["Icons of Evolution"] Premiere Evolves into Protest

The Falcon (Seattle Pacific U. student paper) ^ | 5/15/2002 | Haley Clark

[ThinkPlease]

When seeing Medved regurgipost, I am reminded of this webpage, dissecting another Holden regurgipost, and neatly cutting him off at the ankles.

It even shows neatly how misspellings can be propogated. Fun for the whole family!

[VadeRetro]

If that doesn't make it clear what's going on, I don't know what it would take.

[Phaedrus]

It's always entertaining when the Darwinists and their media supporters attack without having read the book, or even seen the movie.

[medved]

When seeing Medved regurgipost, I am reminded of this webpage, dissecting another Holden regurgipost, and neatly cutting him off at the ankles.

MacRae or any of the other talk.origins clown force could say "oink oink" or "hee-haw" and you'd claim he had utterly destroyed me with his erudition.

The basic bottom line is that if Steve Gould didn't want creationists quoting him that there were no intermediate fossils, he should never have SAID that there were no intermediate fossils. The clown was trying to have it both ways. He wanted to make those statements when he needed to get the dead hand of evolutionism off of paleontology, and then he wanted to make creationists out as liars for quoting him after his little "punk-eek" revolution had succeeded.

[Phaedrus]

. . . Unfortunately, Dr. Wells is intellectually dishonest. When I first encountered his attempts at journalism, I thought he might be a woefully deficient scholar because his critiques about peppered moth research were full of errors... and yadda yadda from Bruce Grant. No substance, no evidence, just ad hominem attack. Irrelevant, Vade.

[Virginia-American]

they interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Unlike horses and donkeys, which you claim are the same species. I'll ask again: What if Noah had taken a male horse and a female donkey on the Ark?

[Gumlegs]

Too late.

[VadeRetro]

The basic bottom line is that if Steve Gould didn't want creationists quoting him that there were no intermediate fossils, he should never have SAID that there were no intermediate fossils.

You have to ask "Intermediate between what?" You and other quote-miners use Gould to "prove" what he did not say, that Archaeopteryx, the fossil hominids, the dino-bird transitionals, the walking/amphibious whales somehow aren't there. Not what he said; not what he meant.

Gould is saying that it is and should be hard (but not impossible) to find the transitionals in speciation. The level of transition that he's talking about, most C-siders glibly concede as microevolution and call it irrelevant.

If the person who said the thing you're quoting can't straighten you out on what he said, what it means, and how far it goes, who can? Whose authority are you appealing to?

Grant is saying the same thing about Wells quoting Grant. You have to believe Grant knows what he said and what it should be evidence for. If you don't believe that, why cite him as an authority in the first place? (To rope in the dummies, that's why.)

[VadeRetro]

MacRae or any of the other talk.origins clown force could say "oink oink" or "hee-haw" and you'd claim he had utterly destroyed me with his erudition.

Did you notice the difference between your quotes and the full quotes provided? Not pretty. The writer's erudition has nothing to do with it.

[longshadow]

It even shows neatly how misspellings can be propogated. Fun for the whole family!

Now THAT'S entertainment!

Great find....

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I forget, who are the reasonable creationists around here? I guess they should get a bump too. :-)

Here I am! Here I am!!

Although for full disclosure purposes I am probably more accurately called a theistic evolutionist. I believe we are God's Creation, but the details are left to naturalistic scientific observation.

[VadeRetro]

and yadda yadda from Bruce Grant. No substance, no evidence, just ad hominem attack. Irrelevant, Vade.

And the Icon of Obfuscation link? Not just a bad review, a detailed rebuttal.

[Junior]

Hehehe...

[medved]

How much do you want to hear about Andrew MacRae?

[Junior]

MacRae or any of the other talk.origins clown force could say "oink oink" or "hee-haw" and you'd claim he had utterly destroyed me with his erudition.

But they didn't oink or bray. They showed your quote mining for what it is -- a rather poor and misleading attempt at argument from authority.

[Junior]

The basic bottom line is that if Steve Gould didn't want creationists quoting him that there were no intermediate fossils, he should never have SAID that there were no intermediate fossils.

"Archaeopteryx, the first bird, is as pretty an intermediate as paleontology could ever hope to find."(Gould 1991, p. 144-145)

If you don't pull a quote out of context, you wouldn't have this problem.

[Junior]

How much do you want to hear about Andrew MacRae?

Is MacRae taking quotes out of context in an effort to mislead the reader?

[Phaedrus]

Bruce Grant is a complete unknown. He's quoted because you like what he says although it's completely off-topic and thus irrelevant. As to intermediate forms, the paleontologists are cited again and again to the effect that none can be found. "Just so" stories won't do. The case is therefore closed.

[Phaedrus]

Any mere handful controversial "intermediate forms" that are trumpeted by the Evolutionists must be evaluated within the context of 250,000 - 300,000 separate and distinct species. More new species are being identified every day. And species have a habit of remaining stable for millions of years. Facts, Vade, facts.

[Phaedrus]

From Icons of Obfuscation: "Jonathan Wells' book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong(henceforth Icons) makes a travesty of the notion of honest scholarship. Purporting to document..."

This is a tract, a screed, a smear, Vade. Icons is well-documented and speaks for itself. Read it.