Replies

" But you have only given a handful of truly fabricated/misquoted/misattributed quotes. "

No, every one I critiqued was either wrong or was from somebody who shouldn't be on the list.

"The rest are your own personal opinions about why we should not accept what the individuals have stated, or ad hominem attacks against their character."

No, I called a creationist a creationist. That's not ad hominem.

"IE, “who cares what someone working at the Atomic Energy Commission thinks about evolution.” Perhaps you don’t. I would say that any physicist good enough to work at the AEC must have a solid head on his shoulders. But since he doesn’t actively run in evolutionary circles, you do not care to hear what he has to say."

But he's not a scientist working in biology. The eco-nuts do the same thing with their list of *scientists* who say that global warming is all our fault. They pad their lists with people who have no training in climate science, just like creationists pad their lists with people who have no training in biology.

" So he’s an evolutionist, but just not in a form that you would deem acceptable. He is still a Cambridge physicist."

My point was, of course he accepts the idea that God created the universe. He also believes he did it through evolution and the Big Bang. He is not saying what you think he is saying.

"Oh, but hold on here, I thought the point was only to contend with the evolutionists’ quotes, since a creationist is, by your definition, not a scientist."

No, I didn't say that. But a list of alleged evolutionists who make statements that are supposed to show doubts about evolution shouldn;t be padded with creationists. You yourself said that Gish didn't belong. The rest of the creationists don't either.

"I’m not contending with you on the merit of quotes by Koestler, but merely serving as a reminder that “rejected by the vast majority of scientists” never really does make a good argument against creationism."

Neither does a list of quotes ripped from their contexts count as an argument against evolution. And you are ignoring my point that Koestler was NOT a scientist. Why is he on the list?

" Precisely my point, old boy. He was a creationist, therefore, to Mordor with him. This is only your personal persuasion."

No, that was your conclusion when you said that Gish should not have been on the list. Try to be consistent.

"Why is it that the evolutionary model is exempted from pertaining to the origin of life? "

Because it just DOESN'T deal with it. Anymore than Germ theory does. You would think this wouldn't be tough to understand...

"Upon what dividing line does evolution end and biogenesis begin?"

When the first imperfectly self replicating organism was formed.

"It is as if evolutionists realized how scientifically impossible living matter arising from non-living matter truly was, and therefore cut off any connection with it at the very beginning. Thus, they can claim “evolution doesn’t address that” and grin smugly, thinking they have disarmed the refutations of neo-Darwinian thinking. (Of course, they still operate believing in the principle of non-living matter giving rise to living matter; they have to.)"

No, it has never been part of the theory, ever since Darwin.

"Curiously, the same exemption is not afforded ID or Creationism. Creationists operate with an assumption about the very beginning, true. But ID does not; it merely says something had to be guiding the process, based on irreducible complexity, etc. So why doesn’t ID get the same luxury? “We don’t know how life actually got started, and we won’t address that.”"

Because neither ID or creationism has offered any way to test their claims. Abiogenesis, while in it's infancy, does.

" If we’re going to allow that convenient cop-out for evolution, let’s be equally fair to both sides, shall we?"

It's not a cop-out, it's the recognition of where the theory's boundaries have always been. Abiogenesis is best left to the chemists.

"You see? Once again, it is only personal bias which is a factor. “I don’t care, because he doesn’t agree with me and my friends.” Do you not see how useless this is in an honest discussion?"

Using someone who is representative of about 1% of the scientific community as an example of what science claims is dishonest, to say the least. It is also terribly misleading in this case since he DOES accept descent with modification, just not natural selection as the driving force.

" We’ve been over that before. The quote in this case was in reference to Hitler, who meant it in a very literal sense."

And he meant it in a way that Darwin didn't. Using Hitler as a representative evolutionist is a disgustingly dishonest tactic.

"Right. And were someone to go through and highlight flaws in links provided by frevolutionists, an instantaneous divorce would occur and evolutionists (raising their voices to reinforce otherwise weak arguments) would brashly state that they cannot be expected to be held accountable for each inconsistency imbedded in a silly link. I already wrote that I supposed a reposting of the link equivocated an endorsement, but merely wished to clarify that I did not compile the list."

Feel free to highlight the flaws we make or in the links we post. Unlike you, we won't cling to them after they have been shown to be in error.

" Once again, you excuse it because it was typical. Restating your point doesn’t help."

And you condemn him for believing what 99% of his generation believed. I bet you condemn Lincoln for being a racist because he believed, as did just about every body of his time (including abolitionists) that blacks were inferior.

" Who excused it?"

You did by brushing it aside.

"You’re trying to turn the exact same question back on me without answering it yourself, and it won’t work."

I'm exposing your hypocrisy.

" I’m sorry you doubt it, but I cannot help your personal bias."

I frankly don't believe you. They may have printed Haeckel-like drawings, but his version of recapitulation has not been taught for 100 years.

In conclusion, your list is full of misquotes and people who don;t belong and don't represent evolutionary thought. But, as you say, you stand by it.