: Incidentally, those quotes were from EVOLUTIONISTS!One was, but he was quoted out of context. The other was just another creationist.
: Okay, here are my sources. I intentionally didn't reveal
: them the first time so that I could get
: "unbiased" reaction -- of course,
No, you didn't "reveal" them because you thought you could trick us into giving up 140 years worth of scientific knowledge and instantly becoming believers of your weird little misinterpretation of Genesis. This is what we call "Lying for the Lord."
: I know that the
: reaction can't be unbiased. Evolutionists are as firmly
: entrenched in their humanistic religious beliefs about
: the beginning of the world as I am in believing God
False. As Gideon has REPEATEDLY pointed out to you, science, unlike dogma, is open to change. In fact, evolutionary theory is constantly developing and offering a more and more accurate picture of the past. There is no religious aspect to this, it does not require faith and, once again, "evolution" is not about the beginning of the world. Please try to get that into your head.
Take a deep breath, sit back, and say it, "evolution is not a theory about the beginning of the world." Could you do it? It's really quite simple. The reason you're having so much trouble is that you appear to have absolutely no idea what evolution is actually about. It is about advantageous, heritable traits leading to differential reproduction. It is not about "the beginning of the world," which is explained by astrophysics. It is not even about the beginning of life, which is explained by chemistry.
:
: On Tue Nov 23 12:18:53, Gotch wrote:
: > I'm interested in your reaction to the following
: > statements:
: >
: > "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology,
: > and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a
: > science founded on an unproved theory--is it then a
: > science of a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is
: > thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation --
: > both are concepts which believers know to be true but
: > neither, up to the present, has been capable of
: > proof."
: >
: Statement made by EVOLUTIONIST L. Harrison Matthews in
: his Introduction to C. Darwins "The Origin of
: Species" (reprint, London: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd.,
: 1971), p. XI as quoted by D. Gish in "The Fossils
: Still Say NO!", p 5.
Harrison was quoted out of context. Why don't you ask Gish for the following paragraphs? I'm sure he'd be mortified. Gish is an imfamous liar, and one of his favorite techniques is to take passages out of context, so that they appear to mean exactly the opposite of what the author originally meant.
:
: > "The Theory of Evolution is no longer with us,
: > because neo-Darwinism is not acknowledged as being unable
: > to explain anything more than trivial change, and in
: > defaulr of some other theory we have none.. despite the
: > hostility of witness provided by the fossil record,
: > despite the innumerable difficulties, and despite the
: > lack of even a credible theory, evolution survives. Can
: > there be any other area of science, for instance, in
: > which a concept as intellectually barren as embryonic
: > recapitulation could be used as evidence for a
: > theory?"
: Statement made by EVOLUTIONIST R. Danson in "New
: Scientist, 49:35, 1971 as quoted by D. Gish in "The
: Fossils Still Say NO!", p 8.
No, statement made by CREATIONIST R. Danson, and Gish is still a notorious liar and charlatin. Take a look at Richard Trott's analysis of Gish's "debating" techniques and the difference between creationism and science While you're there, see how your allies misrepresent the facts almost every time they speak. Creationists are simply not honest people and Gish is the worst of a bad lot.
Joyce Arthur, writing for Skeptic, magazine of the Skeptic Society, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1996, pp. 88-93, explains Gish's approach in great detail.
: Incidentally, this book by Gish is fascinating reading.
: It doesn't blow evolution out of the water -- the Bible
: already does that -- but it sure gives some interesting
: arguments. Anyone else out there read it?
Yes, unlike you, I actually understand the arguments against my position. Maybe you should try reading a little bit about what evolutionary theory actually is, rather than taking Gish's word for it. Or are you afraid?
: If evolution is "fact," why is there so much
: disagreement among evolutionists as to how it happened?
How it happened is, of course, open to debate. It happened, and we argue over the details. So what? Can you retrace every single step Moses took in the desert? No? Does that mean it didn't happen?
: WHERE ARE THE TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS?
here and here. And this site will explain why they are so common. this site discusses archaeopteryx, which is so obviously transitional between reptiles and birds that it can't be anything else. Will you actually go look at any of these links this time?
: Yes, I realize that secondary quotes are not as good as primary quotes, but I didn't have access at the time to the original sources.
Neither New Scientist magazine, nor On The Origin of Species are hard to find. You might take a trip down to your local public library, where I'm sure the staff will be happy to help you find these.
: Thought I'd give you an exercise in thinking. Thanks for the reactions!
OK, fine, now, are you willing to exercise your brain by actually reading any of the links I posted? I sincerely doubt it. Most of your comments have already been addressed, numerous times. If you had read any of the links I posted earlier, you'd know this.
: Oh, yes, and by the way -- Thanksgiving is one of those quaint American customs started by those who determined that the right to worship the Creator as they ought was more important and anything else in their lives. I'm thankful for it.
More important than anything except killing people who disagreed with them and stealing their land, that is.
Now once again, I know I have to keep repeating this because you don't want to believe it, nothing about evolutionary theory contradicts a belief in the moral and ethical principles of Christianity. There are many ways to deeply religious. Don't expect liars like Gish to admit that though, as it would ruin their argument, and Gish can't tolerate the truth interfering with his fantasies.
-Floyd
