Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[whois]

Several years ago on another site I had a back-and-forth with a person on in a very similar way. The paleontologist who was quote mined was Henry Gee. Gee was making an argument for transitional fossils by first providing a scenario where there were none, which was followed by the explanation how that was wrong and how it was known that it was indeed well shown in the fossil record. That persons argument against evolution was that, "well, he said it"; even admitting, they understood it was out of context, but continuing that "he said it". The though process of some people just completely amaze me.

i provide the context for the quotes.
see post 53 for the source, see post 87 for supporting evidence.
the ONLY dissenting evidence comes from an anti religious agenda site.

 

[bhsmte]

i provide the context for the quotes.
see post 53 for the source, see post 87 for supporting evidence.
the ONLY dissenting evidence comes from an anti religious agenda site.

You are very good at providing specific quotes.

The problem is, the selective quotes you provide, are destroyed by the very people you quote, when one investigates their complete positions on the matters and claims you make.

Yet, you keep doing it. Some strong denial you have going there.

 

[Loudmouth]

yes.

The author of the piece is Royce Rensberger, not Niles Eldredge. Also, it is a writer for the NY Times, not a scientific journal. Reporters get things wrong all of the time. Ask any scientist.

Sorry, this just doesn't hold up.

 

[whois]

The author of the piece is Royce Rensberger, not Niles Eldredge. Also, it is a writer for the NY Times, not a scientific journal. Reporters get things wrong all of the time. Ask any scientist.

Sorry, this just doesn't hold up.

a prime example of confirmation bias.
if this article could somehow keep you out of prison, you would cling to it until you died.
you would do your absolute best to confirm it, instead of waving it away, like you just did.
boyce (the writer) is not a creationist, and a matter of fact, an evolutionist.
also, he was at the conference where the source in post 53 was transcribed.

 

[bhsmte]

a prime example of confirmation bias.
if this article could somehow keep you out of prison, you would cling to it until you died.
you would do your absolute best to confirm it, instead of waving it away, like you just did.
boyce (the writer) is not a creationist, and a matter of fact, an evolutionist.
also, he was at the conference where the source in post 53 was transcribed.

Weak, real weak.

 

[Larniavc]

I'm sure atheists would disagree with you on this.

They wouldn't agree with me either, but they would disagree with you as well.

I can't see any evidence to contradict a god using natural methods to get the universe to the state we see it.

It is quite possible to believe in a god without the evidence contradicting 6000 year time scale.

I know this for a fact because I know several self reported Christians and none of thing think the Earth is 6000 years old.

 

[Loudmouth]

a prime example of confirmation bias.
if this article could somehow keep you out of prison, you would cling to it until you died.
you would do your absolute best to confirm it, instead of waving it away, like you just did.
boyce (the writer) is not a creationist, and a matter of fact, an evolutionist.
also, he was at the conference where the source in post 53 was transcribed.

Why don't you quote material that Niles Eldredge actually wrote?

 

[RickG]

i provide the context for the quotes.
see post 53 for the source, see post 87 for supporting evidence.
the ONLY dissenting evidence comes from an anti religious agenda site.

I believe you just topped the example I mentioned.

 

[bhsmte]

I believe you just topped the example I mentioned.

Yep. That hole just keeps getting dug a little bit deeper, with every post.

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe you just topped the example I mentioned.

"Finally, it is a sign of the creationists' attitude toward the issues involved that they would quote a journalist from an article in the popular press on a question of science. As good a journalist as Mr. Rensberger may be, such an article can give only superficial treatment to complex issues. Just made to order for their agenda."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html

 

[RickG]

"Finally, it is a sign of the creationists' attitude toward the issues involved that they would quote a journalist from an article in the popular press on a question of science. As good a journalist as Mr. Rensberger may be, such an article can give only superficial treatment to complex issues. Just made to order for their agenda."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html

Ha! a quote mine of a quote mine of a quote mine, of a quote mine.......ad nausium.

Did you know that the bible says that "there is no God"? Hey, I'm quoting from the bible, and it says it about a half dozen times.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ha! a quote mine of a quote mine of a quote mine, of a quote mine.......ad nausium.

Did you know that the bible says that "there is no God"? Hey, I'm quoting from the bible, and it says it about a half dozen times.

Niles Eldredge wrote multiple books on evolution, not to mention numerous primary research papers. You shouldn't have to go to a NY Times article containing an third hand account of what Eldredge may have said in order to get Eldredge's opinion on evolution and transitional forms. Only someone trying to avoid Edlredge's real opinion would have to go to such lengths as a third hand account at the NY Times.

 

[Loudmouth]

I can't believe I haven't run across this before. Niles Eldredge wrote a book entitled, "The Triumph of Evolution: And the Failure of Creationism". How did I not know this.

Anyway, if anyone feels like piling on, it can be found on Google Books for quoting purposes.

https://books.google.com/books?hl=e...&q=niles eldredge transitional fossil&f=false

Just from a 5 minute skim, it seems like a well written book (and rife with quotations that whois will spend multiple posts trying to avoid).

 

[whois]

attacking me, an ad hom, will not change a thing about the article, the conference, or what was said there.
roger lewin faced a similar scenario, an award winning science writer that earn a prestigious position with science, all of a sudden becomes the biggest liar that misrepresents scientists the world has ever known.
some of you have even witnessed such a thing in action recently.

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

Where is Kent Hovind when you need him; oh yea, they put him in jail for beating up atheists in technical debates.

Look out he's back on the street: Kent Hovind OFFICIAL

 

[ebia]

Where is Kent Hovind when you need him; oh yea, they put him in jail for beating up atheists in technical debates.

Look out he's back on the street: Kent Hovind OFFICIAL

Tax collectors are atheists?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where is Kent Hovind when you need him; oh yea, they put him in jail for beating up atheists in technical debates.

Look out he's back on the street: Kent Hovind OFFICIAL

What are you talking about? Only the terribly ignorant think that Kent won any debates. If you are caught lying time after time in debates you are usually not considered to be a winner.

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

Tax collectors are atheists?

20 Facts Proving Immoral Deviants Imprisoned Kent Hovind

This guy is a real gem: John David Roy Atchison

Call them what you want, "heroes" ?

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

What are you talking about? Only the terribly ignorant think that Kent won any debates. If you are caught lying time after time in debates you are usually not considered to be a winner.

He is asking for questions, maybe you can stump him and catch him in a lie?

 

[RickG]

Don't feed the ..... um .... lion.