As They See It

[skepticalbip]

If that is what you want then read some actual science papers instead of Christian apologist literature. I don't see it is worth doing the research for you then pasting links to the papers since you only ignore or discount them. But the fossils are being found because evolutionary theory predicts where to look in the fossil layers to find them. Successful prediction is a powerful test for any theory.

I respect your right to want to remain ignorant of reality.

Again, spoken like a true dogmatic science minded atheist. Meet the new boss, same as the old (religious) boss.

Cute, that is. So you don't think that a theory being able to make predictions of what will be found and where doesn't indicate that it has some reliability?

Or is it that you only accept unverifiable statements from anonymous authority as reliable?

 

[Ford]

Is this what you all call projecting? It's nonsense. All of it.

I'm no expert on the Bible.

Really? What's up with this challenge, then?

Produce any alleged contradictions, imperfections, historical or scientific inaccuracies you perceive in the Bible and I will successfully refute them.

Sounds to me like a guy who is pretty confident in his Bible knowledge.

I'm certainly no expert on science. I wouldn't know or care much if science bit me on the ass.

And yet you claim to be better at it than people who teach it for a living!

I think back on all the bullshit propaganda my arrogant ass wipe science teachers taught me in school back then and think - I was right. They were idiots.

I don't consider myself a particularly bright person

Finally, you said something which can be verified.

 

[skepticalbip]

That was exactly his point. Your idiotic list of quote mines don't mean shit because you didn't include the context. He was simply using your "argument" style. It is only fair for one nonsense snippet to be answered with a nonsense snippet. Most if not all of your snippets will mean something entirely different than the snippet appears say if read in context just as Malintent's snippet does.

I know it was your point, and my point in return was that all I had to do was complete the quote. All you have to do is address the simple quote mines.

Give the quote mines in context and I will try. Otherwise, that request is absurd. I am not about to spend considerable time trying to find where the hell you got the particular snippets from so I can read it in context only to find that what was said was something entirely different than what your snippet appeared to say. Certainly, since you found the quote you can read it in context yourself.

 

[DLH]

I know it was your point, and my point in return was that all I had to do was complete the quote. All you have to do is address the simple quote mines.

Give the quote mines in context and I will try. Otherwise, that request is absurd. I am not about to spend considerable trying to find where the hell you got the particular snippets from so I can read it in context only to find that what was said was something entirely different than what your snippet appeared to say.

Okay. Let's say I made them up and the sources are bogus. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that they are brief observations of my own design from 35 years or so ago when I was still an atheist. Don't worry about who said them, just worry about whether or not they are accurate. You see that? It doesn't matter if Patrick Starfish from Spongebobsquarepants, or G.W. Bush, or Me, or you, or Richard Dawkins says something. The question is, is it right or is it wrong. I don't even check most sources, because I don't care. Science minded atheists who are either over educated or not as educated as they would like to be tend not to be able to think much for themselves and cherry pick who spoonfeeds them their science dogma. Don't mean shit to me, piss or get off the pot. You and Ford Prefect as well.

 

[skepticalbip]

Give the quote mines in context and I will try. Otherwise, that request is absurd. I am not about to spend considerable trying to find where the hell you got the particular snippets from so I can read it in context only to find that what was said was something entirely different than what your snippet appeared to say.

Okay. Let's say I made them up and the sources are bogus. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that they are brief observations of my own design from 35 years or so ago when I was still an atheist. Don't worry about who said them, just worry about whether or not they are accurate. You see that? It doesn't matter if Patrick Starfish from Spongebobsquarepants, or G.W. Bush, or Me, or you, or Richard Dawkins says something. The question is, is it right or is it wrong. I don't even check most sources, because I don't care. Science minded atheists who are either over educated or not as educated as they would like to be tend not to be able to think much for themselves and cherry pick who spoonfeeds them their science dogma. Don't mean shit to me, piss or get off the pot. You and Ford Prefect as well.

Again with the cuteness. Do you really think that you are so important that everything you decide to post should be researched for validity by us "ignorant atheists" to defend our "atheistic dogma"?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Certainly, since you found the quote you can read it in context yourself.

Unlikely. At least one of the quotes is from 1982. That issue of the digest probably isn't online. So he got the quote from a creationist site and knows no more about it.

So all he's got is a suggestion that other people think these people think there's something wrong with evolution. But we don't know who said most of the quotes, so any 'argument from respect for authority' is hamstrung by not providing the authority we're supposed to respect. DLH even fucked up the fallacy he's trying to use...

 

[DLH]

Again with the cuteness. Do you really think that you are so important that everything you decide to post should be researched for validity by us "ignorant atheists" to defend our "atheistic dogma"?

No. You could ignore it, you could correct it no matter who said it, you could complete it, you could research it for it's validity, you could dance in a circle chanting "Science! Science!" you could shove . . . well, let's leave it at that.

 

[Ford]

I don't even check most sources, because I don't care.

I'm not sure which is more hilarious. The fact that you get pissy over stuff you claim not to care about, or that you accuse us of cherry-picking dogma when you're clearly cherry-picking quotes and demanding we accept them as true.

 

[abaddon]

No. You could ignore it, you could correct it no matter who said it, you could complete it, you could research it for it's validity, you could dance in a circle chanting "Science! Science!" you could shove . . . well, let's leave it at that.

Or we could ask you to behave like an honest person.

 

[DLH]

I don't even check most sources, because I don't care.

I'm not sure which is more hilarious. The fact that you get pissy over stuff you claim not to care about, or that you accuse us of cherry-picking dogma when you're clearly cherry-picking quotes and demanding we accept them as true.

I didn't demand that you accept them as true, I didn't even establish that I had. You are so defensive. Just address them or dismiss them. It's so exhausting dealing with you people and nothing is ever accomplished.

- - - Updated - - -

No. You could ignore it, you could correct it no matter who said it, you could complete it, you could research it for it's validity, you could dance in a circle chanting "Science! Science!" you could shove . . . well, let's leave it at that.

Or we could ask you to behave like an honest person.

What sources could I offer to establish that? Let me guess, all I have to do is agree with you. Just address the statements in some way, is that too much to ask. Dystopian did it. Didn't it look easy?

 

[skepticalbip]

Again with the cuteness. Do you really think that you are so important that everything you decide to post should be researched for validity by us "ignorant atheists" to defend our "atheistic dogma"?

No. You could ignore it, you could correct it no matter who said it, you could complete it, you could research it for it's validity, you could dance in a circle chanting "Science! Science!" you could shove . . . well, let's leave it at that.

And yet you got pissy because I said I would ignore it unless you could provide enough text to make your snippets worth considering.

 

[abaddon]

Or we could ask you to behave like an honest person.

What sources could I offer to establish that?

Fewer attempted manipulations is what I meant; here, in this discussion board. The dishonesty is in how you fail to relate with other humans without attempting mindfuck gamesplaying. Don’t mine quotes and don’t project your ugly imaginations on people for not complying with your games.

Let me guess, all I have to do is agree with you.

Agree with me on what? You don't know what I believe or want aside from what I say, so I'm wondering how you got this notion that I want you to agree with me?

Just address the statements in some way, is that too much to ask.

Yes, it’s too much. To make them meaningful enough to address, you have to present an explanation or argument using the quotes as supporting material. Otherwise there’s very little there to address. That someone found a tidbit in one to address doesn’t prove this is a game worth playing. No one should have to imagine a context in order to satisfy your demands.

You don’t seem able to imagine other people’s minds. Can’t you understand what it looks like when you set up hoops for people to jump through, insist that they do it, and then whine when they don’t?

 

[Sajara]

Origin of Life: "For at least three-quarters of the book of ages engraved in the earth’s crust the pages are blank." - The World We Live In

"The initial steps . . . are not known; . . . no trace of them remains." - Red Giants and White Dwarfs

Many-Celled Life: "How many-celled animals originated and whether this step occurred one or more times and in one or more ways remain difficult and ever-debated questions that are . . . 'in the last analysis, quite unanswerable.'" - Science

"The fossil record contains no trace of these preliminary stages in the development of many-celled organisms." - Red Giants and White Dwarfs

Plant Life: "Most botanists look to the fossil record as the source of enlightenment. But . . . no such help has been discovered. . . . There is no evidence of the ancestry." - The Natural History of Palms

Insects: "The fossil record does not give any information on the origin of insects." - Encyclopædia Britannica

"There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like." - The Insects

Animals With Backbones: "Fossil remains, however, give no information on the origin of the vertebrates." - Encyclopædia Britannica

Fish: "To our knowledge, no 'link' connected this new beast to any previous form of life. The fish just appeared." - Marvels & Mysteries of Our Animal World

Fish Becoming Amphibians: "Just how or why they did this we will probably never know." - The Fishes

Amphibians Becoming Reptiles: "One of the frustrating features of the fossil record of vertebrate history is that it shows so little about the evolution of reptiles during their earliest days, when the shelled egg was developing." - The Reptiles

Reptiles Becoming Mammals: "There is no missing link [connecting] mammals and reptiles." - The Reptiles

"Fossils, unfortunately, reveal very little about the creatures which we consider the first true mammals." - The Mammals

Reptiles Becoming Birds: "The transition from reptiles to birds is more poorly documented." Processes of Organic Evolution

"No fossil of any such birdlike reptile has yet been found." The World Book Encyclopedia

Apes: "Unfortunately, the fossil record which would enable us to trace the emergence of the apes is still hopelessly incomplete." - The Primates

"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record." - Science Digest

Ape to Man: "No fossil or other physical evidence directly connects man to ape." - Science Digest

"The human family does not consist of a solitary line of descent leading from an apelike form to our species." - The New Evolutionary Timetable

As far as I can tell, the first quote, aka, The World We Live In is also from a Life Magazine article. Either that or it is a science fiction novel.

The next quote is also from a Life Magazine article where they quote-mined too. The actual quote:

Thousands of skeletons and fossil remains mark the path by which life climbed upward from its crude beginnings. The initial steps along that path are not known; those first forms must have been fragile, for no trace of them remains. (p. 224)

Search it here to find a few other quotes that were messed up in that particular Life article
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_fallacious_quotes_by_creationists

I can't even find that next Science quote anywhere online.

The Insects is from 1962. A lot has changed then. I'm guessing the other ones, like 'The Fishes', etc, are all the same. Probably even your version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (I haven't even seen one of those in over 25 years).


Unfortunately, the next Red Giants and White Dwarfs quote isn't at the particular website noted above. I'd search for it, but so far it doesn't really seem like I should bother.


So, before I go even farther, how about you get some actual citations going here? AMA style FMLA style or whatever as long as it is more than just - Science

There were several sites that you posted this to I noticed when lookin up the quotes. If you wonder why none of them took you seriously it is because you can't even cite properly, yet it is our fault for not jumping at your requests. I hope you don't think that your failures at citing properly are letting you 'win' whatever this is.

If you want to discuss how the quote-mined quote is different from the actual quote for the one I've shown, we can...

 

[Ford]

I'm not sure which is more hilarious. The fact that you get pissy over stuff you claim not to care about, or that you accuse us of cherry-picking dogma when you're clearly cherry-picking quotes and demanding we accept them as true.

I didn't demand that you accept them as true, I didn't even establish that I had.

Careful. You're gonna break the handle if you keep shoveling that much bullshit.

You created this thread by titling it "As They See It" and starting with a bunch of quotes (again without context or attribution) which appear to make the case that even scientists (whom you think are idiots) refuse to accept evolution. The intent of your post is crystal clear.

Just address them or dismiss them.

Dismissed. Quote mined bullshit.

It's so exhausting dealing with you people and nothing is ever accomplished.

Oh poor baby! You want a hug? Maybe a hot pocket?


You've started a number of threads challenging the members of this board to what amounts to duels over the validity of science vs your interpretation of the Bible. Nobody has dragged you kicking and screaming into these discussions. You've invited every single response to your posts. If it is so exhausting then don't fucking start a new thread. Don't bother responding when someone calls you out on your bullshit. Don't go away mad. Just go away.


Nothing is ever accomplished? As far as I can tell the only thing you're trying to accomplish is to have your own smarmy sense of self-importance acknowledged by getting people to agree with you that the Bible is the Word 'o Jehovah and that evolution is all terribly wrong. Sorry, but this is the wrong forum for validation of your views.

 

[DLH]

No. You could ignore it, you could correct it no matter who said it, you could complete it, you could research it for it's validity, you could dance in a circle chanting "Science! Science!" you could shove . . . well, let's leave it at that.

And yet you got pissy because I said I would ignore it unless you could provide enough text to make your snippets worth considering.

Did I? I apologize. I was wrong. Perhaps I should retract this thread. I concede, it was a bad idea. All I really wanted was a response like Dystopian gave so we could go from there.

My bad. I stand corrected and will try not to do it in the future.

 

[DLH]

Fewer attempted manipulations is what I meant; here, in this discussion board. The dishonesty is in how you fail to relate with other humans without attempting mindfuck gamesplaying. Don’t mine quotes and don’t project your ugly imaginations on people for not complying with your games.

Agree with me on what? You don't know what I believe or want aside from what I say, so I'm wondering how you got this notion that I want you to agree with me?

Yes, it’s too much. To make them meaningful enough to address, you have to present an explanation or argument using the quotes as supporting material. Otherwise there’s very little there to address. That someone found a tidbit in one to address doesn’t prove this is a game worth playing. No one should have to imagine a context in order to satisfy your demands.

You don’t seem able to imagine other people’s minds. Can’t you understand what it looks like when you set up hoops for people to jump through, insist that they do it, and then whine when they don’t?

[Sigh] You are right. I fucked up. None of that was my intent and I certainly don't see it that way. Nevertheless, I've taken in account the majority of your collective criticisms and apologize for the thread. It was apparently a poor way to approach it on my part. I would like to hear a response from Dystopian on the refutation he gave, but other than that. I agree with you all that it was a sloppy stupid post.

Other than Dystopian's response, it's done.

 

[DLH]

Oh poor baby! You want a hug? Maybe a hot pocket?

Uh . . . yeah. I would take a Hot Pocket. Those microwavable pizza like things, right? No sexual euphemism?

You've started a number of threads challenging the members of this board to what amounts to duels over the validity of science vs your interpretation of the Bible. Nobody has dragged you kicking and screaming into these discussions. You've invited every single response to your posts. If it is so exhausting then don't fucking start a new thread. Don't bother responding when someone calls you out on your bullshit. Don't go away mad. Just go away.


Nothing is ever accomplished? As far as I can tell the only thing you're trying to accomplish is to have your own smarmy sense of self-importance acknowledged by getting people to agree with you that the Bible is the Word 'o Jehovah and that evolution is all terribly wrong. Sorry, but this is the wrong forum for validation of your views.

Why don't you take a vacation, huh? Get some sun. Go to some godless heathen den of debauchery and let your bald spot down. Make one of those dunking booths and pay a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness to sit in it so you can throw things at the target and dunk them in water while making derogatory remarks about baptisms.

I don't know. Get laid, or go to the comic con. Whatever it is you people do to relax.

 

[Ford]

Why don't you take a vacation, huh? Get some sun. Go to some godless heathen den of debauchery and let your bald spot down. Make one of those dunking booths and pay a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness to sit in it so you can throw things at the target and dunk them in water while making derogatory remarks about baptisms.

I don't know. Get laid, or go to the comic con. Whatever it is you people do to relax.

 

[dystopian]

When was this fossil found, especially considering the age of the material in question? Also, how do you establish it's date and how much different is it from today's insects, comparatively speaking.

It was found in 1919, ironically by an actual reverend. Age can be established by the fact it was found in the Rhynie chert, a sedimentary deposit from the early Devonian period. Sedimentary formation is well understood and these formations provide a very clear breakdown layers. Combine this with radiometric dating, and we can derive the age of the rocks, and therefore the fossils contained within them. No, I'm not going to debate the validity of these methods with you; I know you're probably itching to throw the usual creationist arguments around, but I refuse to waste any more time addressing the same tired old shit again.

 

[skepticalbip]

When was this fossil found, especially considering the age of the material in question? Also, how do you establish it's date and how much different is it from today's insects, comparatively speaking.

It was found in 1919, ironically by an actual reverend. Age can be established by the fact it was found in the Rhynie chert, a sedimentary deposit from the early Devonian period. Sedimentary formation is well understood and these formations provide a very clear breakdown layers. Combine this with radiometric dating, and we can derive the age of the rocks, and therefore the fossils contained within them. No, I'm not going to debate the validity of these methods with you; I know you're probably itching to throw the usual creationist arguments around, but I refuse to waste any more time addressing the same tired old shit again.

Found in 1919 huh, and it is still being claimed by Christian apologists that there are no such fossils? You would think that the Christian apologists would update their talking points occasionally. But then those talking points are intended to be used to indoctrinate creationists not to be used to argue with anyone who has actually read and/or studied a little science. I wonder if they have even heard of Tiktaalik roseae yet but, even if they have, I don't expect to see them delete the talking point that claims such a critter doesn't exist in the fossil record either.