Evidence for Design (3)

Loudmouth · Dec 13, 2013

gradyll said:
it's a misquote, I wouldn't invent a term for it.

Dishonest creationists would say that it isn't a misquote since you really did say those words.

See the problem? Are you really saying that we are the bad guys because we came up with a unique phrase to describe the dishonest way that creationists twist the words of scientists?

thirdly, you may have read my quote wrong, recited it wrong or any possible amount of things....doesn't mean that you purposefully mined a quote.

It means that someone did, because it takes extra effort to carefully edit a quote to twist it in the fashion that creationists do. For example, anyone who honestly read "Origin of Species" would not use this quote mine to suggest that Darwin predicted finely graduated transitional fossils:

"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
The Origin of Species: Chapter 9

This is one of the more famous quote mines. If you read anything other than those sentences in that chapter, it is completely obvious that Darwin does not think that there should be finely graduated transitional fossils. There is absolutely no way that anyone could honestly read that chapter and come away with the impression they claim to have. None. There is no mistake. The creationists who are the origin of these quote mines are completely aware of what they are doing.

Loudmouth · Dec 13, 2013

gradyll said:
Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they [Eldredge and Gould] had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of `sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of `punctuationists' and `gradualists'. Both schools of thought despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative.

Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, pp. 229-230

here is a good quote, I don't agree with all of it. But it is a revealing of the cambrian ubrupt appearance of phyla at the beginning, and no evolutionary history (signifying a design or other causation-unknown).

Why does Dawkins say that there are gaps?

Loudmouth · Dec 13, 2013

gradyll said:
just because someone takes time to research quotations and comes up with some, doesn't mean that they are purposefully hiding truth or trying to conceal a real meaning etc. Quotes are just that, quotes, they are samples and never will you have a perfect quote because it is always missing something, namely, the rest of the article. Another reason why quote mining doesn't exist.
it is the same as finding mistakes in an english paper, but this time it's real life. These are real doubts, misunderstandings, and/or controversies that scientists are vocalizing and you want to stop it?

It is always a good rule of thumb to quote sections from material you have read personally. Dont' use quotes that other people have compiled, especially creationists.

createdtoworship · Dec 13, 2013

Loudmouth said:
Why does Dawkins say that there are gaps?

because that is his theory, I don't personally believe there are. He is just making it up as he goes along.

Loudmouth · Dec 13, 2013

gradyll said:
because that is his theory, I don't personally believe there are. He is just making it up as he goes along.

What is his theory?

createdtoworship · Dec 13, 2013

Loudmouth said:
It means that someone did, because it takes extra effort to carefully edit a quote to twist...

see this is your problem, you assume. Creationists/IDers are not out to get you. They don't dream of ways to cause revenge, to plot, to hurt.....they simply don't understand your perspectives. And everyonce in a while a doubt peeks it's head even in your own literatures. It is here that you most assuredly will cry foul and "quote mine!" Because it isn't in context technically speaking it's where a doubt has peeked it's head out. Teh context is not like these quotes. So I can see they are to some "out of context" but you would have again to prove those contexts. Thats the worse case scenarios. NEver, Never have I seen a Biblical Creationist, who believes in teh Bible purposefully twist anything. If they did then shame on them. But I don't and you can't throw the Baby out with the Bathwater.

createdtoworship · Dec 13, 2013

Loudmouth said:
What is his theory?

that the fossils found in early cambrian that were so well developed are the result of gaps. They were gaps in the fossil record. Of course this is an argument from silence. We don't know why there are so many phyla so early on in cambrian. It's a mystery, but to say "gaps" , "gaps" is presumptive.

I do think it's humorous that you are no longer debating the fact there are early complete phyla, as one of your own has confessed it. It did what a whole list of quotes would not do, oh well.

what ever it takes.

Loudmouth · Dec 13, 2013

gradyll said:
see this is your problem, you assume. Creationists/IDers are not out to get you.

I don't think they are out to get me. I do think they are out to misrepresent the facts, and I call them on it. Are you mad at us for shining a light on the lies that professional creationists tell? If you are, perhaps you should think about that.

They don't dream of ways to cause revenge, to plot, to hurt.....they simply don't understand your perspectives. And everyonce in a while a doubt peeks it's head even in your own literatures. It is here that you most assuredly will cry foul and "quote mine!" Because it isn't in context technically speaking it's where a doubt has peeked it's head out. Teh context is not like these quotes. So I can see they are to some "out of context" but you would have again to prove those contexts. Thats the worse case scenarios. NEver, Never have I seen a Biblical Creationist, who believes in teh Bible purposefully twist anything. If they did then shame on them. But I don't and you can't throw the Baby out with the Bathwater.

I have personally seen creationists twist the words of scientists. Are you really doubting that this happens, even when we show you clear examples? Why are you defending this dishonest practice?

Loudmouth · Dec 13, 2013

gradyll said:
that the fossils found in early cambrian that were so well developed are the result of gaps. They were gaps in the fossil record.

What is Dawkins theory as to the cause of the gaps?

We don't know why there are so many phyla so early on in cambrian.

Phyla are completely contrived. If we wanted to, we could change the phyla so that they appear after the Cambrian. What you are really acting stunned about is that the ancestors of living species are seen in the Cambrian. Isn't this what we would expect to see if evolution is true?

I do think it's humorous that you are no longer debating the fact there are early complete phyla, as one of your own has confessed it.

How are they complete phyla? We find basal vertebrates in the Cambrian, but we don't find any fish, birds, reptiles, mammals, amphibians, or any of the vertebrates that most people are familiar with. How can you say that these are complete phyla? That doesn't make any sense. We don't even see trees, flowers, or grass in the Cambrian.

createdtoworship · Dec 13, 2013

Loudmouth said:
What is Dawkins theory as to the cause of the gaps?

Phyla are completely contrived. If we wanted to, we could change the phyla so that they appear after the Cambrian. What you are really acting stunned about is that the ancestors of living species are seen in the Cambrian. Isn't this what we would expect to see if evolution is true?

How are they complete phyla? We find basal vertebrates in the Cambrian, but we don't find any fish, birds, reptiles, mammals, amphibians, or any of the vertebrates that most people are familiar with. How can you say that these are complete phyla? That doesn't make any sense. We don't even see trees, flowers, or grass in the Cambrian.

"the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups"

- dawkins,

thats what I mean by complete phyla

Loudmouth · Dec 13, 2013

gradyll said:
"the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups"

- dawkins,

thats what I mean by complete phyla

Complete phyla is not what Dawkins meant, however.

Do we find octopus, squid, snails, or tons of other invertebrate species that I can name? Nope. So how can that be complete?

createdtoworship · Dec 13, 2013

Loudmouth said:
Complete phyla is not what Dawkins meant, however.

Do we find octopus, squid, snails, or tons of other invertebrate species that I can name? Nope. So how can that be complete?

he meant ALL phyla, I was wrong....here let me correct that....

"“The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 Ma. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then.” (“Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body Plans: The Fossil Evidence,” Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376.)"

“The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today.” (Richard Fortey, “The Cambrian Explosion Exploded?,” Science, vol. 293, No 5529, 20 July 2001, pp. 438-439.)
“The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs…” (Gould, Stephen Jay., The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, pp. 238-239.) The Cambrian period (thought to have started 540 million years ago) is a huge evolutionary enigma. Scientists at one time postulated that evolution of phyla took more than 75 million years. Even that period of time was vastly insufficient for this major evolutionary step. Now Darwinists believe that this happened in a few million years. Supposedly nothing but blue-green algae and bacteria lived for billions of years and then in a geologic instant all of the major types of animals sprung into existence! This has been called the Big Bang of Biology. No real progress has been made by evolutionists since Darwin’s day and “The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery.” (Eldredge, N., The Monkey Business, 1982, p. 46.)

and there are more...

Loudmouth · Dec 13, 2013

gradyll said:
he meant ALL phyla, I was wrong....here let me correct that....

"The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 Ma. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then. (Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body Plans: The Fossil Evidence, Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376.)"

The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today. (Richard Fortey, The Cambrian Explosion Exploded?, Science, vol. 293, No 5529, 20 July 2001, pp. 438-439.)

The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 Ma. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then. (Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body Plans: The Fossil Evidence, Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376.)

and there are more...

Nowhere do I see anything about "complete phyla" in those quotes. What I see are quotes talking about some very basic and basal members of those phyla being present in the Cambrian, and I am not understanding why you think this is a problem for evolution.

createdtoworship · Dec 13, 2013

Loudmouth said:
Nowhere do I see anything about "complete phyla" in those quotes. What I see are quotes talking about some very basic and basal members of those phyla being present in the Cambrian, and I am not understanding why you think this is a problem for evolution.

well the obvious question is where did they all come from if there is no evolutional history?

I think it's mysterious that everything appeared, basically overnight geologically speaking.

It's a mysterious thing for evolutionists.

It's not one of your strong suites.

I am actually suprised youve taken the conversation this far.

thank you.

createdtoworship · Dec 13, 2013

Loudmouth said:
Complete phyla is not what Dawkins meant, however.

Do we find octopus, squid, snails, or tons of other invertebrate species that I can name? Nope. So how can that be complete?

obviosly not complete but that the ALL major phyla showed up from no where, and have not gone away since.

its' a problem because of this:

Dr. Paul Chien is chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco. He has extensively explored the mysteries of the marvelous Cambrian fossils in Chengjiang, China. Moreover, Chien possesses the largest collection of Chinese Cambrian fossils in North America. In an interview with Real Issue he remarked, “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now. Stephen J. Gould, [a Harvard University evolutionary biologist], has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more and more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed. We have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now.”- from genesispark.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxh9o32m5c0

Dave Ellis · Dec 13, 2013

gradyll said:
see this is your problem, you assume. Creationists/IDers are not out to get you. They don't dream of ways to cause revenge, to plot, to hurt.....they simply don't understand your perspectives. And everyonce in a while a doubt peeks it's head even in your own literatures. It is here that you most assuredly will cry foul and "quote mine!" Because it isn't in context technically speaking it's where a doubt has peeked it's head out. Teh context is not like these quotes. So I can see they are to some "out of context" but you would have again to prove those contexts. Thats the worse case scenarios. NEver, Never have I seen a Biblical Creationist, who believes in teh Bible purposefully twist anything. If they did then shame on them. But I don't and you can't throw the Baby out with the Bathwater.

Except that's not the case... you have blatantly quoted something out of context and are standing by it even though it has been pointed out to you.

If you had originally done it by mistake, that is forgivable. The fact you are standing by something that is clearly incorrect however is not. This is not us over-reacting, this is us criticizing you for arguing dishonestly.

Dave Ellis · Dec 13, 2013

gradyll said:
well the obvious question is where did they all come from if there is no evolutional history?

I think it's mysterious that everything appeared, basically overnight geologically speaking.

It's a mysterious thing for evolutionists.

It's not one of your strong suites.

I am actually suprised youve taken the conversation this far.

thank you.

You are aware that "overnight" geologically speaking is millions upon millions of years. Do you not think that evolutionary biologists are aware of the cambrian explosion and find it consistent with evolutionary biology?

createdtoworship · Dec 13, 2013

Dave Ellis said:
You are aware that "overnight" geologically speaking is millions upon millions of years. Do you not think that evolutionary biologists are aware of the cambrian explosion and find it consistent with evolutionary biology?

40-80 million is not millions upon millions.

in fact some believe the major segments of it only took 10 million years.

How "Sudden" Was the Cambrian Explosion? Nick Matzke Misreads Stephen Meyer and the Paleontological Literature; <i>New Yorker</i> Recycles Misrepresentation - Evolution News & Views

definately not 80 million:

Undead: The Myth of the 80-Million-Year Cambrian Explosion - Evolution News & Views

createdtoworship · Dec 13, 2013

Dave Ellis said:
Except that's not the case... you have blatantly quoted something out of context and are standing by it even though it has been pointed out to you.

If you had originally done it by mistake, that is forgivable. The fact you are standing by something that is clearly incorrect however is not. This is not us over-reacting, this is us criticizing you for arguing dishonestly.

Again if I have it was not on purpose.

but then again I don't think you would have post numbers or anything?

So we can analyze it?

Dave Ellis · Dec 13, 2013

gradyll said:
40-80 million is not millions upon millions.

in fact some believe the major segments of it only took 10 million years.

How "Sudden" Was the Cambrian Explosion? Nick Matzke Misreads Stephen Meyer and the Paleontological Literature; <i>New Yorker</i> Recycles Misrepresentation - Evolution News & Views

definately not 80 million:

Undead: The Myth of the 80-Million-Year Cambrian Explosion - Evolution News & Views

40-80 million is exactly what millions upon millions of years means.... Multiple millions, lots of "millions" of years.

Even 10 million years is an astonishingly long amount of time, and that's the low end of your own estimate.

So, I say again... Do you not think that evolutionary biologists are aware of the Cambrian Explosion, and are ok with it?

Evidence for Design (3)

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

In the grip of grace

Contributor

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Contributor

Contributor

In the grip of grace

Contributor

In the grip of grace

Contributor

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Contributor

Contributor

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency