Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

Hieronymus · Apr 17, 2016

Let's try this another way.
I'm not replying to all but-hurt comments anymore.

Let me say this though:
I can appreciate the quotes are problematic to those who bought into the teachings of the church of naturalism.
The reason for posting it is not to hurt anybody's feelings, but i realise it is inevitable.
But then again, most of the complainers aren't even Christians, so they know they can expect things they don't like on a Christian forum.

Today i plan to cherry-pick some mined quotes from the OP, so that the topic would be more about the quotes than about quibbling.

lasthero · Apr 17, 2016

Hieronymus said:
I can appreciate the quotes are problematic to those who bought into the teachings of the church of naturalism.

It seems more like they're problematic because many of them aren't an accurate representation of what the speaker was saying.

Hieronymus · Apr 17, 2016

Gene2memE said:

It still says the same, theyŕe accurate representations.
References are provided too (not everywhere though), so you can look it up like you did.
Thanks.

Hieronymus · Apr 17, 2016

"natural science" is not a pleonasm.

Gene2memE · Apr 17, 2016

Hieronymus said:
It still says the same, theyŕe accurate representations.

No, they're blatant quote mines. Stripped of context, they are statements tortured to misconstrue or pervert their original intent.

Secondly, science is not a religion and no scientist, or group of scientists, is beyond question. What matters is that there is evidence to support your hypothesis.

Hieronymus · Apr 17, 2016

Gene2memE said:
No, they're blatant quote mines. Stripped of context, they are statements tortured to misconstrue or pervert their original intent.

Nope, sorry.

Secondly, science is not a religion

I never said or implied it is.

and no scientist, or group of scientists, is beyond question.

Who are you trying to convince?

What matters is that there is evidence to support your hypothesis.

Another lie...

The Cadet · Apr 17, 2016

Hieronymus said:
It still says the same, theyŕe accurate representations.

Really? You think "while ID arguments may be true" is the same thing as "while ID arguments may be true (we aren't evaluating that)"? If so, why didn't you post the original quote? Why excise that tiny segment? Why not just post "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science."? The answer is because it does not mean the same thing, and you know that.

Hieronymus · Apr 17, 2016

The Cadet said:
Really?

Yes.

I tried to save some space.

You see, when searching for our origins, neither ID, creation nor "dead unconscious things preforming miracles" is science.
I explained this to you several times now.

Hieronymus · Apr 17, 2016

This one is nice:

Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally.
(A Gefter, "Existence: Why is there a universe?", New Scientist, 2822 p. 27-28 (2011))

Hieronymus · Apr 17, 2016

This one is just embarrassing:

The universe can spontaneously create itself out of nothing.
(Steven Hawking)

As if something that doesn't yet exist can create itself....
A logical fallacy of course.

bhsmte · Apr 17, 2016

Entertaining thread.

For those of you interested in seeing cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and denial in action, this is textbook stuff.

Hieronymus · Apr 17, 2016

@The Cadet

...unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England.
This part of the theory [evolution has occurred] is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test.
(C Patterson "Evolution" p.15)

Historical event, you see.
Not part of science (in that respect).

Hieronymus · Apr 17, 2016

The extreme rarity [i.e. absence] of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists ... we view our data as so bad that we never see the process we profess to study
(SJ Gould, Harvard "Natural History" vol. 86)

Subduction Zone · Apr 17, 2016

Hieronymus said:
No,you can see in the quote that it's only the essence and the 'chaff' is not quoted.
It still means the same, as you may have noticed.

I am betting that according to you it does not. In your own words, what do you think that Judge Jones said?

The Cadet · Apr 17, 2016

Hieronymus said:
The extreme rarity [i.e. absence] of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists ... we view our data as so bad that we never see the process we profess to study
(SJ Gould, Harvard "Natural History" vol. 86)

Hieronymus, have you ever read the passage this was originally published in? Or even just the surrounding material? Do you think this quote accurately represents what Gould was talking about? And if so, could you tell me what Gould was referring to by "our data"? Or just explain what he was talking about in general?

The Cadet · Apr 17, 2016

Hieronymus said:
Historical event, you see.
Not part of science (in that respect).

So in other words, if a murder happened last year, we have no way of scientifically reconstructing it and determining who the killer was?

Subduction Zone · Apr 17, 2016

Hieronymus said:
The extreme rarity [i.e. absence] of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists ... we view our data as so bad that we never see the process we profess to study
(SJ Gould, Harvard "Natural History" vol. 86)

A forty year old claim of Gould's and taken out of context at that. Please note that he said that transitional forms are rare. That is expected of evolution since those occur in times of relatively low populations. But we have had more time since Gould. We have found many more fossils since his time. Now the fossil record is thought to be all but complete. Yes, we will continue to make "new finds", but the answers they are answering now are smaller and smaller ones.

Hieronymus · Apr 17, 2016

Subduction Zone said:
I am betting that according to you it does not. In your own words, what do you think that Judge Jones said?

"We find that while ID arguments may be true, ... ID is not science."
"may be", he doesn't say it is or isn't.
But the same would apply to evolution theories regarding the distant past.
However, it is also strange that potential truth is not science.
Science means knowledge, and it is the human endeavour to investigate reality in order to find the truth.

"This part of the theory [evolution has occurred] is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test."
(C Patterson "Evolution" p.15)

The Cadet · Apr 17, 2016

Hieronymus said:
"We find that while ID arguments may be true, ... ID is not science."
"may be", he doesn't say it is or isn't.

Great. Then why leave out the context? If it means the same thing, just post the quote without the truncation.

Subduction Zone · Apr 17, 2016

Hieronymus said:
"We find that while ID arguments may be true, ... ID is not science."
"may be", he doesn't say it is or isn't.

Yes, he is keeping an open mind. I could also say "I may fall all the way up to the Moon and eat Green Cheese for as long as I wish". It does not make it too likely to happen. Please note in the part that you cut out he explains why it is not too likely. Also, he pointed out that ID is not scientific, that means that it is religious and not legal to teach in schools. ID is not testable, it is a weak ad hoc explanation that has no scientific values or traits.

But the same would apply to evolution theories regarding the distant past.

Why do you say that? You are wrong of course.

However, it is also strange that potential truth is not science.
Science means knowledge, and it is the human endeavour to investigate reality in order to find the truth.

As I pointed out by quote mining the source you did not understand it. He explained why it is not testable. How would you test ID? Don't be ashamed because you can't, no one one your side figured out that problems.

"This part of the theory [evolution has occurred] is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test."
(C Patterson "Evolution" p.15)

Sorry, that is another quote mine and is worthless in a debate.

Somewhere in 2 Kings:

"there is no God".

That is three times now that I have quoted the Bible for you. Clearly it says there is no God.

Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

SO COOL

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

SO COOL

SO COOL

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

SO COOL

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency