Evolutionists Dogmatic like WTS? (page 6)

pomegranate

So, to conclude you originally quoted Ridley to prove that evolution has no basis in the fossil record and now you are saying that he should never have referenced the fossil record at all. So why did you quote him?

Too conclude, Mr.Ridley's quote is prime example of the evolutionary debacle. He says evolution is not dependent on the fossil record and yet all he has to go by is the fossil record. That's called circular reasoning. And the big problem he has, which is what his article is all about, is to concoct an excuse for WHY the fossil record is so blatantly bare of transition. His article is one big hypothetical excuse for the missing transisitions.

You stand condemned as a liar for (a) misquoting someone to prove a point that was actually opposite to what he was saying and (b) being too arrogant to accept that you did that.

Since when do YOU mere mortal man have the power and authority to condemn another? What are you gonna do, punish me for what YOU believe to be true. Sounds so early Catholic church like. Oh, I get it, evolutionists get to play God now? Read the man's article with open eyes now, he's swimming in a sea of contradiction.

This has nothing to do with evolution - it would be equally reprehensible were I to deliberately misquote a Creationist.

Missing transistions in the fossil record have EVERYTHING to do with evolution, that's why Ridley needs to explain them away. Or, hypothetically induce them into being by an outlandish PRESUMPTION of which there is not one shred of evidence to uphold his postulation.

All the histrionics in the world from you and the brothers rizo won't change the fact that not only are your arguments in this area inane, they rely on dishonest methods.

A dishonest model is surely Ridley's. Everything he has written in his article is PURE SPECULATION. For you to purport that speculation as fact, and because you accept that as fact in no way makes me a liar, it makes you one who believes speculation and hypothesis to be fact. I call that Strange Science.

As for species - explain to JoRizo what a ring species is - take the California salamander as an example. After all, you have read Ridley's article? Right?

Ridley is not the definitive authoratity on ring species. As a matter of fact NO ONE IS. Because "RING SPECIES" is a hypothetical presentation to AGAIN explain how these IN BETWEEN SPECIES came to be, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO RECORD OF THEM EVER EXISTING in the fossil record, or ANYWHERE living in the present day world.

The California salamander is it's own kind.

Edited by - pomegranate on 30 October 2002 8:47:43

Gedanken

pomegranate,

Flatly I don't believe you have read the article.

You say everything that he has written in the article is pure speculation. Give me a concrete example. What about ring species? And, if it is ALL speculation, then isn't the bit you quoted also pure speculation?

(added: so do you think that Ridley's comments on the California Salamnder are based on faulty data - he shows that they consist of several different non-interbreeding species),

But, what I meant by "having nothing to do with evolution" is the following:

You quoted Ridley as an "Oxford Zoologist" who, so you thought, was saying that evolution was not supported by the fossil record. That is you quoted him as an authority to make your point.

But now you no longer see his article as being meaningful, in fact, you say it's full of contradictions. That's because you misquoted him. So whether he is right or wrong in what he says, or even if he is a total loon, nevertheless you misquoted him and misrepresented the conclusion of his article which was stated right at the beginning in the abstract.

So, I ask you again - why quote someone who you believe is an idiot and who contradicts himself? Had you criticized Ridley as contyracdicting himself from the start then fair enough - but you dishonestly presented him as an authority who seemed to back you up. That is, you didn't know what his article was about - and I'd guess you still don't.

That's what makes you dishonest. You will misquote a person to advance your own ends which is just plain old fashioned lying.

It really is as simple as that.

Gedanken

Edited by - Gedanken on 30 October 2002 9:28:16

link

We have the theory of evolution and the theory of creation. Neither can be supported with indisputable fact and therefore neither one is a certainty. Both belong in the realms of belief.

Seldom do we see anyone getting worked up as much as when we tell them we do not agree with their beliefs. Check out 1. Creationists 2. Evolutionists and 3. JWs! There all dogmatic.

This thread has an excellent title but it misses out the Creationist part

link

rem

I suppose people who insist that the earth is round are also dogmatic as well.

Some people would just love to think that we don't know anything and that everything is just 'belief'. That is their defense for being lazy and not looking at the evidence. At least say, "I'm not sure which side is right because I haven't studied the subject." But to say that both sides are just as valid is just plain ignorant.

rem

link

Rem,

There is indisputable evidence that the world is round therefore it cannot involve dogma. So you see there is no need for fence sitting.

With regard to the topic of this thread I would say " Im not sure which side is right because I have studied the subject"

In my humble opinion, to say at this point in time that one side or the other of the creationist/evolutionist debate has been proven beyond doubt would be "just plain ignorant" (for want of a better expression).

That's my dogma and I'm sticking to it so don't you dare disagree with me.

Of course I could just toss a coin if that would make you happy.

link

rem

Link,

It is clear that you have not studied the subject in depth. The evidence is as clear as the earth is round. Your refusal to accept it makes you as nutty as a flat earther... either that or you are just horribly uninformed.

Even if the evidence against Evolution were not solid (which it is), the evidence that Creationists are liars and misrepresent real science is incontrovertible. If you have not seen this in your "study" then your are blind or biased beyond comprehension. This, in itself, makes Creationism less valid than Evolution. Add on top of that the mountain of evidence for Evolution, and you end up with only one side standing.

How, exactly, have you studied the subject?

rem

Gedanken

link,

What do you make of misquoting evolutionists?

Nothing can be proved beyond doubt - in fact the main difference between scientific thinking and creationism is the concept of falsifiability. That is, unless a theory or idea can, in principle, be falsified, then it is rejected as being meaningless. If I postulate that sugared donuts grow on trees on Pluto then that is a falsifiable assertion and so a legitimate (if ridiculous) hypothesis. However, if I claim that God talks to me and me alone and that I am never to reveal what he says, then that is not falsifiable. Science must deal with evidence that any person can observe and detect and measure. In that sense evolution is falsifiable just as the case of the peppered moth shows.

So, to argue that neither creationism nor evolution can be proved beyond doubt is true but useless. It is like saying that because we cannot prove beyond doubt that the chair I am sitting on was not created by God 10 seconds ago, along with the rest of the universe, and our memories, that we should not accept the existence of the chair as a fact. All of such philosophical arguments against evolution could be applied to physics and electronics - but I don't see people not buying the latest electronic gadgets because the theory of them cannot be proved beyond doubt.

How many creationists will reject new treatments for diseases even though those treatments may be (and increasingly are) a result of applying the theory of evolution by evolutionists. Puts one rather in mind of JWs and blood. That's because the basic root causes of the WTS and other fundamentalist Christian groups or individuals is the same; ignorance combined with "true belief."

There is abundant factual evidence for evolution, including the ability to engineer new species in the laboratory through "artificial selection" as well as examples in nature. Life is a continuum with a single common origin; most creationists don't even understand what a species is though.

Gedanken

Robdar

Gedanken, pursuing this debate is like trying to herd cats.

Iron Gland,

I take offense to this remark. I herd cats everyday. No problem there at all. It all depends on the incentive you use for the kitties. Food works well.

link

Sorry all but I have seen no real arguement to change my mind about my original post on this thread.

In response to the question posed by the title of the thread I must give a resounding:

YES

link

Crazy151drinker

I believe that I am sitting in a chair. But since I cannot prove to you that I am sitting in a chair, I must be lying. Its all in my mind. Its not a chair. The fossil chair record is all make believe.

Having faith in the lord is one thing. Basing your historical beliefs on ancient Oral Traditions is just plain stupid. I presume Prom that you also believe that the earth is 6,000 years and dinosaurs are not real because they were not mentioned in the bible. They have to be a hoax, I mean how could they wind up embeded in layers of rock if the earth is only 6,000 years old???

Prom, please stick to your faith in GOD and not your faith in a STORY told by sheep hereders.

Evolutionists Dogmatic like WTS?

Share this