Let’s leave the Bible out of this discussion from now on.
I have given ample amounts of evidence against human evolution that is not related to the Bible in any way. How about focusing on that. I realize that you will never believe the Bible. So lets focus on the Scientific evidence, shall we?
“If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving”. Richard Leakey, world’s foremost paleo-anthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990.
Tuffloud: DId you write that extremely long “one last post” that you made, or did you cut and paste it off teh internet? That sure does not look like your writing style.
Also I notice that you had a lot of quotes in your post- selective quoting is a poor way to advance a scientific argument. Scientists publish there works to be evaluated by peers. Theories are advanced or disproven based upon an anlaysis of the evidence and arguments presented by a scientist. Scientists don’t try to advance a viewpoint by simply quoting another scientists and trying to go by their “authority”.
This is especially relevant to the creation-evolution debate. Misquoting and quoting out of context has been one of the main tactics used by those that are opposed to evolution. Also their have been general statements quoted from people that have no credentials or authority on the subject in an attempt to convince the scientifically ignorant that evolution has been somehow disproven or is “in doubt”.
A more thorough examination of why selective quotation and argument from authority are unscientific:
Here is a fairly thorough compilation of false, misleading, and out of context quotes used by creationists:
another compilation here:
I bet you could find a lot of the quotes that you used in there. It is obvious that many that you used were out of context, and the insinuations that are made by these selective quotations do not match the conclusions made by those quoted.
You are posting links to a biased website. Of course they are going to dismiss everthing. Why does it matter whether I wrote the post myself or not? What does that prove in this discussion. Of course I am going to get my information from other places. Is all the information you give just implanted in your head somehow without using other sources? Time and time again, you human evolutionists try to undermine my intelligence because I oppose you. Do you realize that there are a lot of scientists smarter than you and me that don’t believe in human evolution? I’m not the only one.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
You are posting links to a biased website.[/quote]
Tuffloud, I will say this – if you are claiming that the person in question posted links to a biased site, can you show us your sources and show that they are not biased also?
When everything works the same both ways, then we can dig out the issues and come to an understanding, if not an agreement.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
You are posting links to a biased website. Of course they are going to dismiss everthing. Why does it matter whether I wrote the post myself or not? What does that prove in this discussion. Of course I am going to get my information from other places. Is all the information you give just implanted in your head somehow without using other sources? Time and time again, you human evolutionists try to undermine my intelligence because I oppose you. Do you realize that there are a lot of scientists smarter than you and me that don’t believe in human evolution? I’m not the only one.[/quote]
You posted it as if you wrote it, and I have yet to see you actually write an intelligent analysis or put out a logical argument in your own words.
As for the links I posted, it was actually an analysis and compilations of several outdated, dishonest, and out of context quotations used by creationists. If you will notice, the majority of the quotes in that post you made can be found in there.
I think the only person quoted in that whole posts taht would agree with your conclusions would be Dembski and the unnamed creationist quoted in the final paragraph.
In summary, arguing by quotation is fallacious, almost all of those quotes you used were false or out of context, and your entire post pretty much amounts to line after line of bullcrap.
vroom,
what real points have you contributed to this thread?
“If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving”. Richard Leakey, world’s foremost paleo-anthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990.
Please tell me what the conclusion to this quote is?
vroom,
you keep trying to prove me wrong on a personal level. Try proving the information against human evolution wrong that I have provided. That goes for everyone else. Which quotes that I used are wrong? Please tell me what other conclusion if any can be drawn from the quotes in question.
Here is another thing about your comment that I am linking to a “biased website”. The talkorigins site is probably the most thoroughly researched site dealing with evoluton. All of their articles are fully referenced and documented. I have tried to write my responses and general arguments myself, but when it comes to providing evidence, that is the best reference.
Talkorigins has compiled extensive evidence of different aspects of evolution. So when you make statements like “macroevolution has never been observed”, “there are no transitional fossils”, or “evolution is mathematically impossible”, I can post a link that is fully referenced and shows the overwhelming scientific evidence that disproves those statements. They even will post links to creationist responses to their pages.
And unlike what you are posting from, the “evidence” isn’t a bunch of out of context quotations. I realize that no amount of evidence will change your mind, but I hope that others will see the overwhelming evidence for evolution and the fundamental scientific ignorance of creationists.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
“If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving”. Richard Leakey, world’s foremost paleo-anthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990.
Please tell me what the conclusion to this quote is?[/quote]
Not even touching upon the fact that your “argument from authority” by quoting is unsound, let me ask you this:
Is Dr. Leakey a creationist? Does he reject evolution? Does he support your “intelligent design” and young-earth creationist theories? (do your research, the answer is a resounding no.)
If the answer is no, why would you use selective quotation to tryt to make it appear that he supports your ideas?
Tuffloud, I am doing my best to get you to engage in a real and fair debate. Nothing further. Surprised?
The quote you have given us simply says that the person in question believes that there are missing pieces. Without those pieces, the person would be inclined to think mankind arrived quickly.
However, this does not mean that mankind was “created” in the sense proposed by creationists. It means that either we haven’t found all the pieces, or that a larger change than expected occurred or that there could be another explanation.
This isn’t a smoking gun with respect to the conclusions you have drawn.
Obviously, the author is even grudging in the way he would have to be pressed to come to conclusions at the time and is not really comfortable doing so. To go further than the author and to infer a particular solution to the problem the author has in not appropriate.
So, research continues. The issue this author currently has may in fact be solved at a later date… why jump to the conclusion that it can’t be?
Be on the alert for the incredible faith the evolutionist has in time. Time is vital to their theory. Ask an evolutionist how did reptiles become birds, and they will tell you it took “millions of years,” how did fish become amphibians, “it took millions of years.” Whenever you probe an evolutionist with questions, they will quickly rely on time. Do not expect fossil evidence and biological answers, just a hand wave and a tremendous faith in time. But is their “time” explanation satisfactory? No, it is a confession the processes they profess to believe in did occur, but they are not observed. The evidence was lost in those eons of time. There are two explanations why there is no evidence for fish evolving into reptiles: either it never happened and thus there is no evidence (Creation); or it did happen but the evidence is missing due to time (Evolution). Does time lead to increased complexity in chemical reactions or systems? No look at the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For a system to increase in complexity it does not just need energy, it needs the proper type and quantity of energy. If you put a leaf on a driveway and expose it to the sun, it will dry up and whither, not become more complex. When I was a child, I remember the story: a long time ago, in a place far away there was a frog. A princess kissed this frog, and it instantly turned into a prince. She told me a fairy tale. In Biology, they told me that a long time ago, in an unknown place there lived an amphibian, and over millions of years the amphibian became a mammal. The first story is a fairy tale because a kiss turned an amphibian into a prince. The second story is taught as science because “millions of years” turned the amphibian into a mammal. Supposedly believing that time (and not a kiss) can turn an amphibian into a mammal makes it “science.”
Be on the alert for the incredible faith the evolutionist has in time. Time is vital to their theory. Ask an evolutionist how did reptiles become birds, and they will tell you it took “millions of years,” how did fish become amphibians, “it took millions of years.”
Whenever you probe an evolutionist with questions, they will quickly rely on time. Do not expect fossil evidence and biological answers, just a hand wave and a tremendous faith in time. But is their “time” explanation satisfactory? No, it is a confession the processes they profess to believe in did occur, but they are not observed. The evidence was lost in those eons of time. There are two explanations why there is no evidence for fish evolving into reptiles: either it never happened and thus there is no evidence (Creation); or it did happen but the evidence is missing due to time (Evolution).
Does time lead to increased complexity in chemical reactions or systems? No look at the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For a system to increase in complexity it does not just need energy, it needs the proper type and quantity of energy. If you put a leaf on a driveway and expose it to the sun, it will dry up and whither, not become more complex. When I was a child, I remember the story: a long time ago, in a place far away there was a frog. A princess kissed this frog, and it instantly turned into a prince. She told me a fairy tale.
In Biology, they told me that a long time ago, in an unknown place there lived an amphibian, and over millions of years the amphibian became a mammal. The first story is a fairy tale because a kiss turned an amphibian into a prince. The second story is taught as science because “millions of years” turned the amphibian into a mammal. Supposedly believing that time (and not a kiss) can turn an amphibian into a mammal makes it “science.”
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
vroom,
you keep trying to prove me wrong on a personal level. Try proving the information against human evolution wrong that I have provided. That goes for everyone else. Which quotes that I used are wrong? Please tell me what other conclusion if any can be drawn from the quotes in question.[/quote]
Many of the quotes that you used are outdated, misquotes, or out of context. Many times the quote is a snippet from an introductory paragraph of a work that comes to a conclusion that totally contradicts your little quote.
If your little quotes accurately represented the views and conclusions of the authors, why are they evolutionists that reject your creationust theories?
Go read that quote-mine project link that I posted just a little bit ago. For starters, the Gould and Dawkins quotes are in there and shown to be out of context. I bet if you looked even harder just about ALL of them are misleading with the exception of Dembski, who is the ONLY person you quoted that advocates creationism or intelligent design.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
“If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving”. Richard Leakey, world’s foremost paleo-anthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990.
Please tell me what the conclusion to this quote is?[/quote]
Why don’t you click on this link to learn more about the works of the Leakey family.
http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/foundation/
The Leakey Foundation sure as hell isn’t working to advance the knowledge of “creation science”. This is a good example of how flawed your argument by selective quotation really is.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
Be on the alert for the incredible faith the evolutionist has in time. Time is vital to their theory. Ask an evolutionist how did reptiles become birds, and they will tell you it took “millions of years,” how did fish become amphibians, “it took millions of years.”
[/quote]
The fact that evolution requires time in no way invalidates it. All estimates of the age of the earth come up with an age in the billions of years. That is a large enough timeframe for evolution to occur. Where is the logical inconsistency here?
Evolution never claimed that time was the only mechanism that caused changes in species. Of course you then had to repeat the tired old “there is no evidence” mantra-if you were willing to consider evidence, you would see taht there is abundant fossil evidence for evolution. Also, your argument that inferences nack in time can not be made from slow, gradual, observed processes is ridiculous. By your little paradigm we would have to say that planetary motion, continental drift, and soil erosion do not occur.
The second law of thermodynamics is not some kind of generalized "law of disorder’- it simply states that energy in a closed system becomes randomly distributed over time. That leaf analogy is stupid and does not have relevance to anything in this discussion. Go read a book on physics , and learn what the second law of thermodynamics is. Then explain in your own words exactly how biological evolution violates it.
[quote]
In Biology, they told me that a long time ago, in an unknown place there lived an amphibian, and over millions of years the amphibian became a mammal. The first story is a fairy tale because a kiss turned an amphibian into a prince. The second story is taught as science because “millions of years” turned the amphibian into a mammal. Supposedly believing that time (and not a kiss) can turn an amphibian into a mammal makes it “science.” [/quote]
Genetic drift, random mutation, and natural selection, not just time alone caused some early form of an amphibian to gradually evolve into a form of mammal over a huge number of generations.
Toughloud, I guess that you didn’t write this personally but I am really starting to wonder- do you even understand what the theory of evolution is, how it works, and what it entails? Do you even understand basic science concepts at all? Will you ever be willing to learn these basic scientific concepts that you are so ignorant of?
[quote]juerocalvo wrote:
tuffloud wrote:
“If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving”. Richard Leakey, world’s foremost paleo-anthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990.
Please tell me what the conclusion to this quote is?
Why don’t you click on this link to learn more about the works of the Leakey family.
http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/foundation/
The Leakey Foundation sure as hell isn’t working to advance the knowledge of “creation science”. This is a good example of how flawed your argument by selective quotation really is.[/quote]
Exactly, that’s why I found it so interesting that he would say something like this.
Are you trying to tell me it doesn’t mean anything? It’s documented.
[quote]juerocalvo wrote:
Genetic drift, random mutation, and natural selection, not just time alone caused some early form of an amphibian to gradually evolve into a form of mammal over a huge number of generations.
[/quote]
juerocalvo,
You have better odds of winning California Super Lotto every week for 11 years than the odds of one protein in your body having the amino acids being properly aligned by chance. The odds are really much worse because the amino acids must be left handed, they must form a chain “in series,” no parallel branching, their shape (proteins are wound up like a ball of yarn) is crucial, you need an oxygen free environment, etc, etc. And remember, this is for just one protein. Your body has countless trillions of proteins. The model that a brilliant designer made proteins requires much less faith than to trust random chance and natural processes. Are you willing to trust this kind of chance? I hate the extremely low probability of winning the lotto. The odds suck, quite frankly. That’s why I don’t play.
[quote]juerocalvo wrote:
This is especially relevant to the creation-evolution debate. Misquoting and quoting out of context has been one of the main tactics used by those that are opposed to evolution. Also their have been general statements quoted from people that have no credentials or authority on the subject in an attempt to convince the scientifically ignorant that evolution has been somehow disproven or is “in doubt”.
Evolution is a philosophy (1: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school 2: the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics) not a science. How could it be any thing other when the main proponents disagree about the key points on how which it?s possible. Is it now good enough for the profession of the sciences to take a concept however grand and raise it to fact with out any conclusive evidence, producing no results that can be replicated in a laboratory or in the fossil record.
Solely based on there own Arrogance and Credentials where is the quality assurance? Paleontologist?s still lack viable ancestors for the Cambrian’s and the conventional forces of evolution can’t account for the speed, the breadth, and the onetime nature of “the Cambrian explosion,” a geologic moment more than 500 million years ago when virtually all the major animal groups first appear in the fossil record.
This has created such a burden for the real evolutionary theorist (the ones that actually write and publish expound on not regurgitate someone else false assertions) that they also present punctuated equilibrium the supposed savior of Neo-Darwinism which is completely left of right Jeffrey S. Levinton said “The totality of the evidence makes it a theory not even worth following up.”. The only evolution I am certain of is for each problem this theory faces those that have staked there credentials, credibility and self worth will simply adapt and evolve it into some other assertion to justify its continued belief, some versions of the theory claim merely that evolution varies in speed. Later versions claim that gradual change is nonexistent or negligible always a new evolving paradigm. They admit that regarding the evidence is not yet all in and suggests that they will be proved right when the eventual evidence does turn up in the fossil record (blind faith). Another interesting point these debates only mostly take place with the evolutionist themselves, for the rest of us they don?t even bother to address these flaws.
They assume us to be so unscientific and knowledgeable. However, the arguments persist and each side of the divided evolutionary groups present there assertions, they claim it?s just called a theory, in reality however a fact who?s kidding who? How come they have not ceased debating among them selves? I say again no one I mean no one is debating gravity; we obey its laws and have created machines based on it.
However they find it easier to apply the weight of authority to those they consider laymen or unlettered in there way of thinking ,yet however willing to concede on the failings, of there varied assertions in there own scientific community, until some undefined time when they are able to grasp some other unverifiable notion and twist it towards there next ever changing and highly flawed paradigm, but since in there minds creation is impossible they hold for dear life to this convoluted theory that is in fact the creation of there own minds. to them this evolutionary lie makes more since, they say well at least we are trying to prove are preconceived false notions. Oh yea by the way this computer network we are using did not evolve it?s the result of the creation, design and collective of the computer sciences.