Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[Hieronymus]

So you're getting them from a dishonest source to begin with.
Why aren't you actually getting them from the proper sources and actually quoting them in full?

Too many words.
They did it for me

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Too many words.
They did it for me

Says it all, really.

 

[Hieronymus]

Yep.

No man, like begets like is stasis, although variation within the 'like' (or kind) is often mistakenly called evolution.

 

[Hieronymus]

Says it all, really.

Exactly, the quotes say it all.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Exactly, the quotes say it all.

No, you saying that they actual quotes are too long for you says it all about you.
You have the audacity to say that these scientists, who have spent years studying their fields and so much more learned than you, are all wrong, although you will spent ZERO time actually looking up their actual quotes and works to find out what they actually say.

 

[Loudmouth]

No man, like begets like is stasis, although variation within the 'like' (or kind) is often mistakenly called evolution.

Variation within kind is exactly what evolution is.

Man and chimps are both primates, as was our common ancestor. Primate begetting primate.

Man and bear are both mammals, as was our common ancestor. Mammal begetting mammal.

Man and reptile are both amniotes, as was our common ancestor. Amniote begetting amniote.

Man and fish are both vertebrates, as was our common ancestor. Vertebrate begetting vertebrate.

Man and amoeba are both eukaryotes, as was our common ancestor. Eukaryote begetting eukaryote.

Kind begetting kind all the way back to the beginning.

 

[Hieronymus]

No, you saying that they actual quotes are too long for you says it all about you.

The OP would be way too long.

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly, the quotes say it all.

Just as the Bible says that God does not exist.

"There is no God" Psalm 14:1

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The OP would be way too long.

But it would be so much more honest and so much more scientifically accurate. Plus, it would reflect so much better on you.
Here's a fact about anything worth learning about: it will ALWAYS be long.

 

[Hieronymus]

But it would be so much more honest and so much more scientifically accurate. Plus, it would reflect so much better on you.

I agree with you there.
It would have been better.

Here's a fact about anything worth learning about: it will ALWAYS be long.

True, most of the times.
But i was just trying to illustrate the commitment to naturalism and the unwillingness to accept a divine foot in the door.
Because that's not what they usually tell us / admit to when they push these mandatory truths down our throats.
Many Christians believe that science has eliminated God with evidence, but they have eliminated Him by choice, by an a priori commitment to naturalism.

 

[Loudmouth]

But i was just trying to illustrate the commitment to naturalism and the unwillingness to accept a divine foot in the door.

The commitment is to logic, reason, and facts. The unwillingness you are talking about is the unwillingness to accept faith based beliefs over conclusions backed by mountains of evidence.

If you can, please tell us why we should ignore mountains of evidence simply because you want something else to be true.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I agree with you there.
It would have been better.

Indeed it would.

True, most of the times.

No. ALL of the time.

But i was just trying to illustrate the commitment to naturalism and the unwillingness to accept a divine foot in the door.

No, you just repeated shoddy creationist rhetoric and lies to fit in with your dogmatic reading of the Bible, and you have only shown your arrogance in your refusal to read that ACTUAL scientific literature and then to go and falsely claim that you know that all of these scientists are wrong when you very likely have only the most basic education in the sciences.

 

[Hieronymus]

i didn't expect you to agree.

 

[Loudmouth]

i didn't expect you to agree.

We don't expect you to honestly represent the words of others.

 

[Cimorene]

Too many words.
They did it for me

Who is "they"? How come you haven't just posted the sources you're quote mining from? You said they're from creationist videos, so post the videos. Did you do this kind of dishonest junk when you were in school? Just be super lazy & copy the (wrong) conclusions someone else came up w instead of putting in any effort to learn things & think for yourself?

 

[The Cadet]

These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable and irreversible.
...the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter.
(T Dobzhansky "American Scientist" vol. 45 p. 388)

So... When you said "I'm sorry" earlier in the thread, I'm left to assume that that was also a lie. You're doing it again. The exact same thing. You're taking an out-of-context quote from a source you've never read without checking it and presenting it stripped of its context to mean something it does not mean. And you're apparently taking it from the exact same dishonest source you got your other crap quotes without checking it. What Dobzhansky was bemoaning here was not the lack of evidence for evolution, but rather the unreasonable standard of evidence demanded by creationists when they demand that we repeat the hypothesis rather than the observations.

Please stop pretending you care whether these quotes are accurate. You clearly don't.

 

[Hieronymus]

Who is "they"?

The video makers.

How come you haven't just posted the sources you're quote mining from?

I explained that a few times now.

You said they're from creationist videos, so post the videos.

No,i decided to post the quotes, i explained why.

 

[Cimorene]

The video makers.I explained that a few timesnow.No,i decided to post the quotes, i explained why.

What videomakers? If you trust them so much you're willing let them do all the thinking for you then you should be fine w posting the links. Not to be rude, but if you care about this how come you're so lazy about it? Edit. It looks like all you do is cut & paste bc all their names are in a tiny font. Are the quotes all below the videos or something?

 

[Jimmy D]

So... When you said "I'm sorry" earlier in the thread, I'm left to assume that that was also a lie. You're doing it again. The exact same thing. You're taking an out-of-context quote from a source you've never read without checking it and presenting it stripped of its context to mean something it does not mean. And you're apparently taking it from the exact same dishonest source you got your other crap quotes without checking it. What Dobzhansky was bemoaning here was not the lack of evidence for evolution, but rather the unreasonable standard of evidence demanded by creationists when they demand that we repeat the hypothesis rather than the observations.

Please stop pretending you care whether these quotes are accurate. You clearly don't.

Just for the record Biologos has the quote in full....

“On the other hand, it is manifestly impossible to reproduce in the laboratory the evolution of man from the australopithecine, or of the modern horse from an Eohippus, or of a land vertebrate from a fish-like ancestor. These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter. And yet, it is just such impossibility that is demanded by antievolutionists when they ask for “proofs” of evolution which they would magnanimously accept as satisfactory. This is about as reasonable a demand as it would be to ask an astronomer to recreate the planetary system, or to ask an historian to reenact the history of the world from Caesar to Eisenhower” (Dobzhansky 1957, p. 388).

Clearly, the key form of impossibility Dobzhansky has in mind in this passage is the impossibility of experimentally observing or bringing about the evolutionary transformation of a fish-like ancestor into a land-dwelling tetrapod, say, because of both the time limitations and the contingency involved in such a transformation. There is no hint here that experimental methods cannot be applied to evolution as Morris suggests. Rather, the theme of Dobzhansky’s American Scientist article is that “The chief method of evolutionary biology is the experimental method”[4] and he gives numerous examples of this.

The fact that you keep repeating this dishonest tactic reflects very badly on you. Do you not wonder why these videos are feeding you this garbage? I realize you must really want to believe it, but why is that?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of course the natural sciences work.

Clearly that can't be your actual opinion, since you reject the backbone theory of biology.