originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Noinden
I take it no one here is willing to respond to the facts discussed and cited at the top of page 47 other than with a "no citations" or something like
"Quite mining isn't a citation." (as used by peter vlar as a cop-out standardized ad hominem attack and red herring away from discussing the specific
facts about the fossil record and genetics as discussed and cited on page 47)
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate the depths of your wanton ignorance and inability to grasp any topic or subject outside of you propagandized
cult rhetoric that AWAKE etc... tell you how to think and approach those topics.
Calling you out for quote mining isn't an ad hominem, it's pointing out that you don't provide citations and then use portions of quotes devoid of
appropriate context. You don't have the foggiest notion of what you're even discussing. If you did, you would be using your own words, using
appropriate citations and demonstrating proper context of your quoted text.
This entire post that I'm replying to is nothing but a gigantic quote mine. It's a violation of ATS T&C to use that much material from another author
and not cite them and it's intellectually dishonest to continue to quote mine without citations to provide the full context of the quoted material.
Because proper context almost always changes the meaning of the text being quoted.
All of your source material is borrowed directly from Jehovah's Witness propaganda rags like Awake! and Watchtower and none of it is from anyone who
has even a middle school level understanding of Biology. Feel free to find any actual scientific literature to support your claims. And your go to
source for "proving" your version of an argument? Scripture and youtube videos... it's a joke. You have yet to present a cogent argument in favor of
your version of Christianity and how they interpret both scripture and science.
But, since you continue to harp on page 47... the only citation you provided having anything to do with the topic ay hand (the rest are either quotes
from scripture and a psychology piece which is yet again, a YouTube video) was to a JW website purporting myths of evolution so it's the only part I
can actually discuss.
You're JW hit piece gets SO much wrong that I'm blown away by how eagerly you eat it all up solely on the basis that it feeds into your confirmation
biases. It almost immediately trots out the nonexistent distinction between micro and macro evolution. In evolutionary biology, those concepts don't
exist. There is only evolution. The only people who use micro vs. macro as a basis for their argument are people who believe that everything is less
It then goes on to claim that minor mutations lead to entire new families emerging. Again, this is false. If that had actually occurred, it would
invalidate evolution. By the time your article gets to Myth #2 they start talking about evolution of Kind's which isn't anything remotely resembling
This abandonment of scientific principles by the JW's becomes even more readily apparent as it continues to completely misrepresent what the
scientific literature states about Natural Selection by making inane claims that Natural Selection "chooses" beneficial mutations to produce a new
species. That's not how evolution works and its definitely not the position of the NAS who is cited in the article. That isn't what natural selection
is, nor is "survival of the fittest" a part of the MES so the author of this article doesn't have a leg to stand on due to the fact that they are
blatantly lying so that people like you will just run with it because it's printed in the Watchtower.
While the word “species” is used frequently in this section, it should be noted that this term is not found in the Bible book of Genesis.
There we find the term “kind,” which is much broader in meaning. Often, what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a
matter of variation within a “kind,” as the word is used in the Genesis account.
This above quoted portion part made me laugh quite loudly as they attempt to use biblical terminology to debunk science and pretending to show why
anyone working in evolutionary biology or related fields doesn't know what they're talking about because they're not using biblical definitions. It's
especially hilarious when using "kind" as a base point despite there not being an actual definition of "kind".
And here is another example of the intellectual dishonesty you and the other YEC proponents utilize and the reason I keep commenting on your quote
mining and lack of proper accreditation.
Here we will look at how you attributed a quote from David Raup- [
ex]Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup,
“what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in
the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”
And here is the full quote in proper context-
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million
fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples
of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record,
such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to
be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's
problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the
most reasonable consequence of natural selection.
He is making a case for Punctuated Equilibrium whereas you're attempting to make it look like a renowned Paleontologist supports your position.
I don't know if you're just lazy or purposely misrepresenting things or if its just that you are devoid of any sort of intellectual curiosity.
Whichever it is, you think you've got a boatload of data supporting you and you don't. If you did, you wouldn't need to resort to these BS antics to
make your point. You would instead use your big boy words and falsify the data. And no... quoting scripture isn't using your own words, your mind or
anything resembling critical thinking skills