ALTER2EGO -to- DEUCE KICKER:
Instead, they use words such as the ones highlighted in red from your previous quote, copied below.
Originally Posted by DeuceKicker
Quote:
On the same page, Raup says, “… the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another…”
The very next paragraph after this mined quote begins, "Now let me take a step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works."
Again, you're missing the context. The issue he's discussing is not whether there is evidence for evolution, but whether there is evidence for slow, gradual transitions.
You go to these web sites and see a paragraph or two, but you don't bother to look at the original works. In most of these mined quotes, the debate is whether species-to-species transitions happened slowly or quickly. Your creationist sites pick out the quotes where a scientist says it wasn't slow, but fast, but they misrepresent what the question really is.
I don't really fault you for this mistake; you haven't read the books. I fault those that did read the books, and mislead others about the context.
So since the man admitted there aren't enough intermediaries to support it, this sets you right back to where you started and what I've been saying throughout this thread: There's no fossil evidence for macroevolution.
You are conflating two different arguments. What you are doing is similar to quoting one of your magazines saying God and Jesus are individuals, not part of a trinity, and saying it's proof that God does not exist. One does not lead to the other. Your argument is not logical.
Quote:
So since the Watchtower magazine admitted there is no trinity, this sets you right back to where you started and what I've been saying throughout this thread: There's no God.
Do you see the error in your reasoning?
Quote:
that they willingly allow themselves to be convinced that a theory is fact. Nobody is willing to accept that if these scientists had evidence of macroevolution, the word THEORY would have disappeared from the text. But that's not the case. The words "macroevolution" and "theory" are SIAMESE TWINS.
Earlier I asked you a simple question. Obviously you didn't look into it.
Quote:
Ask yourself this question (and this is not rhetorical; I want you to see if you can come up with the answer): Why is the word gravity forever chained to the word theory?
Once you can answer this question you'll see your mistake.
Raup used "evolutionary transitions" aka "species transitions" with reference to variations of horses.
No he didn't. He was referring to Darwin's work, which was about transitions from eohippus to equus. He says nothing about variations within the species.
Quote:
According to your argument, the term "species transitions" is with reference to one type or "species" of animal supposedly transitioning into an entirely different creature (macroevolution). Yet, Raup used it with reference to variations of horses (microevolution).
Show specifically where he did. Provide the quote.
wild fish tangent snipped because you have to learn what a theory is before you can move on to more complicated topics like species.
Again, you're missing the context. The issue he's discussing is not whether there is evidence for evolution, but whether there is evidence for slow, gradual transitions.
You go to these web sites and see a paragraph or two, but you don't bother to look at the original works. In most of these mined quotes, the debate is whether species-to-species transitions happened slowly or quickly. Your creationist sites pick out the quotes where a scientist says it wasn't slow, but fast, but they misrepresent what the question really is.
I don't really fault you for this mistake; you haven't read the books. I fault those that did read the books, and mislead others about the context.
ALTER2EGO -to- DEUCE KICKER:
No, I'm not missing the context. I read it and got the correct understanding, after which I quoted an excerpt of it--within context.
BTW: How would you know where I got my quotations from? I read entire paragraphs in certain instances before I select excerpts. I don't care if you and your fellow atheist/evolutionists on this forum choose to refer to what I'm doing as "quote mining" or "quote hacking." The fact remains I quoted within context, and the fact remains the dishonest pro-evolution scientists have used the word "species" interchangeably with the word "variation"--because I gave you the example of David Raup doing it with reference to horses. I also gave you the example of others doing it with reference to 30,000 "species" of fish even in instances where different variations of fish are able to interbreed.
I notice you dodge those issues whenever I bring them up and you run right back to your self-promoting, finger-pointing: "you don't understand what you're reading," which amounts to: "I, DeuceKicker, have better reading and comprehension skills than you."
Let's just cut the chase. While you're up here insisting that I'm "quote mining," how about you explain to this forum why the words "evolution" and "theory" are Siamese twins more than 150 years after Charles Darwin published his book Origin of Species? If evolution were a fact, why is it still being paraded as THEORY?
If evolution were a fact, why is it still being paraded as THEORY?
Let's see you explain away that.[/COLOR]
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences:
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.
.....SO GET IT RIGHT, MAN. Most here do not mind (at all) discussing anything you bring up. Just quit bringing up the SAME STUFF that is 100% wrong. It just serves to make everyone take your posts less seriously. You're confusing scientific theory with a hypothesis. Once you understand this we can move on.
Last edited by asdfasdf32; 03-20-2012 at 06:52 PM.
You are conflating two different arguments. What you are doing is similar to quoting one of your magazines saying God and Jesus are individuals, not part of a trinity, and saying it's proof that God does not exist. One does not lead to the other. Your argument is not logical.
Quote:
So since the Watchtower magazine admitted there is no trinity, this sets you right back to where you started and what I've been saying throughout this thread: There's no God.
Do you see the error in your reasoning?
ALTER2EGO to- DEUCE KICKER:
What error are you referring to? You expect me to accept a false trinity doctrine that is not found anywhere in the Judeo-Christian Bible, just because the Roman Catholics dreamed it up and inserted into their perverted version of Christianity four centuries AFTER Jesus returned to heaven?
So your argument for the mythical macroevolution theory is that because I reject the false trinity—which has no scriptural evidence—somehow that gives a boost to the tenuous position of your beloved evolution THEORY (not fact)? Surely you jest!
The Judeo-Christian Bible—which was not written by Jehovah's Witnesses—does not contain scriptures aka EVIDENCE that God and Jesus are part of a trinity. The Bible says the exact opposite.
On the other hand, with regards to the macroevolution myth, all of the paleontologists (including those that are pro-evolution) have been forced to admit repeatedly that the fossils have no evidence of macroevolution because of gaps in the fossils record. Showing the hopelessness of finding evidence for macroevolution in the fossils, pro-evolution scientist Ernst Mayr referred to the gaps as "bridgeless."
"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." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)
Earlier I asked you a simple question. Obviously you didn't look into it.
Quote:
Ask yourself this question (and this is not rhetorical; I want you to see if you can come up with the answer): Why is the word gravity forever chained to the word theory?
Once you can answer this question you'll see your mistake.
ALTER2EGO to- DEUCE KICKER:
This part of your argument is as weak as the part you used above, and it shows how desperately you want to score points.
If you claim that gravity is merely a theory, I hope you won't test it out by jumping off a roof. A theory is nothing more than a group of hypotheses that can be disproven, whereas a fact is something that has been proven.
Gravity has been proven and is accepted as TRUE. We see proof of it by the fact that buildings stay upright and do not collapse. We see evidence of gravity in the flight of birds and airplanes and space shuttles. We see evidence of gravity by the fact that we can walk around on the earth and don't need to worry about toppling off into space. Below are definitions that I gave on page 2 of this thread.
Definition of "Scientific Theory"
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
Definition of "Hypothesis"
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
Definition Of "Scientific Fact"
An observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is ACCEPTED AS TRUE.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+fact
The term "macro-evolution" refers to changes within an animal that is "above the species level." In other words, you wind you with an entirely different type of animal--such as a squirrel evolving into a bat or a whale evolving into a bear. Those were actual Charles Darwin claims.
OP, I tried to tell you before, you don't know what macroevolution means.
Or any evolution.
Evolution is never squirrel to a bat or whale into a bear. Those were not actual Charles Darwin's claims.
It's a tree, not a ladder. There is common ancestry, but it's not from a squirrel to a bat and whale into a bear, or chimpanzee into a human.
This is a common misconception.
You will not convince anyone here that evolution is a myth. I am going to give you a few reasons why.
1. Your understanding of scientific terminology is quite lacking. For example, you seem to have a terrible understanding of the term 'theory'. This further exposes your poor understanding of basic science. You are attempting to engage in debate with people who have a strong interest in science, many of them have or are pursuing advanced degrees in various fields of science and/or engineering.
2. You are regurgitating the same arguments many of us have heard thousands of times before. If we felt like it, we could have simply copy and pasted responses from http://www.talkorigins.org/ to your responses, which seem to come from creationist playbook A.
3. You engage in quote mining. This is disingenuous at best. I am not sure if you are trying to be intentionally misleading or you creationist leaders have given you these quotes intentionally misleading you.
There are others, but I doubt you will care or listen to me. You seem to have elevated yourself to a position of a know-it-all and have firmly placed the idea that you understand science better than the vast majority of scientists in the world.
Gain some humility, open a biology text book, ask some questions and try to learn something.
OP, I tried to tell you before, you don't know what macroevolution means.
Or any evolution.
Evolution is never squirrel to a bat or whale into a bear. Those were not actual Charles Darwin's claims.
It's a tree, not a ladder. There is common ancestry, but it's not from a squirrel to a bat and whale into a bear, or chimpanzee into a human.
This is a common misconception.
to all your "it's just a theory" quotes
Great explanation here, also source of pictures. Look under misconceptions too.
EDIT: Also, evolution is a fact and a theory, macroevolution too. But it's not what you think it is, as I said before.
ALTER2EGO -to- ROK2P2:
Not only did Charles Darwin claim that fossils would be found showing a squirrel on its way to bat and a whale on its way to a bear, he claimed all creatures and humans that have ever existed are from A SINGLE ANCESTOR!
Darwin's view is maintained today, as we speak. You will find the weblink in my opening post where this nonsense about all creatures having a common ancestor is still the accepted theory for macroevolution. I've copied it below for your convenience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alter2Ego
DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859:
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." (Origin of Species, p. 484)
EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2012:
"The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.
"1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.
"2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage
"3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"
Two Plus Two
Linear Mode
