Creationism in public schools? (2)

[createdtoworship]

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying AIG is a bad source, its claims are junk, and that you should go look those fossils up from legitimate sources, and that there are plenty of rebuttals to those claims from AIG on the web already, and I don't need to copy and paste them here. A web site that claims 'no matter what, evolution is wrong, and it is impossible for anything to be evidence of it, since it didn't even happen' is NOT a reliable source for science regarding evolution.

Metherion

maybe you've forgotten the definition of a straw man

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[metherion]

No. For it to be a straw man, it needs to be a false argument. It needs to be a caricature of AIG's position.

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
...
The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth and the universe.
...
The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since creation.
...
The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
...
A. Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
B. The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation.
C. The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
D. The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.
E. The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected.
F. By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

So, no, what I said is not wrong, and therefore not a straw man. Paraphrased, AIG has indeed said ‘no matter what, evolution is wrong, and it is impossible for anything to be evidence of it, since it didn't even happen’ because they deliberately and undeniably state that they accept a 6000 year old earth, special creation to be a priori true, and ANYTHING THAT CONTRADICTS IT MUST BE FALSE AND CANNOT BE VALID, a prioi. It it spelled out right there in what I quoted. They claim evolution is wrong, they claim evolution cannot be right, and they do it before any evidence is presented in their statement of faith. They are NOT a reliable science website because they have stately they already have their conclusions, and nothing can contradict them.

It is no straw man to say that is what AIG says, nor is AIG a reliable resource, because I have misrepresented nothing.

ETA: If you insist on calling it a straw man, maybe you could tell me. What did I misrepresent to make it a straw man argument, as you claim?

Metherion

 

[createdtoworship]

No. For it to be a straw man, it needs to be a false argument. It needs to be a caricature of AIG's position.



So, no, what I said is not wrong, and therefore not a straw man. Paraphrased, AIG has indeed said ‘no matter what, evolution is wrong, and it is impossible for anything to be evidence of it, since it didn't even happen’ because they deliberately and undeniably state that they accept a 6000 year old earth, special creation to be a priori true, and ANYTHING THAT CONTRADICTS IT MUST BE FALSE AND CANNOT BE VALID, a prioi. It it spelled out right there in what I quoted. They claim evolution is wrong, they claim evolution cannot be right, and they do it before any evidence is presented in their statement of faith. They are NOT a reliable science website because they have stately they already have their conclusions, and nothing can contradict them.

It is no straw man to say that is what AIG says, nor is AIG a reliable resource, because I have misrepresented nothing.

ETA: If you insist on calling it a straw man, maybe you could tell me. What did I misrepresent to make it a straw man argument, as you claim?

Metherion

In a court of law if we were to have this discussion, it matters not what AIG stands for it matters what they state. IF you have a problem with AIG you need to state what the problem is instead of just using a red herring and a straw man argument to avoid the discussion about transitions that we were having.

 

[OllieFranz]

it matters not what AIG stands for it matters what they state.

And what they state is:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

In other words, they don't care what evidence any scientific claims may have backing them. They won't even consider the possibility that those claims might have merit. Scientists are fallible people who do not possess all information, but the people at AIG don't stop to consider that they, too are fallible people who do not possess all information.

That is precisely why Mertherion stated that they are not reliable experts. Appeal to authority is the other side of the coin from ad hominem. It is only if all sides of the debate agree that the authority in question is authoritative in the specific area under discussion that such appeal is not a fallacy. And by their own admission, AIG is contemptuous of science, and cannot be acceptable as an authoritative voice on the issue.

 

[createdtoworship]

And what they state is:

In other words, they don't care what evidence any scientific claims may have backing them. They won't even consider the possibility that those claims might have merit. Scientists are fallible people who do not possess all information, but the people at AIG don't stop to consider that they, too are fallible people who do not possess all information.

That is precisely why Mertherion stated that they are not reliable experts. Appeal to authority is the other side of the coin from ad hominem. It is only if all sides of the debate agree that the authority in question is authoritative in the specific area under discussion that such appeal is not a fallacy. And by their own admission, AIG is contemptuous of science, and cannot be acceptable as an authoritative voice on the issue.

you are attacking the holder of the evidence and not the evidence, still not a logical option.

 

[OllieFranz]

you are attacking the holder of the evidence and not the evidence, still not a logical option.

But if they, by their own admission, don't believe the evidence they show, why should we?

If I said "Here is evidence from this witness ("A") that the moon is made of cheese" and was on record as saying that nothing "A" ever says is true, and also indicated that I, myself, did not believe the moon was made of cheese, then why should anyone pay attention to me? Why am I even arguing that the moon is cheese? That is exactly the position that AIG takes In regard to the fossil record.

Not paying attention in this case is not ad hominem; it is not strawman it is simple common sense

 

[createdtoworship]

But if they, by their own admission, don't believe the evidence they show, why should we?

If I said "Here is evidence from this witness ("A") that the moon is made of cheese" and was on record as saying that nothing "A" ever says is true, and also indicated that I, myself, did not believe the moon was made of cheese, then why should anyone pay attention to me? Why am I even arguing that the moon is cheese? That is exactly the position that AIG takes In regard to the fossil record.

Not paying attention in this case is not ad hominem; it is not strawman it is simple common sense

I don't care what they believe or say about themselves, it's a strawman to personally attack a source without weighing what was ACTUALLY said.

you know inside you are wrong to do this.

besides
the fossil record shows no transitional forms, not one not two, not many like it should. This is direct proof that evolution in a macro way is false.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I always wonder how creationists claim there are no transitional fossils. Usually creationism is an exercise in skirting around the scientific evidence and kind of twisting it into the falsified theory known as creationism. But denying the existence of transitional fossils is well, outright denial. It's rather odd. There's plenty of charts that will show transitional series.

 

[good brother]

How about, I don’t know, the famous archaeopteryx? Or, you could actually do some research and investigating of your own to find out which transitions are known. You could start by looking up the following:
Ichthyornis
Eoalulavis
Confuciusornis
Anchiornis
Pedopenna

Five birds, a dinosaur, and you call that a viable evolutionary tree branch? So, it took a quazijagillion years to have six generations to turn dinosaurs into birds. Is that it? Apparently, my great great great grandchild could become like stars in "Planet of the Apes"? Thank goodness my great great great grandpa didn't mutate any. I like being human!

There are several current hypotheses, one of the most well known the is RNA world hypothesis. However, not being 100% sure does not mean “God did it”, nor does it mean “God did it” should be brought in from one particular religion, but NOT others, and injected into public schools in the US, where there is a separation of church and state.

Where did the RNA come from? Where did the proteins come from? Where did the amino acids come from? Where did the information to build the RNA come from? I'm sorry, I missed about four hundred billion kajillion years of answers in your statement.

No, this is wrong. What was found over a mile away was a knee joint. The fossil Lucy does not HAVE a knee joint, so it is not joined with that skeleton. You can look up images of Lucy’s skeleton on google, it has no knee joint.

From Wikipedia:

In November 1973, near the end of the first field season, Johanson noticed a fossil of the upper end of a shinbone, which had been sliced slightly at the front. The lower end of a femur was found near it, and when he fitted them together the angle of the knee joint clearly showed that this fossil, reference AL 129-1, was an upright walking hominid. The fossil was over three million years old, much older than any others known at the time. The site lay about 2.5 kilometres (1.6 mi) from the site where they subsequently found "Lucy".[10][11]

Also, where do you get 5 years from? The knee that is not part of Lucy was found in November 73, the she herself was found starting in late November 74 over about three weeks, I think it was.

Perhaps I did speak to quickly here. I have tried and have not been able to re-find my original source. Let's strike this from the record until I can find verification.

We weren’t talking about ancient weather, we were talking about weather 3 days in the future.

Perhaps you weren't. I was talking about how many evolutionary scientists claim to know exactly what it was like a supposed millions and millions of years ago, when those in the same field can't predict out one day, let alone three or more.

You claim to love science, but then you ask why we should bother to trust science because of all its failings? That doesn’t make sense.

Sure it makes sense. Science is the pursuit of knowledge. I say we should never accept any known failings, ever. Are you suggesting we accept known failings along with known proven truths?

The distance to stars is found by triangulation. The earth is in orbit around the sun at the rate of once a year, so every 6 months, it is on the opposite side of the sun. Since the distance from the earth to the sun is 1 AU (that’s how an AU is defined, ~93 million miles), that means the base of the triangle has a width of 186 million miles, and we can find the angles of the base of the triangle. The rest is just geometry.

I am glad you brought this up. It is called Parallax Trigonometry. Perhaps you should look up some of the angles involved in the process for star measurement. I think you will find that there are some intensely narrow angles. Do some research on that.



I don't blame you and I am not attacking you. You are merely repeating what has been poured in through our education system, our entertainment system, our literature, and most everything else that wishes to propagate this system of beliefs. The reason this belief system (evolutionary train of thought) is so important is because it goes in direct opposition to what the Bible teaches. If the "world" can convince the people that the Bible is wrong from the get-go, then the rest can be thrown out- salvation, the need for redemption, the resurrection, etc.


In Christ, GB

 

[good brother]

I always wonder how creationists claim there are no transitional fossils. Usually creationism is an exercise in skirting around the scientific evidence and kind of twisting it into the falsified theory known as creationism. But denying the existence of transitional fossils is well, outright denial. It's rather odd. There's plenty of charts that will show transitional series.

Transitional fossils like the skulls cut off the bodies of Australian Aborigines in an order to fill evolutionary displays? Those kind of transition fossils?

In Christ, GB

 

[metherion]

I don't care what they believe or say about themselves, it's a strawman to personally attack a source without weighing what was ACTUALLY said.

No, it's not a strawman, I already explained it is a different type of fallacy, UNLESS it is correct to do so. In this case it is. It has been explained why.

you know inside you are wrong to do this.

Nope. It is not wrong to deny credence to a habitual liar by disproving everything that comes out of his mouth.

besides
the fossil record shows no transitional forms, not one not two, not many like it should. This is direct proof that evolution in a macro way is false.

Nope, the fossil record has many transitional forms, but you'll only accept that if you listen to the actual scientists and not those who have a priori declared there cannot be any.

Metherion

 

[metherion]

Five birds, a dinosaur, and you call that a viable evolutionary tree branch? So, it took a quazijagillion years to have six generations to turn dinosaurs into birds. Is that it? Apparently, my great great great grandchild could become like stars in "Planet of the Apes"? Thank goodness my great great great grandpa didn't mutate any. I like being human!

How much did you read about them? Did you look at the time periods between them? Did you look at the features cause the label of transitions? Did I say anywhere that there were only 6 generations?

Where did the RNA come from? Where did the proteins come from? Where did the amino acids come from? Where did the information to build the RNA come from? I'm sorry, I missed about four hundred billion kajillion years of answers in your statement.

Amino acids often form spontaneously, even IN DEEP SPACE.
Amino acid found in deep space - 18 July 2002 - New Scientist

Did you even bother to look up the RNA world hypothesis? I’m sorry, I’m not going to spoon feed everything in all the hypotheses along with adequate background in sound bites here, bit by bit.

angle of the knee joint clearly showed that this fossil, reference AL 129-1, was an upright walking hominid. The fossil was over three million years old, much older than any others known at the time. The site lay about 2.5 kilometres (1.6 mi) from the site where they subsequently found "Lucy".

If they subsequently found “Lucy”, then the knee cannot have been part of Lucy, because she was found later.

That also shows no complete knee joint. It isn’t part of her.

Perhaps you weren't. I was talking about how many evolutionary scientists claim to know exactly what it was like a supposed millions and millions of years ago, when those in the same field can't predict out one day, let alone three or more.

Except they aren’t in the same field. For instance, one of the ways we know about the atmosphere in the past is annual ice cores drilled from the ice caps. Those contain bubbles with the air that was around at the time still frozen inside, which can be analyzed for composition, et cetera.

Sure it makes sense. Science is the pursuit of knowledge. I say we should never accept any known failings, ever. Are you suggesting we accept known failings along with known proven truths?

What known failings? You haven’t shown any.

I am glad you brought this up. It is called Parallax Trigonometry. Perhaps you should look up some of the angles involved in the process for star measurement. I think you will find that there are some intensely narrow angles. Do some research on that.

Actually, I know how narrow some of the angles can be. But then again, it also isn’t the only method.

You are merely repeating what has been poured in through our education system, our entertainment system, our literature, and most everything else that wishes to propagate this system of beliefs. The reason this belief system (evolutionary train of thought) is so important is because it goes in direct opposition to what the Bible teaches. If the "world" can convince the people that the Bible is wrong from the get-go, then the rest can be thrown out- salvation, the need for redemption, the resurrection, etc.

So it’s a conspiracy theory perpetrated by the entire scientific community and a large number of for profit labs that would get wrong answers using it because it isn’t right, but still do, as well as countries that would LOVE to throw egg in the face of competing nations, and including nations with state religions that are Christian in states that have many scientists (England (which I think still has the Church of England as a state religion) and Vatican City come to mind) to try and destroy the credibility of the Bible?

In fact, it doesn’t destroy the credibility of the Bible, UNLESS THAT CREDIBILITY is pinned on the Bible being 100% scientifically accurate, which is nowhere claimed anywhere in the Bible itself. If people don’t want to believe in the Bible, or stamp it out, there are much more effective ways to try and do it. Also, how does it go in direct opposition? Nowhere does science say specifically “No god did or could have done this.”

That line of thought just makes no sense at all to me.

If the Bible isn’t literal, that doesn’t mean it is wrong. Are Aesop’s fables wrong? The boy who cried wolf, the ant and the grasshopper, and so on. No, they aren’t wrong, because the lesson they teach doesn’t rely on grasshoppers being able to talk to ants, or a specific boy overusing a specific threat, or an actual milkmaid daydreaming about what to do with her pay and spilling her milk before getting paid for it, and so on.

Transitional fossils like the skulls cut off the bodies of Australian Aborigines in an order to fill evolutionary displays? Those kind of transition fossils?

I thought I talked about this earlier. Also, it’s clear you know there are actual fossils considered real transitional forms, since we were talking of Lucy before.


Metherion

 

[OllieFranz]

I don't care what they believe or say about themselves, it's a strawman to personally attack a source without weighing what was ACTUALLY said.

you know inside you are wrong to do this.

besides
the fossil record shows no transitional forms, not one not two, not many like it should. This is direct proof that evolution in a macro way is false.

One more time. AIG's statements and "evidence" is like the following situation concerning the Moon:

Party A believes That the Moon is "a light in the firmament" given for counting the seasons.

Party B says that the evidence would indicate that the Moon is a solid body, rather like the Earth.

Individual C (who may be a member of Party B, or who may have a minor disagreement with a small part of Party B's theories) has examined some rocks that are claimed to have come from the Moon. He says that the moon rocks are not as dense as Earth rocks, and their specific gravity is actually closer to that of cheese.

Party A endorses Individual D, who states: "We know Party B is wrong, and the Moon is not like the Earth, and now Individual C has evidence that it is not. He says that the Moon is made of cheese. Of course, Individual C is totally wrong too, but he believes in the same science as Party B, and he has evidence that disproves that the Moon is a stony world, like Earth."

Individual D does not present the evidence in order that it be studied, but to show that there is a "controversy" in the science that is being hidden from the public. He has gotten the meaning of the evidence wrong, but he doesn't care, he does not believe in the evidence because it does not agree with his conclusion. All he wants to do is sow confusion and plant the seeds of doubt.

BTW, you mentioned a court of law. presenting Individual D's claim about Individual c's evidence in a court of law. In an honest courtroom that would not happen because of the hearsay rules. As he would have to present it, it would, at best, be second-hand hearsay, and many of the facts (and fictions) that he would be cross-examined on have no basis on which he would be able to truthfully and forcefully explain why anyone should believe his "interpretation" of the evidence when he does not believe it and the person whom he claims does says that Individual D's interpretation does not even resemble, much less reflect, his position.

Charging Individual D with perjury under those circumstances would not be a strawman, as you claim; it would be justice.

 

[Incariol]

The ignorance in this thread really is astounding. It would be nice if the only people allowed to discuss this were those who'd taken college-level biology and actually knew what they were talking about.

No offense to those of you who haven't, but actually paid attention in high school and therefore aren't taken in by Creationist fallacies.

Sent from my iPod touch using Forum Runner

 

[good brother]

Here are some quotes to consider if everyone only thinks AIG is the only side that has a preconcieved notions.


"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127


"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216


"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'." Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105


"Echoing the criticism made of his father's habilis skulls, he added that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was 'imagination made of plaster of Paris', thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to." Referring to comments made by Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums of Kenya) in The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, Magazine, p. 3


"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, ... the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man." John Reader (photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links"), "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802


"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, ...He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig's tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or 'Piltdown Man,' the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the 'earliest Englishman'.
"The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.'" Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199


"We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary effect because they are eliminated by natural selection. Lethal mutations (the worst kind) are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. ...Mutants are present within every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution." Pierre-Paul Grassé (University of Paris and past-President, French Academie des Sciences) in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88


"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well." Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "The return of hopeful monsters". Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-Jule 1977, p. 28



"And in man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe." Dr. Isaac Asimov (biochemist; was a Professor at Boston University School of Medicine; internationally known author), "In the game of energy and thermodynamics you can't even break even.". Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 10


"Why do geologists and archeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the number do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better ... 'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments.
"No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read." Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error". Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29. Reprinted in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 19(2), September 1982, pp. 117-127 (quotes from pp. 123 and 125)


"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism." J. E. O'Rourks, "Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy". American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47


"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. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Nope, the fossil record has many transitional forms, but you'll only accept that if you listen to the actual scientists and not those who have a priori declared there cannot be any.

Oh no. There are plenty of scientists who have the same qualifications who pose credible questions.
There are plenty of scientists who do not think there are credible transitions.

 

[Freedom63]

The ignorance in this thread really is astounding. It would be nice if the only people allowed to discuss this were those who'd taken college-level biology and actually knew what they were talking about.

No offense to those of you who haven't, but actually paid attention in high school and therefore aren't taken in by Creationist fallacies.

Sent from my iPod touch using Forum Runner

 

[createdtoworship]

One more time. AIG's statements and "evidence" is like the following situation concerning the Moon:

Party A believes That the Moon is "a light in the firmament" given for counting the seasons.

Party B says that the evidence would indicate that the Moon is a solid body, rather like the Earth.

Individual C (who may be a member of Party B, or who may have a minor disagreement with a small part of Party B's theories) has examined some rocks that are claimed to have come from the Moon. He says that the moon rocks are not as dense as Earth rocks, and their specific gravity is actually closer to that of cheese.

Party A endorses Individual D, who states: "We know Party B is wrong, and the Moon is not like the Earth, and now Individual C has evidence that it is not. He says that the Moon is made of cheese. Of course, Individual C is totally wrong too, but he believes in the same science as Party B, and he has evidence that disproves that the Moon is a stony world, like Earth."

Individual D does not present the evidence in order that it be studied, but to show that there is a "controversy" in the science that is being hidden from the public. He has gotten the meaning of the evidence wrong, but he doesn't care, he does not believe in the evidence because it does not agree with his conclusion. All he wants to do is sow confusion and plant the seeds of doubt.

BTW, you mentioned a court of law. presenting Individual D's claim about Individual c's evidence in a court of law. In an honest courtroom that would not happen because of the hearsay rules. As he would have to present it, it would, at best, be second-hand hearsay, and many of the facts (and fictions) that he would be cross-examined on have no basis on which he would be able to truthfully and forcefully explain why anyone should believe his "interpretation" of the evidence when he does not believe it and the person whom he claims does says that Individual D's interpretation does not even resemble, much less reflect, his position.

Charging Individual D with perjury under those circumstances would not be a strawman, as you claim; it would be justice.

I don't correlate your cheese with AIG however and neither does a lot of people on this forum. You need to prove that by facts of what was said. SEcondly, you need to prove it was hearsay by what was said. You can't dismiss an entire institute simply from a few bad quotes.

 

[metherion]

Ah, yes, the QUOTE MINE.

Let’s go through most of these, shall we?

#1, Stephen J. Gould
The absence of fossil evidence ... accounts of evolution."

Full quote in context here:
Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps"

Quote mine.
#50

#2
Contrary to what... this theory.
Ronald R West.
Well, this one was actually dealt with on CF!
http://www.christianforums.com/t3091280/

So... quote mine.

#3
The chance that... materials therein.
Sir Fred Hoyle
This one even has its own wikipedia page about why it is wrong!
Hoyle's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So... logical fallacy.

#4
Echoing the criticism... belonged to.
Richard Leakey
The ONLY quotes about this I was able to find on the ‘net were from one classical music forum and a ton of DEBUNKING EVOLUTION sites.

However, since Lucy is far from the only specimen, and one scientist’s opinion 28 years ago does not the entire fossil invalidate.

It also doesn't go against the whole of evolution, but one particular part of one particular fossil.
So I also don’t know if it is a quote mine or not.
#5
The entire hominid... fossil man.
John Reader
First, you have him listed as a photo-journalist, not a scientist.
Second,
CC030: Human fossils on a table
While the quote in question about the billiard table is about 7 years older, the essence is still there.
Thirdly, we have now 30 years more fossils and many new analytical techniques and understandings.

#6
A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone... hominid bone.”
Well, I already explained Nebraska man and the overblowing of Piltdown Man. Again, how widestream was the acceptance? Who found it not to be a human bone?

#7
We add... with evolution.
Pierre-Paul Grassé
Mr. Grassé was a supporter of Lamarckism, according to his wikipedia entry, which is an alternate theory of evolution that has been shown wrong. Furthermore, how old is this quote? 34 years? Has nothing at all been learned since then?
Also, do you have the original quote anywhere? I would love to see it in context.

#8
The essence of... fit as well.
Stephen J Gould
I don’t even see the problem with this quote. Yes, nobody denies that natural selection helps eliminate the unfit. Yes, this would require that the more fit be propagated. What’s the problem? How is this anti-evolution? There’s plenty of evidence that the ‘more fit’ are created and propagated.

#9
And in man... universe.
Isaac Asimov

... And? Yes, the human brain is complex. What about it? Does acknowledging complexity somehow disprove evolution? I don’t get it.

#10
Why do... you read.

Again, one quote, by one anthropologist, about one type of dating, almost 30 years ago, with no regard to any advances, understandings, or improvements made since then, in an unavailable article.
Oh, also, radiocarbon dating and evolution aren't the same thing.

#11
The intelligent layman... pragmatism.
J. E. O’Rourks

Ah, the old “fossils are used to date rocks and rocks are used to date fossils” baloney!
CC310: Dating fossils, dating strata

#12
Scientists... iota of fact.
T. N. Tahmisian
A quote from a physiologist from over 50 years ago that is just flat out wrong, according to the entire field of biology? I’m sorry.

Quote mining is a very dishonest tactic, as most of the quotes are. Furthermore, calling all the scientists ‘evolutionists’ is also misleading.

I find your list entirely unconvincing, as well as outright dishonest in its refusal to check or present all relevant facts, and automatically labeling everyone as an evolutionist, as well as calling other fields of science evolution.

Metherion

Edited to add:
To Gradyll: What bad quotes? I directly from the relevant parts of their statement of faith, without misrepresentation.

 

[createdtoworship]

I want to know why there is no none clonal singular tree dated at more than 5000 years?