Skip to comments.
Evolution study tightens human-chimp connection
EurekAlert (AAAS) ^
| 23 January 2006
| Staff
Posted on 01/23/2006 4:31:58 PM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 701-720, 721-740, 741-760, 761-777 next last
To: highball
>but edited the quotes to make it appear as though they were supporting his contention.
Could you please show us all the quote in question before and after the revision/modification? I've never edited a quote, that I can remember.
Thank you.
To: TheBrotherhood
In other words, if someone points out that you're a liar, you simply ignore them rather than coming up with a response.
To: hail to the chief
No, they're not worthy of a response.
To: TheBrotherhood
So what you are saying is that
anyone who disagrees with you is inherently wrong. You have no evidence that they are wrong, and you have nothing to say other than repeating what you originally (falsely) claimed, but you will not actually counter anything that has been said to show that they are right. You cannot possibly claim to have even the slightest shred of an argument when you refuse to argue.
To all evolutionists and IDers interested in a rational, scientific debate, I suggest we leave this troll to his own devices.
To: VadeRetro
missing warpcore Count-Up Clock: 72h 03m 00s
725
posted on
01/27/2006 10:18:03 AM PST
by
longshadow
(FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
To: TheBrotherhood
You know Brotherhood, once you clear away all the clever quibbling and evasive circular logic, we get to the nub of the assault on you. Basically it is Lady Hope is a liar and therefore so are you.
But since Darwin never made public his faith re awakened nor his recantation of evo, no one will ever know for sure. This insistence that because his family was not aware of this may not be evidence of anything other than they were not aware of everything that Darwin took in his heart to the grave with him. The truth is no one will know on this issue.
Actually it is not as important to me as it seems to be to them whether this happened or not, likewise whether it some evo or creo website approves it. In any event AIG said 'it appears Darwin did not recant', this is not a factual assertion at at all as, once again the distorter's would insist otherwise.
You know Brotherhood, by their own logic and what constitutes evidence I will say
1. Evo never happened
or
2. There is a much greater case to be made that Darwin recanted to Lady Hope than there ever was for evo to have happened.
Now as far as any assaults on my honesty or integrity etc., This has come from the same group that says the Bible is all fairy tale and evo with all the dead ends, (and all the fraud occurred in its short history) is true.
Wolf
726
posted on
01/27/2006 11:09:39 AM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: hail to the chief
IOW, NO that is not what he said either Demented junior.
Wolf
727
posted on
01/27/2006 11:11:10 AM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: TheBrotherhood
Could you please show us all the quote in question before and after the revision/modification? I've never edited a quote, that I can remember.
Then your memory is short indeed.
You made the bold assertion several times that Darwin recanted on his deathbed. You called it "historical fact." When asked for evidence to support this claim, you posted:
Lady Hope "did visit Charles between Wednesday, 28 September and Sunday, 2 October 1881, almost certainly when Francis and Henrietta were absent, but his wife, Emma, probably was present."
This was in post #451.
The problem with this "evidence" to support your claim is that the sentence is incomplete. The sentence actually reads "Moore concludes that Lady Hope probably did visit Charles between Wednesday, 28 September and Sunday, 2 October 1881, almost certainly when Francis and Henrietta were absent, but his wife, Emma, probably was present." (emphasis mine) You eliminated the beginning of the sentence, making Moore's opinion appear to be a statement of fact.
It gets worse. You also conveniently ignore the sentences following the one you quoted, which read:
(Moore) points out that (Lady Hope's) published story contained some authentic details as to time and place, but also factual inaccuraciesCharles was not bedridden six months before he died, and the summer house was far too small to accommodate 30 people. The most important aspect of the story, however, is that it does not say that Charles either renounced evolution or embraced Christianity.
That's called quote-mining. You pick one piece of a quote, edit out others, and remove it from its context to make it appear to say something other than what it actually says.
It gets worse. You also ignore the final paragraph of the essay:
It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people.
So much for your "historical fact." This is from a creationist website, no less, and you still couldn't find anything whatsoever to back up your false claim.
That was a transparently dishonest reponse to being challenged in a lie. It only compounds your original error.
I was willing to cut you the benefit of the doubt at first. I thought you were maybe simply mistaken. But when you lied defending your lie, it became clear that you were simply being dishonest.
I've never edited a quote, that I can remember.
So as we have seen, your memory is short. Or you could just be lying again.
728
posted on
01/27/2006 11:40:50 AM PST
by
highball
("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
To: RunningWolf; TheBrotherhood
The truth is no one will know on this issue.
That is the most charitable reading one can give of Lady Hope's story, which is (as Answers in Genesis admits) contains "factual inaccuracies."
It's also not what TheBrotherhood posted. If he had said that "no one will know," that could have been defensible.
But TheBrotherhood said that Darwin's deathbed recantation was "historical fact." He repeated that phrase several times.
Which, even by the most charitable reading of Lady Hope's story, is a lie.
729
posted on
01/27/2006 11:53:03 AM PST
by
highball
("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
To: RunningWolf
What?
To: longshadow
Sometimes you just can't fake it placemarker.
731
posted on
01/27/2006 1:26:03 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: narby
Only that they are more "changed" from the ancient common ancestor of all these species. One of the great mistakes in many people's understanding of evolution is that it is designed to create "higher" life. It is not. Evolution's primary goal is to produce creatures that survive, by whatever means necessary.Which means that future human culture will look middle eastern and worship Allah. Western Culture is on a downward spiral and Islamic on an upswing, merely because of who has babies and who does not.
But won't that culture be more likely to self-destruct given its inclinations coupled with the technology at hand? You do agree with Wilson as far as Darwinian sociobiology goes?
732
posted on
01/27/2006 1:38:35 PM PST
by
101st-Eagle
(The ACLU is a communist organization posing as liberty fighters.)
To: highball
Look forget about what AIG says. Or is that the one thing AIG says that you agree with, is that it?
Since no one knows for sure except Darwin and maybe Lady Hope, it is equally "historical fact" whether this happened or not, it all depends who's word you want to take.
Now what you consider to be defensible or charitable is irrelevant the historical factualness of Darwin's recantation, and addressing that would be a waste of my time anyway so I wont even get into that.
Wolf
733
posted on
01/27/2006 1:48:01 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: RunningWolf
So anything anybody ever said is a "historical fact?" Are you sure you're not a liberal?
734
posted on
01/27/2006 1:52:08 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: b_sharp
I'm a MONKEEEEEYEEEAH!!
735
posted on
01/27/2006 1:52:34 PM PST
by
101st-Eagle
(The ACLU is a communist organization posing as liberty fighters.)
To: PatrickHenry
All the best symphonies are written by chimps. :)
736
posted on
01/27/2006 1:52:46 PM PST
by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: VadeRetro
So anything anybody ever said is a "historical fact?"
NO!! I DID NOT SAY THAT.
NO!! I'm not a liberal. I wont even accuse you of that.
But several of your pals.., I could make a very good case for them being liberal as all get out, well maybe not here in the evo court could I make the case of course.
Wolf
737
posted on
01/27/2006 1:59:52 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: RunningWolf
Since no one knows for sure except Darwin and maybe Lady Hope, it is equally "historical fact" whether this happened or not, it all depends who's word you want to take.
Wow.
Just... wow. I need to look at that again.
it is equally "historical fact" whether this happened or not
You believe that "historical facts" are in some way a matter of interpretation?
It shouldn't surprise me that you have a rather fluid definition of the word "fact", I guess. What surprises me is that you'd actually admit that.
738
posted on
01/27/2006 2:04:07 PM PST
by
highball
("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
To: highball
//You believe that "historical facts" are in some way a matter of interpretation?//
Did not say that either. Plese quit replacing my words with you conclusions.
Even if I gave that to you (and I don't), go back to the logical example Vade uses against me right in this thread.
No!, and since you ignored this in your response, here it is again to reply to.
//
But since Darwin never made public his faith re awakened nor his recantation of evo, no one will ever know for sure. This insistence that because his family was not aware of this may not be evidence of anything other than they were not aware of everything that Darwin took in his heart to the grave with him. The truth is no one will know on this issue.
By their own logic and what constitutes evidence I will say
1. Evo never happened
or
2. There is a much greater case to be made that Darwin recanted to Lady Hope than there ever was for evo to have happened.
//
As far as logical failure, everything you throw at me I can come back tenfold against your side. You know its true, or maybe you don't. I think perhaps you guys don't see how far all over the map you are, how much you contradict yourself. What looks like victories to you are not.
Wolf
739
posted on
01/27/2006 2:19:01 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: RunningWolf
Must run work to be done.
Wolf out
740
posted on
01/27/2006 2:19:47 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 701-720, 721-740, 741-760, 761-777 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson