Why Evolution is True (2)

[dad]

Prophesies of the future have to be clear otherwise they are worthless as prophesy.

The term when 'the Lord reigneth' Is quite clear.

You just don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think you mistook my dissent list with your project steve.

You don't have a dissent list. That's the point.

You also try to play up the qualifications of the signatories which turned out to be electrical and computer engineers.

secondly that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

It has everything to do with what we are talking about. It is about your tendency to uncritically copy and paste creationist material full of lies.

thirdly are you saying that a research paper doesnt have to do what you are asking me to do?

A research paper does have to honestly quote material, which you don't do, nor do your lying creationist sources.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yet another logic fail.

gradyll are (educate and do not dis, educate and do not did)? Your logic is failing you left and right.

? please retype

You proved nothing about the quote from Paine. No one even implied that quote was about creationism, though it could be said to be a quote against evil, which creationism clearly is.

I don't know how to explain this to you. Go back and read the posts another ten times. If you still don't understand me please PM me.

another misrepresentation. I said the paine quote has nothing to do with evolution. being it is posted on an unreligious webpage regarding winning and losing debates, the paine quote was not talking about evolution debate at all. seems like you misrepresented my statement once again.

 

[createdtoworship]

You don't have a dissent list. That's the point.

You also try to play up the qualifications of the signatories which turned out to be electrical and computer engineers.
n

who was a computer engineer? do you have evidence or did you read this on facebook?

it has everything to do with what we are talking about. It is about your tendency to uncritically copy and paste creationist material full of lies.



A research paper does have to honestly quote material, which you don't do, nor do your lying creationist sources.

its a red herring and a strawman. and a poor one at that as it has nothing to do with quotations.

 

[dad]

dad, you are wrong again. I don't use the word "lie" wildly. I use it when someone has been shown to be lying.

I don't believe you.

Quote mining is lying. Creationists make a regular practice of it. In fact most of the so called "300 prophecies" of Jesus are actually quote mines. They are verses taken out of context.

False. A verse can and often does contain the prophesy in one part of the verse. It is not a bad thing to refer to the prophesy bit in the quote at all.

Now if an unbeliever who understood squat, and wanted to misrepresent the little he did know snipped a bit of a verse, that is a different matter.

Now if you check out that quote you will see that it is correct. You will also see that it is out of context. That makes it a quote mine or a lie. Since creationists have been caught quote mining scientists time after time there is a rule that they must provide links to the source or what they have is a quote mine until they prove otherwise.

If a scientist (are they less plentiful than cab drivers?) says something and a portion of that actually points out that perhaps they don't 'really' something, or whatever, one MAY use the relevant portion of the paragraph. Long as the link is given so people can check the context.

In general, in any debate, if a person quotes his foe he must provide a valid link. If I quote the Bible I must provide a link or at the very least a verse number that can easily be looked up.

Like you failed to do for your flat earth nonsense, or accusations that the bible does not support a different state past..etc etc? Pot, meet kettle.

Meanwhile you use the word "lie" wildly. You use it whenever you disagree with someone about the Bible but cannot make your case.

If I use it be sure I refer to a lie, usually a damnable lie.

 

[Loudmouth]

"What good is half a jaw or half a wing? .. These tales, in the 'Just-So Stories' tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything..concepts salvage only by facile speculation do not appeal much to me." *Steven Jay Gould, "The Return of the Hopeful Monsters", Natural History, June/July, 1977.

One of gradyll's misquotes.

Notice the use of not one, but two ellipses. The amount of material left out is quite criminal, but standard dishonesty on the part of creationists. If they are willing to do this to other writings, imagine what they are willing to do to the Bible?

Anyway, the SJG essay can be found here, and here is the whole quote in context with no ellipses[/I]:

What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no, and I invoke two recently supported cases of discontinuous change in my defense.

On the isolated island of Mauritius, former home of the dodo, two genera of boid snakes (a large group that includes pythons and boa constrictors) share a feature present in no other terrestrial vertebrate: the maxillary bone of the upperjaw is split into front and rear halves, connected by a movable joint. In 1970, my friend Tom Frazzetta published a paper entitled "From Hopeful Monsters to Bolyerine Snakes?" He considered every preadaptive possibility he could imagine and rejected them in favor of discontinuous transition. How can a jawbone be half broken?

Many rodents have check pouches for storing food. These internal pouches connect to the pharynx and may have evolved gradually under selective pressure for holding more and more food in the mouth. But the Geomyidae (pocket gophers) and Heteromyidae (kangaroo rats and pocket mice) have invaginated their cheeks to form external fur-lined pouches with no connection to the mouth or pharynx. What good is an incipient groove or furrow on the outside? Did such hypothetical ancestors run about three-legged while holding a few scraps of food in an imperfect crease with their fourth leg? Charles A. Long has recently considered a suite of preadaptive possibilities (external grooves in burrowing animals to transport Soil, for example) and rejected them all in favor of discontinuous transition. These tales, in the "just-so story" tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything. But the weight of these, and many similar cases, wore down my faith in gradualism long ago. More inventive minds may yet save it, but concepts salvaged only by facile speculation do not appeal much to me.

​

If you read the whole essay, you will see that Gould supports the idea that morphological traits made big jumps, and he even offers early changes in embryonic development as a plausible mechanism.

Gould is far from rejecting evolution, even if he questions gradualism at every step.

 

[Loudmouth]

who was a computer engineer? do you have evidence or did you read this on facebook?

It's right there in the list. Do a word search, for crying out loud.

its a red herring and a strawman. and a poor one at that as it has nothing to do with quotations.

No, it isn't. You use quote mines. A lot.

 

[dad]

dad, you are wrong again. I don't use the word "lie" wildly. I use it when someone has been shown to be lying.

I don't believe you.

Quote mining is lying. Creationists make a regular practice of it. In fact most of the so called "300 prophecies" of Jesus are actually quote mines. They are verses taken out of context.

False. A verse can and often does contain the prophesy in one part of the verse. It is not a bad thing to refer to the prophesy bit in the quote at all.

Now if an unbeliever who understood squat, and wanted to misrepresent the little he did know snipped a bit of a verse, that is a different matter.

Now if you check out that quote you will see that it is correct. You will also see that it is out of context. That makes it a quote mine or a lie. Since creationists have been caught quote mining scientists time after time there is a rule that they must provide links to the source or what they have is a quote mine until they prove otherwise.

If a scientist (are they less plentiful than cab drivers?) says something and a portion of that actually points out that perhaps they don't 'really' something, or whatever, one MAY use the relevant portion of the paragraph. Long as the link is given so people can check the context.

In general, in any debate, if a person quotes his foe he must provide a valid link. If I quote the Bible I must provide a link or at the very least a verse number that can easily be looked up.

Like you failed to do for your flat earth nonsense, or accusations that the bible does not support a different state past..etc etc? Pot, meet kettle.

Meanwhile you use the word "lie" wildly. You use it whenever you disagree with someone about the Bible but cannot make your case.

If I use it be sure I refer to a lie, usually a damnable lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't believe you.

That's okay. Nobody believes you.

False. A verse can and often does contain the prophesy in one part of the verse. It is not a bad thing to refer to the prophesy bit in the quote at all.

Your sort of prophesy lowers all Biblical prophesy to the level of Nostradamus. And very often you perform the sin of retranslating the Bible in light of today's knowledge. That by definition is not a Biblical prophesy.

Now if an unbeliever who understood squat, and wanted to misrepresent the little he did know snipped a bit of a verse, that is a different matter.

But I have never done that. In fact since I don't abuse the Bible I can show that my understanding of the Bible is better than yours. You have to abuse the Bible to get it to support you. Most Christians think that that is blasphemy.

If a scientist (are they less plentiful than cab drivers?) says something and a portion of that actually points out that perhaps they don't 'really' something, or whatever, one MAY use the relevant portion of the paragraph. Long as the link is given so people can check the context.

Dream on dad. And keep being a hypocrite while you are at it. Without the advances of science you would be dead now. No cars to drive, no gas to burn and no food to eat. To say nothing about being able to get on the internet and misrepresent the Bible.

Like you failed to do for your flat earth nonsense, or accusations that the bible does not support a different state past..etc etc? Pot, meet kettle.

I never failed with my Flat Earth claim since I have not posted the verses yet. You failed by not even following the conversation or understanding your own Bible. You thought stationary Earth verses were Flat Earth verses. You then totally failed to defend their error since the only way you could do that was with your delusional state.

Do please try to follow the conversation.

If I use it be sure I refer to a lie, usually a damnable lie.

You have to remember that I do not have to lie, unlike you, all of the scientific evidence is on my side. And it seems the Biblical evidence is on my side too. I never have to refer to a delusional state.

[/quote]

 

[createdtoworship]

It's right there in the list. Do a word search, for crying out loud.

You are correct that there are computer science phd's and professors on that list.
However, if this is truly a lie as you state, then what do you call project steve?

according to their website, not all of project steve are scientists: some are “economists, philosophers, psychiatrists, science educators, medical researchers, computer scientists, and so forth.” And so forth? Really? So I guess I could be a steve. (If I wanted to).

above quote from:
Project Steve FAQ | NCSE

No, it isn't. You use quote mines. A lot.

you are dishonest, alot. I have cornered your contradictions about a half dozen times. Two - three on the darwin controversy.

 

[createdtoworship]

One of gradyll's misquotes.

Notice the use of not one, but two ellipses. The amount of material left out is quite criminal, but standard dishonesty on the part of creationists. If they are willing to do this to other writings, imagine what they are willing to do to the Bible?

Anyway, the SJG essay can be found here, and here is the whole quote in context with no ellipses[/I]:

What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no, and I invoke two recently supported cases of discontinuous change in my defense.

On the isolated island of Mauritius, former home of the dodo, two genera of boid snakes (a large group that includes pythons and boa constrictors) share a feature present in no other terrestrial vertebrate: the maxillary bone of the upperjaw is split into front and rear halves, connected by a movable joint. In 1970, my friend Tom Frazzetta published a paper entitled "From Hopeful Monsters to Bolyerine Snakes?" He considered every preadaptive possibility he could imagine and rejected them in favor of discontinuous transition. How can a jawbone be half broken?

Many rodents have check pouches for storing food. These internal pouches connect to the pharynx and may have evolved gradually under selective pressure for holding more and more food in the mouth. But the Geomyidae (pocket gophers) and Heteromyidae (kangaroo rats and pocket mice) have invaginated their cheeks to form external fur-lined pouches with no connection to the mouth or pharynx. What good is an incipient groove or furrow on the outside? Did such hypothetical ancestors run about three-legged while holding a few scraps of food in an imperfect crease with their fourth leg? Charles A. Long has recently considered a suite of preadaptive possibilities (external grooves in burrowing animals to transport Soil, for example) and rejected them all in favor of discontinuous transition. These tales, in the "just-so story" tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything. But the weight of these, and many similar cases, wore down my faith in gradualism long ago. More inventive minds may yet save it, but concepts salvaged only by facile speculation do not appeal much to me.

​

If you read the whole essay, you will see that Gould supports the idea that morphological traits made big jumps, and he even offers early changes in embryonic development as a plausible mechanism.

Gould is far from rejecting evolution, even if he questions gradualism at every step.

first of all elipses are technically okay in longer quotations. Secondly, quote mining doesn't exist. thirdly, it's not a misquote but what you mean is a quote out of context, but it is extremely hard to prove that. First Let me explain about how quote mining doesn't exist:

quote mines don't exist, eccept in the mind of the evolutionist. Do you hear a Judge in a court room say , violation of quote mining" no because quoting out of context, or misquoting is the norm. Again quote mining doesn't exist..

here is an example of the folly of quote mining theories:

I was talking about oranges for 10 minutes, but one minute I was
talking about bananas.

Now, If you quote the banana part, then you have quote mined because it was not in context of the oranges.

But who is to say HE just didn't change opinions or doubt his orange
opinion in the few minutes he debated bananas?

See, quote mining doesn't exist.
It's all a lie of evolutionists.

quote mining doesn't exist as I have just proven.

Misquotes exist. Quoting out of context exist. But not quote mining.

it was made up by evolutionists to debate creationists.

 

[Loudmouth]

first of all elipses are technically okay in longer quotations. Secondly, quote mining doesn't exist.

Earlier, you said that this was a quote mine.

"There is no God."--Psalm 14:1

Are you saying it isn't a quote mine since quote mines don't exist?

Also, it is technically okay to quote part of a passage, so there is nothing wrong with that quote, right?

thirdly, it's not a misquote but what you mean is a quote out of context, but it is extremely hard to prove that.

It is extremely easy to show in this case.

quote mines don't exist, eccept in the mind of the evolutionist. Do you hear a Judge in a court room say , violation of quote mining" no because quoting out of context, or misquoting is the norm. Again quote mining doesn't exist..

It is jargon used to denote the use of quotes that are pulled out of context. Given that evolutionists use that jargon and creationists do pull quotes out of context means that they do exist.

here is an example of the folly of quote mining theories:

I was talking about oranges for 10 minutes, but one minute I was
talking about bananas.

Now, If you quote the banana part, then you have quote mined because it was not in context of the oranges.

But who is to say HE just didn't change opinions or doubt his orange
opinion in the few minutes he debated bananas?

See, quote mining doesn't exist.
It's all a lie of evolutionists.

quote mining doesn't exist as I have just proven.

Misquotes exist. Quoting out of context exist. But not quote mining.

it was made up by evolutionists to debate creationists.

Play with semantics all you want. It won't cover up the multiple quotes you have used out of context.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are correct that there are computer science phd's and professors on that list.

What was the statement they agreed to? Could someone fully accept the theory of evolution and agree to the statement?

However, if this is truly a lie as you state, then what do you call project steve?

according to their website, not all of project steve are scientists: some are “economists, philosophers, psychiatrists, science educators, medical researchers, computer scientists, and so forth.” And so forth? Really? So I guess I could be a steve. (If I wanted to).

How many Steve's are there on the Discovery Institute list? A handful? Not only that, but the Steve's on the DI list didn't even agree to a statement that requires them to "Dissent from Darwinism". The whole point of the list is to make a case that there is a significant number of important scientists who reject evolution, and that claim is a lie.

Compare that to Project Steven. The statement they agreed to makes no bones about it. To be on the list you both agree that the theory of evolution is a solid scientific theory, and that ID/creationism is not science nor does it belong in a science classroom.

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

above quote from:
Project Steve FAQ | NCSE
​

Notice the difference?

you are dishonest, alot. I have cornered your contradictions about a half dozen times. Two - three on the darwin controversy.

Show me.

 

[dad]

Your sort of prophesy lowers all Biblical prophesy to the level of Nostradamus.

Jesus and the apostles didn't think so. You just don't know what you are talking about.

But I have never done that. In fact since I don't abuse the Bible I can show that my understanding of the Bible is better than yours.

Ha.

You have to abuse the Bible to get it to support you. Most Christians think that that is blasphemy.

Unless you understood it you have no clue who respects the text. I do.

Dream on dad. And keep being a hypocrite while you are at it. Without the advances of science you would be dead now.

False. I need miracles to live because science exists!

No cars to drive, no gas to burn and no food to eat.

Science has nothing to do with the theory of evolution or a same state past! Nothing at all. Real knowledge that is good comes from above. We own that.

I never failed with my Flat Earth claim since I have not posted the verses yet.

Ask if anyone waits for you to simply support your foolish flat earth claim. You are useless in that dept, all talk no action.

You have to remember that I do not have to lie,

Sorry, forgot already.

unlike you, all of the scientific evidence is on my side.

But you can't name a shred...we get it!

And it seems the Biblical evidence is on my side too.

Say it like you mean it.

I never have to refer to a delusional state.

You live there.

 

[dad]

Could someone fully accept the theory of evolution and agree to the statement?

...

Do you think the theory of evolution includes abiogenesis? Or do you think your imagined worm ancestors and potato relatives are more where you feel comfy starting?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus and the apostles didn't think so. You just don't know what you are talking about.

Wrong, they did not support your claims, try again. Especially about prophesies. Now surely you are not relying on the failed fictional parts of the Jesus story? You have been shown several times why the nativity story is bogus for example.

Unless you understood it you have no clue who respects the text. I do.

Wrong,

False. I need miracles to live because science exists!

Wrong again, if I came and took away everything that science has provided for you you would have nothing.

Science has nothing to do with the theory of evolution or a same state past! Nothing at all. Real knowledge that is good comes from above. We own that.

Demonstrably wrong, in fact you know that this is a lie. You have been corrected many many times in this regard.

Ask if anyone waits for you to simply support your foolish flat earth claim. You are useless in that dept, all talk no action.

I am just toying with you right now dad. I am curious to see how much more fail you can generate.

Sorry, forgot already.

You need to go to see a doctor about that.

But you can't name a shred...we get it!

Actually I can and I am more than willing to. You have to accomplish a small detail first. You must learn and understand what scientific evidence is.

So dad, did you want to see the verses for a Flat Earth? All you have to do is to either apologize or acknowledge that you screwed up earlier when I gave you the stationary Earth verses that you asked for.

Do you want to see the evidence? First you have to take an evidence class.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think the theory of evolution includes abiogenesis? Or do you think your imagined worm ancestors and potato relatives are more where you feel comfy starting?

Technically no. They are related but abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage, it is still being developed. Evolution is a well substantiated theory. There is more than enough evidence for evolution. Abiogenesis is much more difficult since the evidence was left in the chemicals that makeup our cells.

 

[dad]

Wrong, they did not support your claims, try again. Especially about prophesies.

Jesus made a good example of using part of verses to refer to a part of future prophesy. You really just don't know what you are talking about whatsoever.

Wrong again, if I came and took away everything that science has provided for you you would have nothing.

You don't even know what science is, get a grip. You conflate science with so called science.

Demonstrably wrong, in fact you know that this is a lie. You have been corrected many many times in this regard.

Speaking of demos, notice no one prved a same state past, yet many swear by one?

Actually I can and I am more than willing to. You have to accomplish a small detail first. You must learn and understand what scientific evidence is.

Too late, being exposed for all talk no action so many times, you are only being foolish making a drumbeat for what you supposedly could do. You can do nothing at all.

So dad, did you want to see the verses for a Flat Earth? All you have to do is to either apologize or acknowledge that you screwed up earlier when I gave you the stationary Earth verses that you asked for.

There are none. If you must misrepresent God again here, you will not have a cake walk.

 

[createdtoworship]

What was the statement they agreed to? Could someone fully accept the theory of evolution and agree to the statement?



How many Steve's are there on the Discovery Institute list? A handful? Not only that, but the Steve's on the DI list didn't even agree to a statement that requires them to "Dissent from Darwinism". The whole point of the list is to make a case that there is a significant number of important scientists who reject evolution, and that claim is a lie.

Compare that to Project Steven. The statement they agreed to makes no bones about it. To be on the list you both agree that the theory of evolution is a solid scientific theory, and that ID/creationism is not science nor does it belong in a science classroom.

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

above quote from:
Project Steve FAQ | NCSE
​

Notice the difference?




Show me.

it is no better than the dissent from darwinism statement, show how you think the document signed somehow shows wishy washiness on behalf of those who made it. Make your case.

secondly you want me to prove where you were wrong, well I just answered this post regarding your error of alleging a quote out of context: http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960/#post66203025

 

[dad]

Technically no. They are related but abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage, it is still being developed.

Great so it doesn't deal in origins. You are unarmed in a dogfight there.

Evolution is a well substantiated theory.

Belief substantiated Satanism in drag, actually.

There is more than enough evidence for evolution.

Meaningless since you just admitted your mr potatohead theory doesn't even deal in origins!

Abiogenesis is much more difficult since the evidence was left in the chemicals that makeup our cells.

Wholly made up in other words, and you think we are dumb enough to attribute imaginary little wunder globs of 'life' with God's creation! Phooey on that.