Yeah. I recognize ALL those quotes. I know for a certain fact you didn't read a one of them in context. I have them in my extensive antievolution library. (Where they occur many times over. Even the authors of the books probably didn't ever read the original source, but just got them from another creationist!)
They're all bollixed. There'll all entirely misrepresentive of both the facts and the authors' full assertions. I did so many times years ago, but I just don't have the time and energy any more to traipse down to the library, photocopy the original book or article, and come back here and type in a full explanation of how and exactly why it's all b.s. But it is.
Look. I've read hundreds of creationist books, articles, attended conventions, meetings of local creationist orgs, worked with antievolutionists digging up "mantracks" (misidentified dino tracks) in the Paluxy, etc, etc. Why don't you try reading at least one or two SERIOUS and comprehensive works concerning evolution. (Don't bother. It's obvious you haven't.)
But if not, that's fine too. Enjoy sitting in the choir listening to Henry Morris and Duane Gish preach.
[They’re all bollixed. There’ll all entirely misrepresentive of both the facts and the authors’ full assertions. I did so many times years ago, but I just don’t have the time and energy any more to traipse down to the library, photocopy the original book or article, and come back here and type in a full explanation of how and exactly why it’s all b.s. But it is.]
You don’;t have to do so. Tell me, did they make those statements and contradict themselves later? Because they would have to have IF, they didn’t mean what they said as you contend. Taken out of context? How in the heck do you take “And even at the organismal level, morphologically indistinguishable larvae may develop into completely different species.” out of context so that it means anythign other than “And even at the organismal level, morphologically indistinguishable larvae may develop into completely different species.”? Sorry but the ‘taken out of context’ doesn’t work here unless you can show that the original words meant somethign different back then than they do today.
[Why don’t you try reading at least one or two SERIOUS and comprehensive works concerning evolution. (Don’t bother. It’s obvious you haven’t.)]
Oh really? Ok- I have and I’ve also read the counter arguments and refutations and seen that the refutations and competing hypothesis are ALSO absolutely plausible- infact even more plausible due to the biological impossibility of descent from common design hypothesis. Have I read every ‘serious’ (a term used by evos meaning ‘books that agree completely without question that evolution did happen) book? No, because most are nothign more than rehashing points that have already been rebuttled effectively. You want to talk ‘serious-ness’? How bout not simply dismissing different hypothesis’ simply because they don’t fit a priori belief? How about allowing that assumptions play a HUGE part in explaining a process that has scant little to factually back it up? How about admitting that putting a hippo sized animal next to a rat sized one and claiming their jaws show the evolution of the hearing bones is a HUGE stretch of the imagination? How about at least ceeding that a notochord and a sinal column are completely different and that presenting a worm with a notochord and claiming it shows the evolution of the spine, and hten claiming that splinters of muscle attachment bones are both examples of the evolution of the spine is a HUGE assumption? Serious? Yes, let’s do get serious. I’m not suggesting that these aren’t plausible, I’m simpyl pointing out that deriding a differing hypothesis and deriding the one presenting it is shallow-unproductive- and quite frankly imature.
annecdotal evidences are a dime a dozen. Cold hard facts are scant and elusive. A thousand people can claim the chickory plant cured their aching back, however, what they don’t tell you is that while they were takign the plant extract, they were also subcionciously more concerned about their health and took up walking, stretchign and eating right- any number of which could JUST as plausibly have ‘cured’ their aching back. The herbalist won’t admit this and will continue to claim the herb is the agent through which the good health arose. And the person ‘cured’ will be convinced that nothign else came into play. At least ceede the fact that there might be mechanisms at work that we know nothign about and they might have been the agents through which processes arose. To do otherwise is to adopt a narrow priori and is unscientific.
sorry for all the replies- I post then something else pops into my mind.
[Enjoy sitting in the choir listening to Henry Morris and Duane Gish preach.]
Lemme just quickly address this- I will enjoy it as do other scientists who aren’t biased enough to simply dismiss them and their science and who honestly address what they say and attempt to give coutner points, and to get respectful rebuttles in return and who will then respectfully re-rebuttle. Healthy discovery debates take place this way and should never be shunned or dismissed simply based on bias.
You know, we’re shown two species KINDS that might have similiar features, and we’re shown something like the ‘earlier’ species (I use quotes because it is assumed- based on subjective evidences and interpretation of processes), having two less toes, and we’re told that the later species ‘evolved’ the extra toes. What we’re not told is that it is JUST as plausible that the ‘ealier’ species was a product of their own KIND who gradually lost two toes, and we’re not told how the loss of the two toes advantaged the species. We’re just supposed to take it on faith that somehow two less toes was an advantage. We’re also supposed to take it on faith that the two different KINDS were somehow related, and we’re not to assume that there wasn’t a relative of the the earlier species simply because no fossils have been found.
I’m simplifying of course, but you see the problem I’m laying out here, and the assumptions that we’re taold to accept. And, again what we’re not told, is that it is equally as probable that given the fact that the earlier specimen could have had a TRUE relative with two more toes, that the species shows nothign more than information loss.
The way the media and science present the case thoguh suggests that the later differing species that has two more toes was related to the earlier species and shows a ‘gain of information’ which really isn’t the case. To explain this- I’ll go back to the two-less toed species, and use their TRUE relative and explain.
The two-less toed species shjows a loss of information, however, the coding is still available, and at any time, the two missing toes could come back- There is no ‘gain of information- only a resoration of the information that was originally present. This would entail hidden infromation which we know exist throguh exhaustive observations. The two toes mgith croip up in a KIND TRUELY related to the ealier two-toe-less species KIND, yet we’re not presented with that TRUE later relative because it would simply show that the process of simple natural selection was at work and was not infact a true macroevolutionly process. No NEW information was obtained.
While it’s intriguing to think the two original different species KINDS presented might somehow be realted, we can NOT rule out hte possibility that they are infact not related, and that there very plausibly might be a TRUE relative to the two-toe-less species. (I nkow that’s kinda confusing to follow, but my mind is tired, and is does illustrate an entoirel;y plausible possibility)
Now, we can iether express bias and rule out what I suggested, or we can take the possibiltiy seriously and conceed that the original statement that the two different KINDS of species might not be realted after all, and keep searching for better examples of what we think might be a more appropriate process between different KINDS. Seems to me that an objective scientist would at least ceede the latter, and refrain from belittling those who present the posssibility. Just a thought.