"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Galvasean

stevoslice

dead one wrote: »

====================================

You misunderstood me, What i can do for you, The problem which i wrote with most Darwinists is that they have no real=world experience (such as engineering), in which a proposed solution or mechanism must first pass the test, and then be empirically verified to be capable of what is claimed for it. Storytelling doesn’t cut it in real science, but that’s basically all Darwinists have left, especially in light of the fact that the underlying mechanisms of living systems are fundamentally based on the most sophisticated computer program ever written.

The mapping of genomes has done a lot for science and all seems to point to the same conclusion that darwinists/evolutionists have had for years, for example the video below outlines the difference between the chimp and human genome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBEtw7esmvg

while its not going to end the debate, it is definitely got to make even creationists think for a moment, until they can come up with some other fairy tale to explain the similarities away.

J C

bluewolf wrote: »

there really is just no arguing sometimes

... best not to do so ... particularly when you have no case!!!:D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

You apparently don't understand the theory of evolution particularly well.

It is bizarre then that you would attempt to tell Robin that his sister works in an area of science based solely on "storying telling".

This is even before we get to the question of why if Robin's sister's science didn't work people would continue to pay her for the last 15 years.

Can you provide a plausible alternative explanation for why scientists like Robin's sister, and the hundreds of thousands of others who work in the bio-tech industry, all still have jobs if all they are doing is basically story telling, and why these bio-tech firms still exist at all of the products they are making have no grounding in reality?

This is all based on real science ... in the real world ... with both Creationists and Evolutionists working happily and fruitfully within these firms!!!

The results obtained have nothing to do with Darwinism ... which is just a bunch of ever-changing stories about our supposed 'origins' ... with neither logic nor science underpinning them!!!

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

This is all based on real science ... in the real world ... with both Creationists and Evolutionists working happily and fruitfully within these firms!!!

The results obtained have nothing to do with Darwinism ... which is just a bunch of ever-changing stories about our supposed 'origins' ... with neither logic nor science underpinning them!!!

Ah man, I have your own quotes explicitly saying that you agree with
almost every claim made by "Darwinism"'s proponents, remember? These
quotes are back with the micro/macroevolution stuff & all of the quotes
I took from papers on drosophilia (among other parts of this thread).
Remember the quote JC, "everybody accepts"...

But now you tell us that neither logic nor science underpin these idea's,
so are you admitting that you hold views based on neither logic nor
science?

liamw

Reading the last pages of this thread has forced me to get this again...

AhSureTisGrand

Has the Flying Spaghetti Monster been brought into this argument yet?

J C

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Has the Flying Spaghetti Monster been brought into this argument yet?

I hear that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a model of the thought process of a typical Evolutionist!!!:D

stevoslice

J C wrote: »

I hear that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a model of the thought process of a typical Evolutionist!!!:D

If thats true for evolutionists, then the model for creationists must be cheesestrings.

dead one

robindch wrote: »

I'm assuming that dead-one meant what he/she wrote. I trust you will forgive me for taking somebody at their word.

One correction please.

robindch wrote: »

I'm assuming that dead-one meant what he wrote. I trust you will forgive me for taking somebody at their word.

There isn't She here. There isn't no she even in my mind.

robindch wrote: »

I have already explained that my sister-in-law, as firm an advocate of evolution as I am myself, is researching gene therapies to help cure diseases of the eye. Her research, as I have also already explained, has lead to genuine advances in medicine and has been published in leading scientific journals. If making the blind see isn't a useful empirical test of a research outcome -- what she is expecting to achieve over the next ten years or so -- then I can't really think what might be.

By no mean i tried to insult your sister-in-law or her work or you or any darwinist. I can't imagine, I am talking about in context of The Darwinian speculative thesis of random errors filtered by natural selection explaining anything substantial in biology. In that prepective that they have no real-world experience in any hard-science discipline with real-world accountability and it is reality. If you still insist that i tried to insult Darwinist, Than i am taking my words back.

Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in Sweden wrote:

"I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar 'Darwinian' vocabulary...thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events." He went on to say, "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." He also said, "Evolution is 'anti-science.'".

Biologist, Dr. Pierre Grasse, considered the greatest living scientist in France, wrote a book to "launch a frontal assault on all forms of Darwinism." Grasse is not a religious fanatic yet he called:-

Biologist, Dr. Pierre Grasse wrote:

evolution is pseudo-science.

dead one

Galvasean wrote: »

With respect to the theory of gravity, I would disagree. Evolution by means of natural selection has been routinely challenged and tested since it's conception. Even to this day tests are performed which time and time again show it's validity. Constant challenges from Creationists have put the theory under intense scrutiny. However, the more scrutiny it is put under the more robust the theory appears.
By contrast, the theory of gravity has not been scrutinized/challenged nearly as much.

Please see invalidity of Evolution

World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson wrote:

it is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything...or at the very best, they are not science

Please see invalidity of Evolution,

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma wrote:

Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them....

Lord Zuckerman wrote:

there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like creature to man!

Stephen J. Gould of Harvard wrote:

The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change

Dr. Don Boys wrote:

I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. (I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!)

Now show statment of these professor or any scientist against theory of Gravity?

sponsoredwalk

dead one wrote: »

I am talking about in context of The Darwinian speculative thesis of random errors filtered by natural selection explaining anything substantial in biology.

Alright, I'll act as if you are not JC trolling in a different account & take you
seriously. JC ignored all the evidence we gave him all throughout this thread
& instead chose to spout drivel & literally contradict himself with his own
words many times, but I am willing to believe you wont do the same.

Please tell us how nothing substantial in biology is explained by natural
selection in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ

Note that this is the same evidence provided to JC, I'm not going to pull up
anything more serious until we judge how serious you are...

---

That was me giving you a fair response, now lets dissect your latest post:

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual
change" - Stephen Jay Gould.

Ah, using Steven Jay Gould are we? A sure sign of dishonesty, lets see:

Representative quote miners: Institute for Creation Research: Evolution:
The Changing Scene, Bible Believers Net: The Case for Evolution Has NOT
Been Proved!, and Abounding Joy!: Scientists on Evolutionism.

First the necessary recital: this quote comes from a discussion of
Eldredge's and Gould's proposed theory of Punctuated Equilibria.
Here it is in greater context:

Many evolutionists view strict continuity between micro- and macroevolution as an essential ingredient of Darwinism and a necessary corollary of natural selection. Yet, as I argue in essay 17, Thomas Henry Huxley divided the two issues of natural selection and gradualism and warned Darwin that his strict and unwarranted adherence to gradualism might undermine his entire system. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it -- selection can operate rapidly. Yet the unnecessary link that Darwin forged became a central tenet of the synthetic theory. URL="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#note13.1"]1[/URL

Note how the quote miners must cut off the sentence in mid stride (not all
bother with an ellipsis) lest their readers be confused by facts and learn
that Gould, in speaking of "gradual change", is not talking about
"evolutionary change" being unsupported by the fossil record.

What was he alluding to? Since Gould referred to essay 17 in The Panda's
Thumb, entitled "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", let him
explain it himself:

On November 23, 1859, the day before his revolutionary book hit the stands, Charles Darwin received an extraordinary letter from his friend Thomas Henry Huxley. It offered warm support in the coming conflict, even the supreme sacrifice: "I am prepared to go to the stake, if requisite ... I am sharpening up my claws and beak in readiness." But it also contained a warning: "You have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Naturra non facit saltum so unreservedly."
The Latin phrase, usually attributed to Linnaeus, states that "nature does not make leaps." Darwin was a strict adherent to this ancient motto. As a disciple of Charles Lyell, the apostle of gradualism in geology, Darwin portrayed evolution as a stately and orderly process, working at a speed so slow that no person could hope to observe it in a lifetime. Ancestors and descendants, Darwin argued, must be connected by "infinitely numerous transitional links" forming "the finest graduated steps." Only an immense span of time had permitted such a sluggish process to achieve so much.
Huxley felt that Darwin was digging a ditch for his own theory. Natural selection required no postulate about rates; it could operate just as well if evolution proceeded at a rapid pace. ...

As noted in the Introduction to the Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated
Equilibria Quotes Gould is arguing for a "jerky, or episodic, rather than a
smoothly gradual, pace of change" in evolution. But he also contends
that evolution is fully supported by the empiric evidence, including the
fossil record. URL="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#note13.2"]2[/URL

Creationists are free to argue against Gould's conclusions, of course, but
the fact that they are reduced to ripping his words from their context in
a blatant attempt to distort his intent, only demonstrates that they don't
have an argument worth stating.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html

You've already embarrassed yourself, well done...

dead one

Wicknight wrote: »

You apparently don't understand the theory of evolution particularly well.

Ah sign of arrogance of evolutionist. Why genius are arrogant about their intelligence? Why such Pride!
Coz they place themselves above everything esle. I guess

Wicknight wrote: »

Can you provide a plausible alternative explanation for why scientists like Robin's sister, and the hundreds of thousands of others who work in the bio-tech industry, all still have jobs if all they are doing is basically story telling, and why these bio-tech firms still exist at all of the products they are making have no grounding in reality?

Because they are scientists not evolutionist in their respective fields.

unknown wrote:

Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc." It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don't "know." Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.

J C

dead one wrote: »

Please see invalidity of Evolution



Please see invalidity of Evolution,


Now show statment of these professor or any scientist against theory of Gravity?

There are none!!!!

... but here are some thought-provoking ideas on the issue from Prof Michael Ruse, Editor of the Cambridge University Press Series in the Philosophy of Biology :-

Whatever may be the case, it is not that the atheists are having a field day because of the brilliance and novelty of their thinking. Frankly -- and I speak here as a nonbeliever myself, pretty atheistic about Christianity and skeptical about all theological claims -- the material being churned out is second rate. And that is a euphemism for "downright awful." ISIS December 2007 p.815


Charles Darwin's discussion of the problem in the Origin of Species always puts me in mind of Sherlock Holmes's response in the story "Silver Blaze." Upon being asked if there were any points of note, he replied: "The dog that barked in the night." But the dog didn't bark in the night." "Precisely!"
"But Darwin didn't discuss the Origin of life in the Origin of Species." "Precisely!"
He knew that he had no answer and that getting into a discussion of the topic would lead only to tears, so he stayed away from it altogether.
However, that is cheating a little -- certainly it would be today. Darwinism and Its Discontents (2006) p.52-3


You cannot legally teach religion in state schools, at least not in biology and other science classes. That was the issue in Arkansas and Dover. (I am not talking about current affairs or like courses.) But now ask yourself. If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim? And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught? Is Science Religion? The Chronicle of Higher Education December 22 2010

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Ah man, I have your own quotes explicitly saying that you agree with
almost every claim made by "Darwinism"'s proponents, remember? These
quotes are back with the micro/macroevolution stuff & all of the quotes
I took from papers on drosophilia (among other parts of this thread).
Remember the quote JC, "everybody accepts"...

But now you tell us that neither logic nor science underpin these idea's,
so are you admitting that you hold views based on neither logic nor
science?

Neither logic nor science supports the idea that all of these processes were spontaneously generated ... they are all an ultimate product of intelligent design.

Zombrex

dead one wrote: »

Ah sign of arrogance of evolutionist. Why genius are arrogant about their intelligence? Why such Pride!
Coz they place themselves above everything esle. I guess

That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that your posts give the strong impression you don't understand evolution very well (such as comparing DNA to the most complex computer language)

It is some what silly then to inform a scientist such as Robin's sister that the work she has been doing for the last 15 years is "storytelling", while at the same time complaining about "arrogance"

Not understanding evolution is nothing to be ashamed off. Lots of people don't understand lots of things. But when you don't understand someone it is rather odd to criticize those who do based on your misunderstandings.

dead one wrote: »

Because they are scientists not evolutionist in their respective fields.

Evolution is a theory of biology, used throughout biology, but the field it is mainly used in is evolutionary biology which, if I'm following Robins posts is the area his sister works in.

Can I ask you do you work in the field of evolutionary biology?

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Please tell us how nothing substantial in biology is explained by natural
selection in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ

This is evidence for common design by a common designer ... and the fact that it is 16 million to one is further evidence of an intelligent origin ... rather than blind chance!!!

The argument is something like arguing that because all 'closely related cars' have a common logo emblazoned on them ... they must have been produced by a process of environmental selection ... and blind chance ... rather than by one manufacturer!!!

The following warning from William Broad and Nicholas Wade seems particulary appropriate:-

Expectancy leads to self-deception and self-deception leads to the propensity to be deceived by others. The great scientific hoaxes, such as the Beringer case and the Piltdown man discussed in this chapter, demonstrate the extremes of gullibility to which some scientists may be led by their desire to believe. Indeed, professional magicians claim that scientists, because of their confidence in their own objectivity, are easier to deceive than other people. Betrayers of the Truth (1982) p.108

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

Neither logic nor science supports the idea that all of these processes were spontaneously generated ... they are all ultimately the product of intelligent design.

That's not what you said, you said:

The results obtained have nothing to do with Darwinism ... which is just a bunch of ever-changing stories about our supposed 'origins' ... with neither logic nor science underpinning them!!!

which, [first of all is not "the idea that all of these processes were
spontaneously generated", nobody claims it was "spontaneous" in the
way you'd like to paint it (and the abiogenesis video you can't face makes a case that it
wasn't "spontaneous" it was directed by thermodynamic & environmental factors)], is also
a statement by you stating that microevolution has neither logic nor
science underpinning it, it is a statement by you stating that
natural selection has neither logic nor science underpinning it, yet
you explicitly made statements in this thread telling us that "everybody
accepts" these ideas.

When you tell us that "Darwinism" has neither logic nor science
underpinning it's claims, & also tell us evolution is full of fairytale's as
you have done many times in this thread, you contradict yourself because
you've also told us explicitly that you accept almost every part of the
claims these theories make.

So it follows that you hold ideas with neither logic nor science
underpinning them when you say this about ideas that you have
explicitly told us that you personally accept (along with "everybody"),
but you are failing (denying?) to see the fact that this logically follows
from your very own claims, why?

gbee

J C wrote: »

The argument is something like arguing that because all 'closely related cars' have a common logo emblazoned on them ... they must have been produced by a process of environmental selection ... and blind chance ... rather than by one manufacturer!!!

You're beaten mate, just lie down will ya.

As you should know, cars are badged all the time, almost none of the cars today actually carry the manufacturers name on them, you've used an illogical clutching at straws analogy that has most of us reading this thread falling off out of our seats in hilarious laughter.

Thanks, you should be on stage at the comedy club, you're brilliant.

Zombrex

dead one wrote: »

Biologist, Dr. Pierre Grasse, considered the greatest living scientist in France, wrote a book to "launch a frontal assault on all forms of Darwinism." Grasse is not a religious fanatic yet he called:-

Im not sure Grasse was ever considered the greatest living scientist in France, he is also dead and he also never called evolution pseudo-science.

He was a Lamarckist, who held to the process of evolution as described by Jean Baptist Lamarck (who's supporters also included Hitler and Stalin, just saying), a scientific theory that was contradicted by the discovery of genetics in the 40s and 50s.

Despite this Grasse held to Lamarckian evolution until his death, some would say because he was the most stubborn living scientist in France.

If you truly do know a lot about evolution (enough to say to Robin's sister that her 15 years work has been storytelling for example) it would seem unnecessary then to copy and paste inaccurate quotes from Creationist websites, particularly when these quotes are, as in this instance, out right lies.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

This is evidence for common design by a common designer ... and the fact that it is 16 million to one is further evidence of an intelligence in action ... than blind chance!!!

When you accept the fact that this 16 million to one chance even exists
you contradict yourself, You told us that there is neither logic nor
science underpinning these ideas yet now you tell us that the extremely
specific figure predicted by evolutionary theory actually verifies your
trash arguments :rolleyes: So again you tell us that facts found by neither logic
nor science actually verify your arguments, such trolling :pac:

J C wrote: »

The argument is something like arguing that because all 'closely related cars' have a common logo emblazoned on them ... they must have been produced by a process of environmental selection ... and blind chance ... rather than by one manufacturer!!!

What you're doing is taking one of these cars that were made by
manufacturer X, for which extremely strong evidence is there that
it was made in a factory, but you're telling us it was made by god
giving us no reason why this is the case except for pseudo-catchy
soundbites like common design implies a common designer, these
deceitful phrases are engineered to appeal to the naive & you really
take the bait... :pac:

Lets analyse it: "common design implies a common designer", jeesh, shure
sounds logical to me alright, right? I mean it simply follows that all of the
common design in the world had to have been designed right? Therefore
I am using logic. Look, A ⇒ B, I have a truth table that verifies this too!
Common Design ⇒ Common Designer, ya know what? Thinking about it
it's as if god's real name is "er"! :eek: It follows, logically too! Why? Because
what is an emergency room called? An ER!!! :eek: What happens in ER's???
People have out of body experiences!!!! :eek: What happens in out of body
experiences??? People see themselves being operated upon!
Common Design ⇒ Doctors at an operating table!!! It follows!!! :cool:
I have quotes from respected scientists verifying this too & in some
obscure ancient Hebrew text there is a scholar who used what freely
translates to "er" to refer to god once, some scholars argue it was a
misspelling but they are just atheists with biased agenda's anyway,
argumentum ad verecundiam or argumentum ad logicum? You decide

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Alright, I'll act as if you are not JC trolling in a different account & take you seriously.

Are you crediting me with bi-location now???:(

... your illogical conclusions, based on the facts, is something that all scientists are prone to according to William Broad and Nicholas Wade :-

"In the acquisition of new knowledge, scientists are not guided by logic and objectivity alone, but also by such nonrational factors as rhetoric, propaganda, and personal prejudice. Scientists do not depend solely on rational thought, and have no monopoly on it. Science should not be considered the guardian of rationality in society, but merely one major form of its cultural expression." Betrayers of the Truth (1982) p.9

The best way of solving this problem is to have a Creationists critique Evolution Science conclusions ... and visa versa.

... something like this thread ... actually!!!!

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

That's not what you said, you said:

which, [first of all is not "the idea that all of these processes were
spontaneously generated", nobody claims it was "spontaneous" in the
way you'd like to paint it (and the abiogenesis video you can't face makes a case that it
wasn't "spontaneous" it was directed by thermodynamic & environmental factors)], is also
a statement by you stating that microevolution has neither logic nor
science underpinning it, it is a statement by you stating that
natural selection has neither logic nor science underpinning it, yet
you explicitly made statements in this thread telling us that "everybody
accepts" these ideas.

When you tell us that "Darwinism" has neither logic nor science
underpinning it's claims, & also tell us evolution is full of fairytale's as
you have done many times in this thread, you contradict yourself because
you've also told us explicitly that you accept almost every part of the
claims these theories make.

So it follows that you hold ideas with neither logic nor science
underpinning them when you say this about ideas that you have
explicitly told us that you personally accept (along with "everybody"),
but you are failing (denying?) to see the fact that this logically follows
from your very own claims, why?

Natural / sexual selection occurs ... it is the Darwinian claim that the organisms involved and their genetically diverse complex specified functional information was generated spontaneously using a combination of chance changes and selection that is logically (and mathematically) invalid!!:eek:

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

The best way of solving this problem is to have a Creationist critique Evolution Science conclusions ... and visa versa.

That presupposes:

1) All participants are honest despite a mountain of evidence that someone is
an explicit liar, completely and utterly deceitful & soapboxing the same
arguments that have been discredited in this very thread more than once,

2) That evolution and creationism are on the same page when in fact
they are not at all,

3) That there actually is a problem.

We know on which side the problem lies, my only problem in this thread
(which has nothing to do with what you are talking about) has
been to keep track of all of the deceitful & misleading claims you've been
making & to put them right back in your face in such a manner so that
you simply can't ignore it. It's happened many times &, coincidentally,
it occurs around the times that your post count on this thread enters a
significant decline There are only so many times you can get on this
merry go round before it becomes boring...

---

Seriously, this is f'ing crazy...

J C

gbee wrote: »

You're beaten mate, just lie down will ya.

As you should know, cars are badged all the time, almost none of the cars today actually carry the manufacturers name on them, you've used an illogical clutching at straws analogy that has most of us reading this thread falling off out of our seats in hilarious laughter.

Thanks, you should be on stage at the comedy club, you're brilliant.

I just love your 'gallows humour' (about Evolution)!!!

The manufacture of all cars bearing a specific logo is intelligently supervised and specified by the badge holder ... which means that they are manufactured under the direct supervision of the badge holder ... often without them having to get their hands dirty by the process ... something like God when He said (specified) "let there be ..." ... and there was ... and it was good!!!

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

That presupposes:

1) All participants are honest despite a mountain of evidence that someone is
an explicit liar, completely and utterly deceitful & soapboxing the same
arguments that have been discredited in this very thread more than once,

Please stop lying and soapboxing then!!!

2) That evolution and creationism are on the same page when in fact
they are not at all,
I agree ... Creation has all of the evidence in its favour ... while Materialistic Evolution has no objective evidence in its favour!!

3) That there actually is a problem.

We know on which side the problem lies, my only problem in this thread
(which has nothing to do with what you are talking about) has
been to keep track of all of the deceitful & misleading claims you've been
making & to put them right back in your face in such a manner so that
you simply can't ignore it. It's happened many times &, coincidentally,
it occurs around the times that your post count on this thread enters a
significant decline There are only so many times you can get on this
merry go round before it becomes boring...

---

Seriously, this is f'ing crazy...

You said it honey ... but we can only hope that some day 'the penny will drop' ... and the Evolutionists will have 'the scales drop from their eyes' and they will see how evidentially challenged Materialistic Evolution actually is ... something like what happened to Prof Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at British Museum of Natural History:-

"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a non- evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.

Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school." "Evolutionism and Creationism" November 5, 1981 p.1

AhSureTisGrand

Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory.

Hmm...

J C

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Hmm...

There was nothing wrong with him ... as borne out by the answers from everybody that he questioned ... following his 'crisis of faith' in Evolution!!!

We must bear in mind that Colin was a leading proponent of Evolutionary Theory at the time ... and his job would have required him to be 'reliable' and 'orthodox' in relation to Evolution !!!

... so, any doubts on his part, especially when they were publicly expressed, were a very big deal indeed!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

There was nothing wrong with him ... as borne out by the answers from everybody that he questioned ... following his 'crisis of faith' in Evolution!!!

We must bear in mind that Colin was a leading proponent of Evolutionary Theory at the time ... and his job would have required him to be 'reliable' and 'orthodox' in relation to Evolution !!!

... so, any doubts on his part, especially when they were publicly expressed, were a very big deal indeed!!!

JC,

We've been through this with you at least twice before. Colin Patterson, who I hold in high enough esteem to use as quote for my sig, does not "doubt" evolution in the way that you do. He's a scientist and as scientists it is our duty to be skeptical, but that means being rational, honest and communicative. You don't listen,or try to understand us, or anything, so really, instead of claiming that everyone is out to silence you, why don't you actively try to communicate? Perhaps you might learn a thing or too. I suggested doing a role reversal with you on at least two occasions now, you turned it down. So, I'm going to be blunt here I don't think you know anything about evolution and while you are entitled to an opinion on it, it doesn't mean others should listen to you. Especially when it's just garble with smiley's and a trinity of periods attached.

Quit dishonestly representing other peoples speeches/words and taking them out of context to suit your own ideological agenda. Either play fair, or don't play at all.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

There was nothing wrong with him

There is nothing wrong with him, you lied about what he said. :rolleyes:

I was putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record,
and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field.
I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in
particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school
curricula. In short the article does not fairly represent my
views. But even if it did, so what? The issue should be
resolved by rational discussion, and not by quoting
'authorities,' which seems to be the creationists' principal
mode of argument.

Wise words indeed.