On another thread, randman said:
If you could provide a specific example or two, I think it could be worth discussing.
If you could provide a specific example or two, I think it could be worth discussing.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Misquoted creationist misquotes
- Thread starter LiveFreeOrDie
- Start date
Go look up for me the TalkOrigins quote/misquote section. Someone linked to it at Infidels. If you can find it for me, I'll comment on it.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Here is one, and not even the best example, but the constant repetition of a false idea is used by Talkorigins here and is a hallmark of propoganda.
"When one uses an individual authority, one cannot pick and choose his relevant opinions either. If an authority's opinion is credible when he agrees with you then that authority does not become any less of an authority when he disagrees with you. 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 above creationist not only did not quote the experts with other views than Feduccia, the creationist did not mention the views of Feduccia that are contrary to his own case. Consider that the antievolutionist article quoted above is called "Is Archaeopteryx a 'missing link'?" and argues that Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form. It uses the Feduccia quote to support this. A reader might be fooled into thinking that Feduccia does not think that it is not a transitional form between reptiles and birds. Here is what Feduccia2 had to say in a chapter he called "Feathered Reptiles":
...The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian.... The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms--what has come to be called a "missing link," a Rosetta stone of evolution....
In all fairness to the antievolutionist, this was probably not a deliberate attempt at deception. Selective quotations can be the result of poor scholarship." "
Note the repitition. "the creationist did not mention the views of Feduccia that are contrary to his own case" - Why should he have?
"A reader might be fooled"
"this was probably not a deliberate attempt at deception. Selective quotations can be the result of poor scholarship."
The creationist is not trying to state the evolutionist he quotes agrees with creationism, but that the proven fact quoted by Talkorigins is not considered proven by everyone in the evolutionist camp.
But this is not the best example I admit, just the 1st one I came upon. Here is propoganda statement if I have ever heard one.
"When one uses an individual authority, one cannot pick and choose his relevant opinions either. If an authority's opinion is credible when he agrees with you then that authority does not become any less of an authority when he disagrees with you."
That's the biggest bunch of BS I've heard in awhile. Scienstists all the time use the data of another scientists, but draw different conclusions. What TalkOrigins is basically stating is that you cannot use the research, comments on data found therein, by evolutionsts if you don't believe in the whole thing, that it is improper not to accept all of what a scientist states if you have agreement with him on part of what he states. of course, this is only true for creationist arguments. If you can't see the twisted nature and utter hypocrisy here, I feel sorry for you. Basically, Talkorigins while bashing an argument from authority is actually demanding extreme acceptance and obedience to arguments from authority. pretty sick, cult-like if you ask me.
Actually, this does not appear to be the article that includes the longer quotes on the fossil record which I used. I will look into the rebuttal section a little more. Somewhere there is a large section that deals specifically with Gould's and some other paleontologists quotes at length.
"When one uses an individual authority, one cannot pick and choose his relevant opinions either. If an authority's opinion is credible when he agrees with you then that authority does not become any less of an authority when he disagrees with you. 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 above creationist not only did not quote the experts with other views than Feduccia, the creationist did not mention the views of Feduccia that are contrary to his own case. Consider that the antievolutionist article quoted above is called "Is Archaeopteryx a 'missing link'?" and argues that Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form. It uses the Feduccia quote to support this. A reader might be fooled into thinking that Feduccia does not think that it is not a transitional form between reptiles and birds. Here is what Feduccia2 had to say in a chapter he called "Feathered Reptiles":
...The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian.... The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms--what has come to be called a "missing link," a Rosetta stone of evolution....
In all fairness to the antievolutionist, this was probably not a deliberate attempt at deception. Selective quotations can be the result of poor scholarship." "
Note the repitition. "the creationist did not mention the views of Feduccia that are contrary to his own case" - Why should he have?
"A reader might be fooled"
"this was probably not a deliberate attempt at deception. Selective quotations can be the result of poor scholarship."
The creationist is not trying to state the evolutionist he quotes agrees with creationism, but that the proven fact quoted by Talkorigins is not considered proven by everyone in the evolutionist camp.
But this is not the best example I admit, just the 1st one I came upon. Here is propoganda statement if I have ever heard one.
"When one uses an individual authority, one cannot pick and choose his relevant opinions either. If an authority's opinion is credible when he agrees with you then that authority does not become any less of an authority when he disagrees with you."
That's the biggest bunch of BS I've heard in awhile. Scienstists all the time use the data of another scientists, but draw different conclusions. What TalkOrigins is basically stating is that you cannot use the research, comments on data found therein, by evolutionsts if you don't believe in the whole thing, that it is improper not to accept all of what a scientist states if you have agreement with him on part of what he states. of course, this is only true for creationist arguments. If you can't see the twisted nature and utter hypocrisy here, I feel sorry for you. Basically, Talkorigins while bashing an argument from authority is actually demanding extreme acceptance and obedience to arguments from authority. pretty sick, cult-like if you ask me.
Actually, this does not appear to be the article that includes the longer quotes on the fossil record which I used. I will look into the rebuttal section a little more. Somewhere there is a large section that deals specifically with Gould's and some other paleontologists quotes at length.
Upvote
0
Randman:
The beef is perfectly obvious. The creationist who quoted Feduccia was using the quote to support his contention that Archaeopteryx was not transitional. He gave the reader the idea that all Feduccia had to say on the matter was that Archaeopteryx was "fully bird"... when in actuality Feduccia does not hold and was not expressing that sentiment. The creationist should have quoted the part that shows disagreement in order to accurately reflect the views of the authority who he is appealing to.
You seem to be obscuring the difference between a bogus appeal to authority and an appeal to specific data. Let's say Feduccia has documented, in his paper, the morphological differences between the therapod "wishbone" and the Archaeopteryx "wishbone". That data could be cited independently of the conclusions Feduccia has drawn. An appeal to authority, however, must accurately reflect the expressed opinion of the authority that is appealed to: else it is dishonest.
You say this might not be the article you were referring to... It links to several other articles. One of them may be the one you objected to. When you find the one that is chock full of lies and misrepresentations of the "obviously" honest and well-intentioned quote-mining that you approve of, by all means, please dissect it here for us.
The beef is perfectly obvious. The creationist who quoted Feduccia was using the quote to support his contention that Archaeopteryx was not transitional. He gave the reader the idea that all Feduccia had to say on the matter was that Archaeopteryx was "fully bird"... when in actuality Feduccia does not hold and was not expressing that sentiment. The creationist should have quoted the part that shows disagreement in order to accurately reflect the views of the authority who he is appealing to.
You seem to be obscuring the difference between a bogus appeal to authority and an appeal to specific data. Let's say Feduccia has documented, in his paper, the morphological differences between the therapod "wishbone" and the Archaeopteryx "wishbone". That data could be cited independently of the conclusions Feduccia has drawn. An appeal to authority, however, must accurately reflect the expressed opinion of the authority that is appealed to: else it is dishonest.
You say this might not be the article you were referring to... It links to several other articles. One of them may be the one you objected to. When you find the one that is chock full of lies and misrepresentations of the "obviously" honest and well-intentioned quote-mining that you approve of, by all means, please dissect it here for us.
Upvote
0
Again, you appear to have not read or have misunderstood the issue before you. In your original statement, you said (emphasis mine):
When I asked for examples, I meant for you to show examples of quotes where the larger context of the quoted document agreed with the point the creationist was making.
Either supply examples affirming your statement or admit you were wrong.
When I asked for examples, I meant for you to show examples of quotes where the larger context of the quoted document agreed with the point the creationist was making.
Either supply examples affirming your statement or admit you were wrong.
Upvote
0
"An appeal to authority, however, must accurately reflect the expressed opinion of the authority that is appealed to: else it is dishonest."
That's just flat out wrong, bigtime, and propoganda mind control stuff. If you are arguing about the nature of the data, it is perfectly acceptable to quote a scientist's opinion on the data itself, but not agree with his or her conclusions.
"As with nearly every quotation Wallace uses, he again takes this one out of context in an attempt to make the author "say" there are no transitional fossils. However, a reading of the quotation in context will show this not to be the case:
p. 359-360: "The chances that remains of an organism will be buried, fossilized, preserved in the rock to our day, then exposed on the surface of dry land and found by a paleontologist before they distintergrate are extremely small...Certainly paleontologists have found samples of an extremely small fraction, only, of the earth's extinct species...In view of these facts, the record already acquired is amazingly good. It provides us with many detailed examples of a great variety of evolutionary phenomena on lower and intermediate levels and with rather abundant data that can be used either by controlled extrapolation or on a statistical sampling basis for inferences as to phenomena on all levels up to the highest. Among the examples are many in which, beyond the slightest doubt, a species or a genus has been gradually transformed into another. Such gradual transformation is also fairly well exemplified for subfamilies and occasionally for families... Splitting and subsequent gradual divergence of species is also exemplified... Splitting and gradual divergence of genera is exemplified very well and in a large variety of organisms. Complete examples for subfamilies and families also are known, but are less common.
In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. When paleontological collecting was still in its infancy and no clear examples of transitional origin had been found, most paleontologist were anti-evolutionists... Now we do have many examples of transitional sequences. Almost all paleontologists recognize that the discovery of a complete transition is in any case very unlikely. Most of them find it logical, if not scientifically required, to assume that the sudden appearance of a new systematic group is not evidence for special creation or for saltation, but simply means that a full transitional sequence more or less like those that are known did occur and simply has not been found in this instance."
The bold-faced text is that which Wallace quotes."
http://www.mindspring.com/~duckster/evolution/transitional.html
Wallce quoted, "every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."
Now, let's see if TalkOrigins' charges have any merit. The whole quoted sentence is "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."
Any way you cut it, this is an admission about data. The author, an ardent evolutionist, as pointed out by Wallace, of course feels evolution is true, but the meaning of his statement here is not changed when viewed in its entire context, is it?
More is coming.
That's just flat out wrong, bigtime, and propoganda mind control stuff. If you are arguing about the nature of the data, it is perfectly acceptable to quote a scientist's opinion on the data itself, but not agree with his or her conclusions.
"As with nearly every quotation Wallace uses, he again takes this one out of context in an attempt to make the author "say" there are no transitional fossils. However, a reading of the quotation in context will show this not to be the case:
p. 359-360: "The chances that remains of an organism will be buried, fossilized, preserved in the rock to our day, then exposed on the surface of dry land and found by a paleontologist before they distintergrate are extremely small...Certainly paleontologists have found samples of an extremely small fraction, only, of the earth's extinct species...In view of these facts, the record already acquired is amazingly good. It provides us with many detailed examples of a great variety of evolutionary phenomena on lower and intermediate levels and with rather abundant data that can be used either by controlled extrapolation or on a statistical sampling basis for inferences as to phenomena on all levels up to the highest. Among the examples are many in which, beyond the slightest doubt, a species or a genus has been gradually transformed into another. Such gradual transformation is also fairly well exemplified for subfamilies and occasionally for families... Splitting and subsequent gradual divergence of species is also exemplified... Splitting and gradual divergence of genera is exemplified very well and in a large variety of organisms. Complete examples for subfamilies and families also are known, but are less common.
In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. When paleontological collecting was still in its infancy and no clear examples of transitional origin had been found, most paleontologist were anti-evolutionists... Now we do have many examples of transitional sequences. Almost all paleontologists recognize that the discovery of a complete transition is in any case very unlikely. Most of them find it logical, if not scientifically required, to assume that the sudden appearance of a new systematic group is not evidence for special creation or for saltation, but simply means that a full transitional sequence more or less like those that are known did occur and simply has not been found in this instance."
The bold-faced text is that which Wallace quotes."
http://www.mindspring.com/~duckster/evolution/transitional.html
Wallce quoted, "every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."
Now, let's see if TalkOrigins' charges have any merit. The whole quoted sentence is "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."
Any way you cut it, this is an admission about data. The author, an ardent evolutionist, as pointed out by Wallace, of course feels evolution is true, but the meaning of his statement here is not changed when viewed in its entire context, is it?
More is coming.
Upvote
0
This one is the best for illustrating the absurdity of Talkorigin's logic.
Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. Steven M. Stanley. 1979.
Wallace is again misrepresenting what is being explained. The author is simply pointing out that the gradual model is not capable of explaining the fossil record, and that the punctuational model is a better explanation. The full quotation clearly makes this point:
"Some distinctive living species clearly originated in the very recent past, during brief instants of geologic time. Thus, quantum speciation is a real phenomenon. Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuational model). Less conclusive evidence is as follows: (1)Very weak gene flow among populations of a species (a common phenomenon) argues against gradualism, because without efficient gene flow, phyletics evolution is stymied. (2) Many levels of spatial heterogeneity normally characterize populations in nature, and at some level, the conflict between gene flow subpopulations and selection pressure within subpopulations should oppose evolutionary divergence of large segments of the gene pool; only small populations are likely to diverge rapidly. (3) Geographic clines, which seem to preserve in modern space changes that occurred in evolutionary time, can be viewed as supporting the punctuational model, because continuous clines that record gradual evolution within large populations represent gentle morphologic trends, while stepped clines seem to record rapid divergence of small populations. (4) Net morphologic changes along major phylogenetic pathways generally represent such minuscule mean selection coefficients that nonepisodic modes of transition are highly likely. Quantum speciation or stepwise evolution within lineages is implied. (5) The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
The bold-faced text is that which Wallace quotes. Within the context of the whole paragraph, does it seem that Stanley thinks species do not evolve or that there are absolutely no transitional fossils? Clearly, Stanley is simply making a case for the punctuational model. "
Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. Steven M. Stanley. 1979.
Now this one is a doozy. The bold-faced type wallace quoted completely in context is.
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.""
1. Wallace agrees that Stanley is "making a case for PE." I used the same quote, and incredibly was told this was not part of the case for PE, but oh well.
"Within the context of the whole paragraph, does it seem that Stanley thinks species do not evolve or that there are absolutely no transitional fossils?"
There is no evidence or sense that Wallace is trying to fool the reader into thinking Stanley is a creationist as TalkOrigins asserts. That appears to be a calculated lie, or maybe the writer is just plain brainwashed to some extent.
2. Stanley lists 5 pieces of "less conclusive evidence." This comment of Stanley's then is in itself about the actual data, the evidence, and not a conclusion, or an opinion in Stanley's view.
3. The context here thus strengthens Wallace's point, and shows that he is completely right in what the statement says. The context shows that Stanley considers "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid" to be a true and factual assessment of the data. In no way, does the context lessen the meaning of the data, and in fact, since the data is used as an argument for a change in evolutionary theory, the statement and data is made all the more relevant when considered in its original context.
Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. Steven M. Stanley. 1979.
Wallace is again misrepresenting what is being explained. The author is simply pointing out that the gradual model is not capable of explaining the fossil record, and that the punctuational model is a better explanation. The full quotation clearly makes this point:
"Some distinctive living species clearly originated in the very recent past, during brief instants of geologic time. Thus, quantum speciation is a real phenomenon. Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuational model). Less conclusive evidence is as follows: (1)Very weak gene flow among populations of a species (a common phenomenon) argues against gradualism, because without efficient gene flow, phyletics evolution is stymied. (2) Many levels of spatial heterogeneity normally characterize populations in nature, and at some level, the conflict between gene flow subpopulations and selection pressure within subpopulations should oppose evolutionary divergence of large segments of the gene pool; only small populations are likely to diverge rapidly. (3) Geographic clines, which seem to preserve in modern space changes that occurred in evolutionary time, can be viewed as supporting the punctuational model, because continuous clines that record gradual evolution within large populations represent gentle morphologic trends, while stepped clines seem to record rapid divergence of small populations. (4) Net morphologic changes along major phylogenetic pathways generally represent such minuscule mean selection coefficients that nonepisodic modes of transition are highly likely. Quantum speciation or stepwise evolution within lineages is implied. (5) The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
The bold-faced text is that which Wallace quotes. Within the context of the whole paragraph, does it seem that Stanley thinks species do not evolve or that there are absolutely no transitional fossils? Clearly, Stanley is simply making a case for the punctuational model. "
Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. Steven M. Stanley. 1979.
Now this one is a doozy. The bold-faced type wallace quoted completely in context is.
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.""
1. Wallace agrees that Stanley is "making a case for PE." I used the same quote, and incredibly was told this was not part of the case for PE, but oh well.
"Within the context of the whole paragraph, does it seem that Stanley thinks species do not evolve or that there are absolutely no transitional fossils?"
There is no evidence or sense that Wallace is trying to fool the reader into thinking Stanley is a creationist as TalkOrigins asserts. That appears to be a calculated lie, or maybe the writer is just plain brainwashed to some extent.
2. Stanley lists 5 pieces of "less conclusive evidence." This comment of Stanley's then is in itself about the actual data, the evidence, and not a conclusion, or an opinion in Stanley's view.
3. The context here thus strengthens Wallace's point, and shows that he is completely right in what the statement says. The context shows that Stanley considers "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid" to be a true and factual assessment of the data. In no way, does the context lessen the meaning of the data, and in fact, since the data is used as an argument for a change in evolutionary theory, the statement and data is made all the more relevant when considered in its original context.
Upvote
0
An appeal to authority, however, must accurately reflect the expressed opinion of the authority that is appealed to: else it is dishonest.
what the hell is wrong with that? If I say Darwin believed that the moon was made of cheese, its a misrepresentation. If you are going to argue from authority, you have a duty to accurately represent the authorities actual opinion. Sure, you can disagree with their opinion, but you must make it clear what that opinion actually is. Creationists often use selective quotation to make arguments based on authority which misrepresent the actual authorities opinions. You can't possibly claim they don't
what the hell is wrong with that? If I say Darwin believed that the moon was made of cheese, its a misrepresentation. If you are going to argue from authority, you have a duty to accurately represent the authorities actual opinion. Sure, you can disagree with their opinion, but you must make it clear what that opinion actually is. Creationists often use selective quotation to make arguments based on authority which misrepresent the actual authorities opinions. You can't possibly claim they don't
Upvote
0
randman, your most recent post is ridiculous, you sorely need to invest in a dictionary, the five pieces of less conclusive evidence are clearly not just statements of raw data, but include interpretation and opinion. Does wallace mention that stanley believes in punctuated equlibrium? if not, then I'd say there is misprepresentation
Upvote
0
Where does it say that scientists don't sometimes draw different conclusions from the same data? Hint: it does not. And there is utterly no claim that scientists do not use data of other scientists. Indeed the use of data was not even being discussed in that section.
The creationists were citing the conclusions of a scientist in the extremely minority as if those conclusions proved anything. But when the very same scientist said something that completely contradicted what the conclusion the creationists want us to reach he suddenly is of no interest to the creationists. And note the creationists in this case were citing the a conclusions of scientists and not their data.
In any event lets look at the entire paragraph randman quotes from. What is in bold was not quoted by randman.
I just knew I never claimed or implied that scientists don't use other scientists' data and draw different conclusions. There it is: in the next sentence saying that you can draw a different conclusion.
Furthermore lets look at the specific creationist quotation used as an example in this section:
Notice absolutely none of Dr. Feduccia's data was discussed nor was any of his reasonings. The only thing cited was his conclusion. Was Archie a feathered dinosaur? The answer is no because Feduccia said so!?!?
The purpose of the creationist article is to show that
Archie was not a transitional form. On this issue
Feduccia has been very clear that the answer is clearly yes. Now is it not just a little inconsistent to insist because a scientist says A it must be true, but when that scientist says B it can be ignored? Why is Feduccia's say-so good when he says something that the creationists want ot hear but not when he says something they do not?
Upvote
0
Wrong. First the whole appeal to authority argument is bogus here, but to answer you, the appeal in these cases is not to the author's opinion, or conclusions, but to the actual data. The critic is using the data of the advocates of Punctuated Equilibrium. These advocates use specific data, facts, to argue for their modification of evolutionary theory. The creationist is simply using those same facts, but arguing for a different scenario. The quotes concerning the data are merely to prove that paleontologists who are ardent evolutionists still agree with some of the creationist's contentions on certain facts, which are spelled out quite clearly. There is no taking quotes out of context, and the meaning of the quotes has not been altered by the creationists.
Basically, what TalkOrigins is saying is that you can't use our data if you disagree with our conclusions about it. This is subtle thought process engineering that is totally false and dangerous.
Basically, what TalkOrigins is saying is that you can't use our data if you disagree with our conclusions about it. This is subtle thought process engineering that is totally false and dangerous.
Upvote
0
Evolutionists are trying to make the case that if you quote someone on one piece of data, or an opinion, that you must a gree with them overall, and this is just bogus.
The point about the UNC professor was to show that it was not a FACT that Archy was a dinosaur as stated in Talkorigins. Nothing wrong with quoting an evolutionist who thinks that, nothing wrong at all, and it amazes me how anyone can think it is.
"Now is it not just a little inconsistent to insist because a scientist says A it must be true, but when that scientist says B it can be ignored?"
That's a pretty shocking statement in context. Obviously, when a creationist quotes an evolutionist, it is clear he disagrees with him in a major way. What you are stating is that it is wrong to consider someone's data if you disagree with him, and this is doubly wierd since the purpose in the quote is merely to show that there are even some evolutionists who don't consider this a bird, and I might add there is still a strong faction, maybe small, that disagrees over bird/dinosaur issues in evolution.
The point about the UNC professor was to show that it was not a FACT that Archy was a dinosaur as stated in Talkorigins. Nothing wrong with quoting an evolutionist who thinks that, nothing wrong at all, and it amazes me how anyone can think it is.
"Now is it not just a little inconsistent to insist because a scientist says A it must be true, but when that scientist says B it can be ignored?"
That's a pretty shocking statement in context. Obviously, when a creationist quotes an evolutionist, it is clear he disagrees with him in a major way. What you are stating is that it is wrong to consider someone's data if you disagree with him, and this is doubly wierd since the purpose in the quote is merely to show that there are even some evolutionists who don't consider this a bird, and I might add there is still a strong faction, maybe small, that disagrees over bird/dinosaur issues in evolution.
Upvote
0
This certainly is not from the Quotations and Misquotations FAQ nor is found in The Talk.Origins Archive
whatsoever.
Google found the source:
http://www.mindspring.com/~duckster/evolution/transitional.html
Furthermore this article does clearly show out-of-context quoting. I encourage people check the above URL for themselves.
Upvote
0
You don't have to be a Christian to be able to read the Bible, the worthy one.
You and others are more than welcome to use science in these debates but it help your cause greatly to be honest about it.
Upvote
0
"randman, your most recent post is ridiculous, you sorely need to invest in a dictionary, the five pieces of less conclusive evidence are clearly not just statements of raw data, but include interpretation and opinion."
They are given in the context here as data, which is what counts in terms of arguing if the quotes are taken out of context. Wether they are actually data is basically not relevant. Look at it this way. We are arguing over something. I point out that we need a tax cut because the deficit is too large. You state we shouldn't cut taxes because we don't want to make the deficit smaller.
Would it be right for me to say, hey, the appeal to the facts about the large deficit is my idea. You can't use that, why, that's just dishonest.
Whether all 5 points were facts is certainly debatable, but the fact Stanley at that time pointed out a specific peice of data in point 5 in his mind is not.
They are given in the context here as data, which is what counts in terms of arguing if the quotes are taken out of context. Wether they are actually data is basically not relevant. Look at it this way. We are arguing over something. I point out that we need a tax cut because the deficit is too large. You state we shouldn't cut taxes because we don't want to make the deficit smaller.
Would it be right for me to say, hey, the appeal to the facts about the large deficit is my idea. You can't use that, why, that's just dishonest.
Whether all 5 points were facts is certainly debatable, but the fact Stanley at that time pointed out a specific peice of data in point 5 in his mind is not.
Upvote
0
Here are the quotes Wallace used, good ones I might add.
"This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:
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 (evolutionist), Paleontology and Uniformitariansim. Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil recordwhere it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):
Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]
If that werent enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:
The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:
Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesnt even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories. [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:
Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:
At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the official position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequencesmore than enough (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these superb examples were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanationnot unheard of among evolutionistswould be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils
"This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:
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 (evolutionist), Paleontology and Uniformitariansim. Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil recordwhere it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):
Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]
If that werent enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:
The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:
Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesnt even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories. [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:
Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:
At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the official position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequencesmore than enough (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these superb examples were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanationnot unheard of among evolutionistswould be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils
Upvote
0
Either you have a serious reading problem or you are outright lying.
What part of this sentence do you not understand?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
