise of a united front they declare the matter of transitional fossils to be no problem, while in reality the hands-on practitioners of science continue to disagree with one another on matters both great and small as they attempt to construct the very same phylogenies which the spokespersons describe as firmly established and beyond dispute."
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils
The quotes are entirely appropiate to illustrate the points about the real nature of the fossil record in order to counter the overstatements by TalkOrigins.
Please stand up, and don't be a hypocrite.
"You can disagree with your authority and give the reasons why, but you cannot simply ignore or dismiss him when you don't like what he has to say."
The fact is Wallace isn't making an argument from authority but an argument from fact. He isn't appealing to authority as in these guys disagree with evolution, and makes it clear he is not doing that, but that on the contrary these men are ardent evolutionists.
What he is actually doing is claiming TalkOrigins overstate their case. He isn't even using the quotes to try and state they disprove evolution, just making clear the nature of the evidence.
And this is where TalkOrigins shows its intellectual seediness. Basically, what the creationists are doing is correcting the impression that there are thousands of fossils showing species to species transitions into major morhpological change. This is what immediately precedes the quotes in section.
"Its important that the reader understand up front thatin spite of such a clearly defined definitionthere is much disagreement among the leaders in paleontology concerning which specimens qualify as transitional and which supposed transitional forms fit into which lineages, and where.
What one authority defines as a transitional form between lineage A and lineage B can be (and often is) just as authoritatively declared not so when it is said to better fit between lineage X and lineage Y, or when a specimen is found in a position stratigraphically older than the first occurrence of lineage A or younger than Band all of these are common occurrences.
Other experts in morphology further complicate matters when they point out differences in physical characteristics so significant that evolutionists are forced to scrap one or another theory in phylogeny (developmental history) in spite of any existing similarities.
A very serious indictment of evolutionary spokespersons (such as Isaak) thus arises, as under the guise of a united front they declare the matter of transitional fossils to be no problem, while in reality the hands-on practitioners of science continue to disagree with one another on matters both great and small as they attempt to construct the very same phylogenies which the spokespersons describe as firmly established and beyond dispute."
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils
The quotes are entirely appropiate to illustrate the points about the real nature of the fossil record in order to counter the overstatements by TalkOrigins.
Upvote
0
