Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Bradskii]

You missed where Collin Patterson said he decided evolutionary theory is anti knowledge.

If quote mining paid well, you'd be a rich guy. You need to dig deeper for your information.

And when I say 'dig deeper' I mean spend 20 seconds checking your sources like I did rather than use creationist sites. Remember what I told you? They will lie to you. And they did. This is what Colin says about you guys taking his work out of context (my emphasis) Quote: Colin Patterson's Talk:

"On November 5, 1981, Patterson did give a talk at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, to the monthly Systematics Discussion Group meeting. A creationist in the audience secretly taped the talk, and later circulated a heavily flawed transcript.

Patterson was asked about this, and responded by saying that the talk was only about details within his narrow specialty, cladistics. He had spoken loosely, and thrown out rhetorical questions, since he thought that everyone in his audience was an expert. He had just read a scathing attack on cladistics, and was pretty heated up. He was not talking from notes, and did not try to create a correct transcript.

When asked for a summary, he said that he was talking about the two schools of thought among cladistics experts. One school took evolution as a given. Therefore when they drew a diagram showing the relatedness of various species, they were explicitly drawing a family tree that showed descent. The other school - Patterson's - tried to construct diagrams showing only the logical relatedness of species, strictly based on similarities and differences. That is, his diagrams did not use evolution as an assumption. He was arguing that this is important, because it is a fallacy to use one of your assumptions as one of your conclusions. Since his school did not use evolution as an assumption, they were free to use it as a conclusion.

Patterson said he was not expressing doubt that evolution had happened, and he felt that his "cladograms" were evidence for evolution. For example, here is a quote from the end of the last book he wrote before he died:

[The] "misprints" shared between species ... are (to me) incontrovertible evidence of common descent.
Evolution, 2nd Edition (1998), Page 122

So listen up. Quote anyone other than creationists and I will show that they will contradict everything you claim. Quote a creationist and I will show to you that they lied.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no idea what's going on between you and Chad. I saw the question and thought I'd answer it.

Carry on.

Chad has been quote mining scientists. I did the same to the Bible to show that that is not an honest way to debate. And I seriously doubt if you can find the verse that I quoted. Well you might, your Bible-fu can be pretty strong at times.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I seriously doubt if you can find the verse that I quoted. Well you might, your Bible-fu can be pretty strong at times.

No can do.

The only one I know by heart is:

Psalm 14:1a The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Thanks for the compliment though!

 

[Subduction Zone]

No can do.

The only one I know by heart is:

Psalm 14:1a The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Thanks for the compliment though!

It would be hard to do even if I gave you the verse.

By the way, atheists do not say "There is no God" in their hearts. They have a better place to say this. What I have found is that some Christians get mad at God sometimes and become temporary atheists. That verse appears to be about them.

 

[sjastro]

Remember I said that if you quoted anyone except creationists they could be shown to have said or written articles or papers that directly contradict your views? Do you remember? Well, this will be the first of many examples that I will give you every time you post anything by anuone who is not a creationist.

So you want to go with Raup as someone who back us your position? Someone we can trust? Fair enough...

"Raup contributed to the knowledge of extinction events and suggested that the extinction of dinosaurs 66 mya was part of a cycle of mass extinctions that may have occurred every 26 million years. He was a contributor to the book Scientists Confront Creationism." David Raup - RationalWiki

And Gould? You want to use him to prop up arguments against evolution? Seriously?

"Gould favored the argument that evolution has no inherent drive towards long-term "progress". Uncritical commentaries often portray evolution as a ladder of progress, leading towards bigger, faster, and smarter organisms, the assumption being that evolution is somehow driving organisms to get more complex and ultimately more like humankind. Gould argued that evolution's drive was not towards complexity, but towards diversification."

Maybe you consider that to be a nail in the evolutionary coffin. You wish.

And Colin Patterson was used to bolsrer what you thought was an argument for creationism. What do you think, Colin?

'Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context.' Colin Patterson (biologist) - Wikipedia

Not enough? OK, more from Patterson:

'In addition to his many works on classification of fossil fishes, he authored a general textbook on evolution, Evolution,[4] in 1978 (and a revised 2nd edition in 1999), and edited Molecules and Morphology in Evolution: Conflict or Compromise? (1987),[5] a book on the use of molecular and morphological evidence for inferring phylogenies. He also wrote two classic papers on homology.'

And these are guys you quote in an attempt to deny evolition. Good work, Chad. Got any more?

The use of the false equivalence fallacy is a common tactic used by various pseudo and anti science groups.
One such group is the electric universe which portrays scientists critical of mainstream as dissidents fighting the tyranny of mainstream science.
They would like you to think these dissidents are fighting for the electric universe cause which conveniently ignores the real agenda.
One particular dissident who became the poster boy for the electric universe was the astronomer Halton Arp.
Shortly before his death he was asked by an acquaintance what he thought of the electric universe, the reply was not music to the ears of electric universe supporters.

Dear JCU student,
I think the galaxies start out as very low mass charged particles.
That would certainly be electric dominated.
But I see no evidence for electric dominated matter on a galaxy scale or cosmic scale today.
Halton Arp

 

[Frank Robert]

I didn’t start doing this yesterday.

PE originated to explain away the lack of fossils in all the important places, but not being a wildlife biologist, he was ignorant of the fact that isolated populations lose diversity and genetic information- they don’t gain it.

Thus rapid evolution of isolated populations cannot occur.

Read the six pages of creationist quote mines that you are regurgitating from unreliable creationist accounts.

Too bad for you that I remember wha was said originally by Gould, and it wasn’t what his later spin stated.

Are you saying that you are reporting from first hand knowledge of what he said and that is different from what he wrote? Or are you saying you remember the creationist interpretation of what he said?

In my comment I posted the full text of what Gould actually wrote as opposed to your quote mine.

It is to bad for you that your creationist sources have a proven record of unreliability.

Here is a bit of advice that will likely fall on deaf ears, but I will try. Before posting creationists versions of things do a simple search through sites like Talk Origins to avoid posting anti-science misinformation.

 

[Astrid]

No. I haven’t read about the Cambrian explosion for over ten years.

I didn’t just start studying evolution yesterday.

Ten years ago.
Long enough to get it wrong about octopus and squid.
Cambrian squid- false
Sudden appearance- false
You need to admit these mistakes.

It's generally not best to tout creds if you cannot walk
the walk.
What you call studying evolution clearly has only been
creationist site misrepresentations.

 

[Frank Robert]

I didn’t start doing this yesterday.

From your writings it is apparent that you are have studied creationist anti-science and misinterpretation for a very long long time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Long enough to get it wrong about octopus and squid.
Cambrian squid- false
Sudden appearance- false
You need to admit these mistakes.

Your "Cambrian Explosion" either occurred during the Creation Week, or after the Flood.

 

[Astrid]

From your writings it is apparent that you are have studied creationist anti-science and misinterpretation for a very long long time.

A person actually familiar with the history of life would not
make a mistake like octopus / squid in the Cambrisn as those
are very advanced life forms with deep history in the fossil
record.

The Bible story is very simple and easy to understand.

It may well be that our creationists think that evolution is
equally simple to understand.
The all seem to think they understand it and get testy
when told they dont- after so clearly showing they dont.

 

[AV1611VET]

They all seem to think they understand it and get testy when told they dont- after so clearly showing they dont.

Are you including me in that bunch?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Your "Cambrian Explosion" either occurred during the Creation Week, or after the Flood.

The Cambrian Explosion, took place over a period of some 35 million years... or 5 million weeks... some 540 million years ago.

 

[Speedwell]

[STAFF EDITED DELETED QUOTE] If you know all that much about science then you know that atheistic materialism is not a necessary requirement of evolutionary biology or of science in general. There are too many theists working in the field for that to be so. And, as you have pointed out, there are even creationists who do understand evolution. Dr. Todd Wood comes to mind...
A Tale of Three Creationists - Articles

 

[chad kincham]

Read the six pages of creationist quote mines that you are regurgitating from unreliable creationist accounts.

Are you saying that you are reporting from first hand knowledge of what he said and that is different from what he wrote? Or are you saying you remember the creationist interpretation of what he said?

In my comment I posted the full text of what Gould actually wrote as opposed to your quote mine.

It is to bad for you that your creationist sources have a proven record of unreliability.

Here is a bit of advice that will likely fall on deaf ears, but I will try. Before posting creationists versions of things do a simple search through sites like Talk Origins to avoid posting anti-science misinformation.

[STAFF EDITED] Punctuated Equilibrium aka Equilibria, is a ludicrous hypothesis postulated in an attempt to explain away the lack of any evidence in the fossil record of phyletic gradualism.

It’s completely nonsensical, because common sense knows isolated populations can’t, and don’t, have the kind of intensive burst of macro evolution required to change body plans.

In fact it wasn’t hard to find information from wildlife biologists who work with endangered species - which are the epitome of isolated populations - that confirmed the fact that isolated populations lose diversity, and don’t gain it.

But PE illustrates the fact that evolutionists will grasp at straws and any half-baked idea, as long as it promotes ToE.

And yes, it’s an incontrovertible fact that both Gould and Eldridge admitted there’s no evidence in the fossils, and PE is their pitiful attempt to explain the dearth of fossil evidence,

And there’s nothing wrong with citing people and using quotes - every college level paper written, and most books, cite quotations in them.

That quote mining nonsense originated from the talk origins website.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you know all that much about science then you know that atheistic materialism is not a necessary feature of evolutionary biology. There are too many theists working in the field for that to be so.

In spite of the Bible, or with respect to It?

 

[dlamberth]

Your "Cambrian Explosion" either occurred during the Creation Week, or after the Flood.

The earth is telling us a different story.

 

[Speedwell]

In spite of the Bible, or with respect to It?

Not all Christians take the same view of the Bible as you do.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Cambrian Explosion, took place over a period of some 35 million years... or 5 million weeks... some 540 million years ago.

So I heard.

 

[AV1611VET]

Calling me a liar for correcting your blatant falsehoods?

I'm sure there's better reasons to do that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not all Christians take the same view of the Bible as you do.

So they can keep their job?