Intelligent Design

[heretic888]

Oh, and I see that proponents of creationism and intelligent design are still referring to evolutionary theory as "evolutionism". This is after I pointed out that this term has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution. It refers to a now-discredited sociological theory popular in the late 1800's.

Sorry, but whenever somebody criticizes biological evolution as "evolutionism", I can't help thinking they have absolutely no clue what they're talking about.

And, of course, none of those criticizing evolutionary theory have yet to seriously answer my previous questions. If evolution is not real, then....

Why do humans get goosebumps?? Why do upland geese have webbed feet??

Still waiting, still waiting. . .

 

[hongkongfooey]

I guess my question would be this. If evolution is proven to be true, how would it influence the Christian viewpoint of our place on Earth?

 

[hongkongfooey]

Humans get goosebumps when they are cold and when they are frightened. When someone gets goosebumps the hair stands up. This would stand to serve the purpose of trapping air between the hairs, creating insulation, and providing warmth. Look at birds. When it is cold they puff up.

The hair standing up would also serve to make a animal look bigger when threatened. We are animals, like it or not.

 

[pstarr]

We have some other scientists who have come to the fore (although I realize that it's meaningless unless it's published in some peer-review journal...but it does shed more light on the subject):

"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic (gradual) evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
S. Stanley, Macroevolution, pg 39

And this is interesting:

Quotes by Darwin in The Origin of Species:
"why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?
The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great"

"[Since] innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
C. Darwin quoted in The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, 1974, pg 202, 292.

And......

"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, .., prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's prediction. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, pg 45-46.

"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into the textbooks." Science, July 17. 1981, pg 289.

What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories.
E. Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance, pg 524.

As for peer review articles- (full article available at link)

Developmental biologist Willem J. Ouweneel, a Dutch creationist and CRSQ contributor, published a classic and widely cited paper on developmental anomalies in fruit flies (“Developmental genetics of homoeosis,” Advances in Genetics, 16 [1976], 179-248). Herpetologist Wayne Frair, a frequent CRSQ contributor, publishes his work on turtle systematics and serology in such journals as Journal of Herpetology, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, and Herpetologica.

 

[shesulsa]

Moderator Note:

When posting articles and materials not of your own creation, please abide by copyright law and follow the MT Copyright Policy.

Several posts in this thread have been severely edited to comply with this policy. Links have been provided to the original source of the material.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Super Moderator

 

[michaeledward]

We have some other scientists who have come to the fore (although I realize that it's meaningless unless it's published in some peer-review journal...but it does shed more light on the subject):

"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic (gradual) evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
S. Stanley, Macroevolution, pg 39

You know ... I have stayed out of this discussion mostly, because the Intelligent Design supporters never support their position, they only attack that of science.

But, that you claim this quote would 'shed some light' on the subject ... I just have to ask.

Even if I were to show you the fossil record that documents the gradual evolution ... blah, blah, blah ... could you even recognize it?

I don't believe someone who argues the position of Intelligent Design can be equiped to discern the things they claim are not present ....


Seems to me that I recently heard of two fossil discoveries ... one believed to be of the first fish to develop lungs and leave the water .... one of a dinosaur 1/10th the size of all previously known records of that species. The size change was an adaptation for the creature living on an island, rather than a continent.

But, could the Intelligent Design crowd recognize these new discoveries as evidence? It seems not.

 

[Lisa]

Moderator Note.

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile).

If you feel that the reputation system is being abused, please feel free to contact any one of the Administrators of the site and they will look into any concerns you have.

Thank you.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Senior Moderator

 

[heretic888]

We have some other scientists who have come to the fore (although I realize that it's meaningless unless it's published in some peer-review journal...but it does shed more light on the subject):

Well, peer review is essential because it is the testing ground in science.

If one's findings have not been subjected to peer review, then from a scientific point-of-view, that is basically the same as saying they have not been scrutinized, examined, or "fact-checked" at all. Any scientific "hypothesis" or "theory" that has not been published in academic journals is basically unreliable in science.

This is not to say that scientists don't occassionally publish in populist books or periodicals, as they most certainly do. However, no scientist that wished to have his or her ideas taken credibly would ever publish their ideas in populist mediums before subjecting them to peer review. That would just be absurd.

And, that is precisely what proponents of intelligent design and creation science do.

"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic (gradual) evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
S. Stanley, Macroevolution, pg 39

And this is interesting:

Quotes by Darwin in The Origin of Species:
"why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?
The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great"

"[Since] innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
C. Darwin quoted in The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, 1974, pg 202, 292.

And......

"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, .., prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's prediction. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, pg 45-46.

"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into the textbooks." Science, July 17. 1981, pg 289.

What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories.
E. Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance, pg 524.

While none of the aforementioned are peer-reviewed, most (if not all) of the sources you have cited are addressing the idea of gradualism, not macroevolution. That you consistently collapse these two ideas speaks volumes concerning your understanding of the subject matter.

I'm still not quite sure what you're trying to get at here. Are you suggesting that punctualists like Stephen Jay Gould and James Mark Baldwin before him reject macroevolution?? They most certainly do not, they are simply providing new theoretical tools by which to explain the process.

In fact, what seems to be readily apparent is that proponents of intelligent design seem to often confuse "evolution" with "Neo-Darwinism". The idea here is that if they can cast doubt on the theoretical framework of Neo-Darwinism, then this casts doubt on evolution as a whole. However, this does not logically follow, as a number of evolutionary scientists (calling themselves "Post-Darwinists") are also concerned with updating or amending the basic Darwinian skeleton. It wouldn't be the first time, either, as Darwinians previously held to mistaken ideas such as recapitulationism and pre-Mendelian genetic inheritance. Today, this includes gradualism (as well as gene-centrism).

Furthermore, nothing you have cited thus far are actual arguments. They are just brief summaries of the opinions of individual scientsts. Opinions are all but meaningless without supporting arguments and evidence.

So, yeah, not impressed and not convinced.

As for peer review articles- (full article available at link)

You guys seem to be regurgitating each others' arguments. I already addressed this here:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=565335&postcount=238

My basic point was that a scientist publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals on a subject like sea turtle migration while posting in a peusoscience creationist journal on something like the Flood has no relationship whatsoever with one another.

This is just Poisoning The Well, but in reverse. You try to present complimentary information about a source in other to artificially enhance the credibility of all his claims. However, it does not logically follow that a source that writes accurate information about sea turtle migration patterns will also write accurate information about geological time or evolutionary theory.

That is why until such arguments are presented in pee-reviewed academic periodicals, why should treat them as the pseudoscience that they are.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

You know ... I have stayed out of this discussion mostly, because the Intelligent Design supporters never support their position, they only attack that of science.

Well, that's what you have to do when you have no evidence in support of your own claims.

The tactic by proponents of intelligent design right now is to criticize and undermine evolutionary theory, so as to put the two ideas (evolution and design) on "equal footing", so to speak. They themselves have said as much on the matter. Thus all of the "viable alternative" rhetoric.

They know well, I think, that they don't actually have enough positive evidence to support their own position. Mostly just philosophical speculation and a priori metaphysical assumptions about reality. Therefore, their tactic is to attack the other guys' position to bring theirs up in status.

Of course, what the proponents of intelligent design are actually attacking is not evolution, but a Straw Man masquerading as evolution. They seem to hold to glaringly inaccurate ideas such as gradualism (tell that to S. J. Gould) and the idea that every evolutionary novelty must be adaptive in nature (thereby ignoring the possibility of by-products or stochastic "noise"), notions which are generally not held by evolutionary scientists today.

The truth is that most of the "critiques" that these guys bring up are more adquately addressed by things like niche selection, organic selection (i.e., the Baldwin effect), punctuated equilibria, self-organizing systems, and so on.

That is where the real debate about evolution is: not about its existence, but about its precise mechanics.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Even if I were to show you the fossil record that documents the gradual evolution ... blah, blah, blah ... could you even recognize it?

I don't believe someone who argues the position of Intelligent Design can be equiped to discern the things they claim are not present ....

Seems to me that I recently heard of two fossil discoveries ... one believed to be of the first fish to develop lungs and leave the water .... one of a dinosaur 1/10th the size of all previously known records of that species. The size change was an adaptation for the creature living on an island, rather than a continent.

But, could the Intelligent Design crowd recognize these new discoveries as evidence? It seems not.

Well, the "Incomplete Fossil Record" argument is an interesting one. . .

For the sake of argument, let's just assume that there are indeed no "transitional forms" in the extant fossile record. A fallacious presumption, I know, but I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here.

Now, then, where does that leave us??

Well, we know that certain species exist today that did not exist thousands of years ago. And, we know that certain species existed thousands of years ago that do not exist today. Furthermore, we can pinpoint with a reasonable degree of accuracy (give or take a few thousand years) when specific species appeared to arise within the fossil record and when they appeared to disappear in the fossil record.

Still, no transitional forms. So, where does that leave us??

Well, we know a hominid species known as Australopethicus walked the earth some 3 to 4 million years ago. Around the time those hominids died out, another hominid species known as Homo Habilis seemed to just have "appeared" out of nowhere living in roughly the same geographical habitats as Homo Habilis, around 1.5 to 2.5 million years ago.

That the fossils of these two species of hominid shared a remarkable degree of morphological similarity is beside the point because, again, no transitional forms.

Of course, Homo Habilis isn't running around today, so they obviously shared Australopethicus's fate. Amazingly, another hominid species, Homo Ergaster appeared in the same geographical regions of Homo Habilis at roughly the same time the former died out, some 1.5 to 2 million years ago. Then again, the same thing happened to Homo Ergaster when they were increasingly "replaced" by the spontaneously-appearing hominid Homo Erectus around 1 to 1.8 million years ago.

So, again, where does that leave us??

Well, this really leaves us with two choices. Either a) macroevolution does actually happen. Or, b) some external Other has been intermittently "creating" new species of hominids on our planet at around the same time that morphologically similar species have died out for the better part of 4 million years (just based on the aforementioned examples alone).

But, let's be serious here. As the above examples demonstrated, the "Incomplete Fossil Record" argument is clearly a Straw Man. Yes, there are holes in the fossil record that have yet to be accounted for. But, the fact that there are holes here and there does not change the fact that we do know perfectly well about the when and where of Australopethicus, Homo Habilis, Homo Ergaster, Homo Erectus, and several other species.

In essence, proponents of creationism and intelligent design are trying to pull the wool over your eyes. They try to make you believe that because the fossil record is incomplete that it tells us absolutely nothing about the paleontological history of our planet. This is nonsense. The examples I demonstrated along the Homo genus evince a clear line of descent, when one takes morphological similarities, chronological appearance, and geographical location into account.

So, which is it?? Does macroevolution actually happen, as all the evidence seems to indicate?? Or, has some Designer been repeatedly "creating" new species on our planet at just around the time that morphologically similar species seem to die out?? Which seems more plausible??

Laterz.

 

[michaeledward]

But, the fact that there are holes here and there does not change the fact that we do know perfectly well about the when and where of Australopethicus, Homo Habilis, Homo Ergaster, Homo Erectus, and several other species.

There is another thing in the discussion of fossil records, and intelligent design that serves to muddy the issue. I certainly am not as familiar with the actual fossil records ... but let us use your list above ...

Australopethicus
Homo Habilis
Homo Ergaster
Homo Erectus
​

If we look carefully at this list, there are three un-accounted for transitions; one 'gap' (if you will) between each listing.

Let us assume that tomorrow, I find a new fossil. We can determine that this fossil does not fit with any of those species (or genus, or whatever). Let's call this new fossil .... Homo MartialTalkus. We determine that Homo MartialTalkus fits, somehow between Homo Ergaster and Homo Erectus. Let's review our new chart.

Australopethicus
Homo Habilis
Homo Ergaster
Homo Martialtalkus
Homo Erectus
​

As we look carefully at our known history, with the new discovery, we now have four 'gaps' in the fossil record.

Now, this may be a bit simplistic. But that is how I see the 'fossil record argument. It is impossible for science to make enough headway, until I sprout wings and mutate into the cool angel guy in X-Men III.

 

[elder999]

God created the earth in a mature form. He then created all the plants, animals and man, making sure that each had what it needed to survive.

He created the human body with a heart, a ciculatory system, lungs, stomache, kidneys, brain, nervous system, etc. And they all worked flawlessly together from the start. Again, if not, the first humans would have died and there would be no more. There was an obvious inteligence behind the creation of the first man and woman.

The notion that the creation myth of Genesis is to be taken literally is a rather new one-in fact, it's medieval in origin. Early church fathers and Jewish commentary pretty much make the case that the creation myth of Genesis is an allegory, in terms of time and sequence especially.

And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son" Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208].

"And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world" -Origen, Against Celsus6:60, A.D. 248.

Creation, as Origen understands it, is the temporal expression of an eternal order. And it is from this standpoint that we have to approach the description in Genesis of the creation of the world. It is an act which essentially takes place outside time.

The God who made the whole world did not need time to make the mighty creation of heaven and earth... For even if these things seem to have been made in six days, intelligence is required to understand in what sense the words "In six days" are meant...


Origen believes it is ridiculous to understand creation as taking place in "six days,’ interpreted as a literal sequence. He points out that "days" did not exist before the sun and moon and stars were formed, and it is quite clear to him that the "days" described in Genesis 1 do not refer to a literal succession. In this he is following the thinking of Philo, and of the Middle Platonists who said that Plato's description of an apparently temporal creation was made for the sake of "clarity of instruction." In the same way, Origen says that "everything was made at once ... but for the sake of clarity a list of days and their events was given. The same line of thought is found in St. Didymus. The story of creation, in other words, refers to one simultaneous act, but was presented in sequential form to enable us to imagine the process.

Origen is happy to affirm that "bodily nature was created out of nothing after a space of time and brought into being from non-existence." Similarly it will end in non-existence: "bodily matter exists but for a space of time, and just as it did not exist before it was made, so it will again be resolved into non-existence." This philosophical proposition is confidently related by Origen to those Biblical texts which affirm that heaven and earth will pass away. This world has both a beginning and an end. Its nature is such that it forms a cosmic counterpart to the life of the individual, who enters into time by his birth and departs from it by his death.


Taking the case of the human body as well, why did the Creator endow the first man and woman with an appendix- a vestigial organ (like the ostriches wings, something they don't need any more) that is most commonly thought to be what is left of the herbivorous caecum, an organ in vegetable eating mammals (like most primates) that optimizes the digestion of cellulose, but serves no apparent purpose whatsoever in humans, save to occasionally endanger their lives?? (Though, like the pineal gland's once was, it's function may be undiscovered for now...)

As another example of human evolution, our skeletal systems are clearly evolved from creatures who were once neither completely bipedal or upright-the arrangement of our internal organs and spine reflect this adaptation-oh, that's right, I'm not supposed to use the word "adaptation" for evolution.....:lol:

 

[heretic888]

There is another thing in the discussion of fossil records, and intelligent design that serves to muddy the issue. I certainly am not as familiar with the actual fossil records ... but let us use your list above ...

Australopethicus
Homo Habilis
Homo Ergaster
Homo Erectus

​

If we look carefully at this list, there are three un-accounted for transitions; one 'gap' (if you will) between each listing.


Let us assume that tomorrow, I find a new fossil. We can determine that this fossil does not fit with any of those species (or genus, or whatever). Let's call this new fossil .... Homo MartialTalkus. We determine that Homo MartialTalkus fits, somehow between Homo Ergaster and Homo Erectus. Let's review our new chart.

Australopethicus
Homo Habilis
Homo Ergaster
Homo Martialtalkus
Homo Erectus

​

As we look carefully at our known history, with the new discovery, we now have four 'gaps' in the fossil record.

Now, this may be a bit simplistic. But that is how I see the 'fossil record argument. It is impossible for science to make enough headway, until I sprout wings and mutate into the cool angel guy in X-Men III.

Heh. I'd rather evolve into Wolverine myself.

However, I think the essential point you're trying to make is that all of these "missing link" arguments are fundamentally subjective in nature. There is no established criteria for what does and does not constitute a "missing link", no standard for which a third-party observer to check for themselves. Instead, we are expected to appeal to intuitionism (it just feels discontinuous, right?).

As I pointed out before, this whole whining about the fossil record "holes" is really a Straw Man. We have enough information from the fossil record to draw reasonable conclusions about the descent of certain species (most notably our own), as well as to observe certain morphological trends in paleontological history. That there are "holes" here and there in no way detracts from this basic idea.

Furthermore, the "missing links" argument has absolutely no weight if we reject the paradigm of evolutionary gradualism, as in the case of Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibria.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

The notion that the creation myth of Genesis is to be taken literally is a rather new one-in fact, it's medieval in origin. Early church fathers and Jewish commentary pretty much make the case that the creation myth of Genesis is an allegory, in terms of time and sequence especially.

Well said.

There's also the little historical wrinkle that the Jewish creation myth is actually just a reworking of older Babylonian-Sumerian mythology. Joseph Campbell argued this point quite well in his various works.

Creation, as Origen understands it, is the temporal expression of an eternal order. And it is from this standpoint that we have to approach the description in Genesis of the creation of the world. It is an act which essentially takes place outside time.

This is similar to the thoughts of the German mystic Meister Eckhart:

".... there are more days than one. There is the soul's day and God's day. A day, whether six or seven ago, or more than six thousand years ago, is just as near to the present as yesterday. Why? Because all time is contained in the present Now-moment. Time comes of the revolution of the heavens and day began with the first revolution. The soul's day falls within this time and consists of the natural light in which things are seen. God's day, however, is the complete day, comprising both day and night. It is the real Now-moment, which for the soul is eternity's day, on which the Father begets his only begotten Son and the soul is reborn in God.

The soul's day and God's day are different. In her natural day the soul knows all things above time and place; nothing is far or near. And that is why I say, this day all things are of equal rank. To talk about the world as being made by God to-morrow, yesterday, would be talking nonsense. God makes the world and all things in this present now. Time gone a thousand years ago is now as present and as near to God as this very instant. The soul who is in this present now, in her the Father bears his one-begotten Son and in that same birth the soul is born back into God. It is one birth; as fast as she is reborn into God the Father is begetting his only Son in her.

God the Father and the Son have nothing to do with time. Generation is not in time, but at the end and limit of time. In the past and future movements of things, your heart flits about; it is in vain that you attempt to know eternal things; in divine things, you should be occupied intellectually....

Again, God loves for his own sake, acts for his own sake: that means that he loves for the sake of love and acts for the sake of action. It cannot be doubted that God would never have begot his Son in eternity if [his idea of] creation were other than [his act of] creation. Thus God created the world so that he might keep on creating. The past and future are both far from God and alien to his way."

Taking the case of the human body as well, why did the Creator endow the first man and woman with an appendix- a vestigial organ (like the ostriches wings, something they don't need any more) that is most commonly thought to be what is left of the herbivorous caecum, an organ in vegetable eating mammals (like most primates) that optimizes the digestion of cellulose, but serves no apparent purpose whatsoever in humans, save to occasionally endanger their lives?? (Though, like the pineal gland's once was, it's function may be undiscovered for now...)

There's also the two funny questions that have yet to be answered. . .

Why do humans get goosebumps?? Why do upland geese have webbed feet??

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

By the way, in case anyone is interested in the actual fossil record pertaining to human evolution. . .

Australopithecus:​

Homo habilis:​

Homo ergaster:

Homo erectus:

Homo sapiens:

Homo sapiens sapiens:

. . . . so, can anyone tell me where we're supposed to fit in "transitional forms" here???

 

[qizmoduis]

pstarr has just resorted to another dishonest, yet sadly predictable tactic of creationist anti-science crusaders called "quote mining." The quote-miner attempts to derail proper debate by using painstakenly selected and edited quotes of scientists that appear, when stripped of surrouding (and occasionally interior) context, to support the creationist position. Pstarr's above quotes were copied directly from a standard creationist quote list. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ for more information and examples.

Pstarr: It is often claimed by christians that one of the most important doctrines of christianty is that of honesty. Quote mining does not demonstrate this doctrine.

 

[heretic888]

pstarr has just resorted to another dishonest, yet sadly predictable tactic of creationist anti-science crusaders called "quote mining." The quote-miner attempts to derail proper debate by using painstakenly selected and edited quotes of scientists that appear, when stripped of surrouding (and occasionally interior) context, to support the creationist position. Pstarr's above quotes were copied directly from a standard creationist quote list. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ for more information and examples.

Nicely down, qizmoduis.

I especially liked this statement from the scientist pstarr has without doubt quoted the most often, Stephen Jay Gould:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled 'Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax' states: 'The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge...are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.'"

(Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory)

Laterz.

 

[Lisa]

Moderator Note:

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This thread is fascinating in nature and full of really good information and opinions on the subject of Intelligent Design. I have fully enjoyed the information being displayed here and admit to lurking and learning from all of you.

Unfortunately it has also been a thread that has resulted in multiple reports to the moderating team and one moderator warning regarding sniping has seemed to go unnoticed.

I would hate to see this thread get locked down so I ask you to please refrain from getting personal in thread and “calling out” other peoples opinions and attitudes that could be regarded as sniping. Chose your words and responses carefully, please.

Consider this your second and final moderator warning and I thank you for your kind consideration regarding this manner.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Senior Moderator.

 

[tradrockrat]

consider this post the "transitional" post between contentious calling out posting and constructive educational posting... kind of an evolution in posting if you will...



sorry - couldn't help myself.


BTW - I'd want to evolve into Wolverine too.

 

[Adept]

I'd just like to thank the person who anonymously left a negative rep point for one of my posts on this thread. Their input has been very valuable.