Evolution False? Absolute proof inside.

[USincognito]

"(Julian) Huxley honestly answered, “The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn’t want God to interfere with our sexual mores.”

This "quote" is bogus.

Creationism: Lies Creationists Tell: The Julian Huxley Lie

COMMENT: The reference that Kennedy pointed to in Morris' book does not refer to "Julian" at all, but instead refers to his grandfather, "Thomas Henry Huxley," and it has nothing to do with "sexual mores," for it states, "He [Thomas Henry Huxley] had a work to do in England, a messianic purpose, and he dedicated to that purpose his tireless energy and his vast resources of knowledge and ability. And he did attain the success his heart desired, for Huxley was recognized as a prophet in his own country."​

“I mean if Darwinism is true—if there is no God and we all evolved from slimy green algae—then I can sleep with whomever I want,” observed the professor. “In Darwinism, there’s no moral accountability.”38- unnamed biology professor and a major university in the United States

Unnamed biology professor "and" (should that be "at") a major university in the United States???

 

[lasthero]

This "quote" is bogus.

Creationism: Lies Creationists Tell: The Julian Huxley Lie

COMMENT: The reference that Kennedy pointed to in Morris' book does not refer to "Julian" at all, but instead refers to his grandfather, "Thomas Henry Huxley," and it has nothing to do with "sexual mores," for it states, "He [Thomas Henry Huxley] had a work to do in England, a messianic purpose, and he dedicated to that purpose his tireless energy and his vast resources of knowledge and ability. And he did attain the success his heart desired, for Huxley was recognized as a prophet in his own country."​

Unnamed biology professor "and" (should that be "at") a major university in the United States???

Creationists making spurious quotes.

I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

 

[theophilus777]

I LOATHE the argument that atheists just don't believe because they want to be able to do whatever the heck they want. As if we are so primitive that we don't understand the importance of rules and respect. Could an argument be more condescending?

Frankly, yes; but I'll spare you.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Frankly, yes; but I'll spare you.

Spare us the argument that atheists really do believe in god too? That one is equally annoying. And not true, if I believed in god I definitely wouldn't try to deny its existence or shun that belief at all. I have been seeking that out for years.

 

[createdtoworship]

This "quote" is bogus.

Creationism: Lies Creationists Tell: The Julian Huxley Lie

COMMENT: The reference that Kennedy pointed to in Morris' book does not refer to "Julian" at all, but instead refers to his grandfather, "Thomas Henry Huxley," and it has nothing to do with "sexual mores," for it states, "He [Thomas Henry Huxley] had a work to do in England, a messianic purpose, and he dedicated to that purpose his tireless energy and his vast resources of knowledge and ability. And he did attain the success his heart desired, for Huxley was recognized as a prophet in his own country."​

Unnamed biology professor "and" (should that be "at") a major university in the United States???

I am surprised you didn't say quote mine!

quote mines don't exist and are a fabrication of the classic "misquote or quote out of context."

misquotes are often easy to prove, but you haven't with your above.

quoting out of context on the other hand is much harder to prove. Let me illustrate.

Say someone talks about oranges for 10 minutes and at the five minute mark speaks on bananas for 15 seconds. Now if you quote the banana section, you have quote mined according to the definition because it was out of context of oranges. But this is very very hard to prove. The fact that the internet is full of these allegations of mining, shows that they are fabrications. Yours is case and point, it proves nothing about the grandfather of Julian huxley (read about half).

let me quote again from Wikipedia on the fallacy of quoting out of context (quote mining)

"Both Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Henry M. Morris (founder of ICR) have been accused of producing books of mined quotes. TalkOrigins Archive (TOA) states that "entire books of these quotes have been published" and lists prominent creationist Henry M. Morris' That Their Words May Be Used Against Them and The Revised Quote Book as examples, in addition to a number of online creationist lists of quote-mines.[19] Both AiG and ICR use the following quote from Stephen Jay Gould on intermediate forms.[20]

The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.
— Stephen Jay Gould[20][21]
[non-primary source needed]

Context shows that Gould rejected the gradualists' explanation for the lack of support for gradual change in favor of his own interpretation. He continues:

... Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question.[21]

Knowing that creationists are quoting him as if he were saying there were no transitional forms, Gould responded:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.[22]"

but gould did say those things, it wasn't a misquote or a quote out of context. He said that some evolutionists wiggle out of that observation, but that he in fact disagreed. I like how after all of this gould then states his opinion. "there are transitions". After saying there wasnt'! I like How he speaks out of both sides of his mouth, at least the prior was a fact. and we all recongnize it as such. There are no transitions yet today. So it's not a misquote or out of context. He simply spoke on oranges, then on bananas, and then on oranges. But we caught him in the act of doubt! If it was a mistake He should be inclined to retract it and not maintain that dishonest sentence.

 

[RickG]

"quote mines don't exist and are a fabrication of the classic "misquote or quote out of context."

I disagree. A misquote out of context is unintentional. A quote mine is an intentional misrepresentation of what a person actually said.

 

[createdtoworship]

I disagree. A misquote out of context is unintentional. A quote mine is an intentional misrepresentation of what a person actually said.

so quold when he said the prior quote about lack of transitions, then mentioned there was in fact transitions. It was a quote mine because it was false. Correct?

if it was a mistake He should be inclined to retract it and not maintain that dishonest sentence.

 

[RickG]

so quold when he said the prior quote about lack of transitions, then mentioned there was in fact transitions. It was a quote mine because it was false. Correct?

if it was a mistake He should be inclined to retract it and not maintain that dishonest sentence.

No, you just don't understand the context. Nevertheless, transitional fossils are not necessary to demonstrate evolution. Explain the fossil record without evolution. How did they get where they are without evolution?

 

[46AND2]

I am surprised you didn't say quote mine!

quote mines don't exist and are a fabrication of the classic "misquote or quote out of context."

misquotes are often easy to prove, but you haven't with your above.

quoting out of context on the other hand is much harder to prove. Let me illustrate.

Say someone talks about oranges for 10 minutes and at the five minute mark speaks on bananas for 15 seconds. Now if you quote the banana section, you have quote mined according to the definition because it was out of context of oranges. But this is very very hard to prove. The fact that the internet is full of these allegations of mining, shows that they are fabrications. Yours is case and point, it proves nothing about the grandfather of Julian huxley (read about half).

let me quote again from Wikipedia on the fallacy of quoting out of context (quote mining)

"Both Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Henry M. Morris (founder of ICR) have been accused of producing books of mined quotes. TalkOrigins Archive (TOA) states that "entire books of these quotes have been published" and lists prominent creationist Henry M. Morris' That Their Words May Be Used Against Them and The Revised Quote Book as examples, in addition to a number of online creationist lists of quote-mines.[19] Both AiG and ICR use the following quote from Stephen Jay Gould on intermediate forms.[20]

The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.
— Stephen Jay Gould[20][21]
[non-primary source needed]

Context shows that Gould rejected the gradualists' explanation for the lack of support for gradual change in favor of his own interpretation. He continues:

... Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question.[21]

Knowing that creationists are quoting him as if he were saying there were no transitional forms, Gould responded:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.[22]"

but gould did say those things, it wasn't a misquote or a quote out of context. He said that some evolutionists wiggle out of that observation, but that he in fact disagreed. I like how after all of this gould then states his opinion. "there are transitions". After saying there wasnt'! I like How he speaks out of both sides of his mouth, at least the prior was a fact. and we all recongnize it as such. There are no transitions yet today. So it's not a misquote or out of context. He simply spoke on oranges, then on bananas, and then on oranges. But we caught him in the act of doubt! If it was a mistake He should be inclined to retract it and not maintain that dishonest sentence.

The Bible teaches that:

"There is no God."

Quite a few times, actually.

Still think there is no such thing as a quote mine?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Just out of curiosity, does this Burce Malone assume Bible believers need "abosolute proof" ... or even evidence ... that evolution is false?

He must have a low opinion of our faith then, eh?

If you guys were good at dealing with uncertainty, you wouldn't raise such a stink over evolution in the first place.

 

[theophilus777]

Spare us the argument that atheists really do believe in god too? That one is equally annoying. And not true, if I believed in god I definitely wouldn't try to deny its existence or shun that belief at all. I have been seeking that out for years.

No, that's not what I referred to. Spare you the details of what is more condescending than the argument 46 and 2 made and I quoted.

I am glad to hear that you actively seek to know God. it is not an easy thing, but WORTH IT!! I wish I knew more about how or why this is easier for me as evidenced by the fact that it's possible, yet eludes the grasp of others. I feel a responsibility to you, and anyone in that position. While I do joke a lot, I am serious about that. Standing offer: if there's anything I can do to help, lemme know.

 

[theophilus777]

The Bible teaches that:

"There is no God."

Quite a few times, actually.

Still think there is no such thing as a quote mine?

Yup. Because the Bible doesn't teach that. (You're just going to have to be more careful if you really wish to make any headway on the topic of picking at words and being argumentative for its own sake)

 

[theophilus777]

If you guys were good at dealing with uncertainty, you wouldn't raise such a stink over evolution in the first place.

Here's a statement I can agree with! Evolution certainly deals with uncertainty, and you have to be quite comfortable with it for the theory to develop. This gives rise to the saying "I don't have enough faith to ..." complete that sentence with any number of things that typically drive atheists crazy, like believe in ToE, not believe in God, etc etc.

 

[bhsmte]

Here's a statement I can agree with! Evolution certainly deals with uncertainty, and you have to be quite comfortable with it for the theory to develop. This gives rise to the saying "I don't have enough faith to ..." complete that sentence with any number of things that typically drive atheists crazy, like believe in ToE, not believe in God, etc etc.

Why is it, the people that have the most knowledge regarding these matters, are the most comfortable with the theory and the people who know least about it, are not comfortable?

Is it a giant conspiracy, driven by the PHD biologists?

 

[46AND2]

Yup. Because the Bible doesn't teach that. (You're just going to have to be more careful if you really wish to make any headway on the topic of picking at words and being argumentative for its own sake)

Of course it doesn't teach that. That's the point. It's a clear example of a quote mine. Gradylls argument was that there is no such thing as a quote mine. That it what I was responding to.

It is words taken out of context to make it look like someone is claiming something they really aren't.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course it doesn't teach that. That's the point. It's a clear example of a quote mine. Gradylls argument was that there is no such thing as a quote mine. That it what I was responding to.

It is words taken out of context to make it look like someone is claiming something they really aren't.

No such thing as a quote mine?

That is hilarious, especially considering the typical debate tactics of who wrote that.

 

[theophilus777]

Why is it, the people that have the most knowledge regarding these matters, are the most comfortable with the theory and the people who know least about it, are not comfortable?

Is it a giant conspiracy, driven by the PHD biologists?

Why is it that there are people who in the process of acquiring their PhD in micro biology, convert to Christianity from atheism? IOW, your postulation here doesn't hold, even though the general trend is observable and to an extent you do have a point. Namely, that a lot of the resistance is just flak due to ignorance.

 

[theophilus777]

Of course it doesn't teach that. That's the point. It's a clear example of a quote mine. Gradylls argument was that there is no such thing as a quote mine. That it what I was responding to.

It is words taken out of context to make it look like someone is claiming something they really aren't.

I understand the concept. The specific quote in context here is not an example of a quote mine. It really doesn't change the jist of what was said. (Nor the gist, if you prefer)

You have a rich treasure trove of hilarity by responding directly to the OP. If anyone has done that, I missed it.

 

[bhsmte]

Why is it that there are people who in the process of acquiring their PhD in micro biology, convert to Christianity from atheism? IOW, your postulation here doesn't hold, even though the general trend is observable and to an extent you do have a point. Namely, that a lot of the resistance is just flak due to ignorance.

What does being a Christian have to do with whether a biologist agrees strongly with the TOE?

I don't see the relation. Science is science, whether someone is a believer or not, like a guy like Francis Collins, who is a devout Christian and former head of the human genome project. He states, the evidence to support Darwin's theory is so strong, doing biology without evolution, is like doing physics without math.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What does being a Christian have to do with whether a biologist agrees strongly with the TOE?

I don't see the relation. Science is science, whether someone is a believer or not, like a guy like Francis Collins, who is a devout Christian and former head of the human genome project. He states, the evidence to support Darwin's theory is so strong, doing biology without evolution, is like doing physics without math.

Is that "theory of evolution" or "theory of everything"?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7377785/
Any Atheists who do not accept the ToE?

Inspired by THIS recently necro'd thread, I thought I would change the wording around a bit.
Instead of "Are there any Atheist Creationists?", I would like to ask if there are any atheists who reject the biological Theory of Evolution? The difference in the wording may seem insignificant, but they are quite different, with a different focus.

The reason I didn't post this in the necro'd thread is due to the fact that the original thread was already 4 pages long, and I didn't want this differently focused question to be lost amidst the conversation that had already taken (and probably will continue to take) place.

So, any atheists out there reject the biological ToE? And this includes not only posters on this forum, but possibly links and references to outside sources as well.

Theory of everything - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A theory of everything (ToE) or final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory refers to the hypothetical presence of a single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.[1] ToE is one of the major unsolved problems in physics.
Over the past few centuries, two theoretical frameworks have been developed that, as a whole, most closely resemble a ToE. The two theories upon which all modern physics rests are General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM).



.