Ask Me Help Desk - Science and Religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Unlike you, I do not call someone a bad scientist because of what they believe. It is whether they are open to the truth and to looking at evidence that matters.

Truth? The New Scientist article had been edited (sentences removed) to fit what someone wanted it to say, to have a scientist (falsely) say something about evolution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

I'd like to see your answer to the same question.

No.

Quote:

You have already stated that you believe Kemp to be a good scientist, and he agrees with asking that there is compelling evidence for macroevolution. And, as Wondergirl has been kind enough to demonstrate, you doctored your quote from his article in order to misrepresent his view. That certainly undermines your ability to chastise anyone in the name of scientific principles of integrity and fair-play.

Ho hum. I doctored nothing. False accusations will get you nowhere.

If you are going to start down that line again, I am sure that this thread will face the fate of every other thread where you start making false accusations and other abusive comments.

EDIT: I note now that even Wondergirl has conceded that the quote was NOT doctored. Are you a man of integrity? Will an apology therefore be forthcoming?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Truth? The New Scientist article had been edited (sentences removed) to fit what someone wanted it to say, to have a scientist (falsely) say something about evolution.

You apparently missed the whole point of the quote. It was not so much about evolution, but about methodology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

You apparently missed the whole point of the quote. It was not so much about evolution, but about methodology.

No, you didn't doctor it, but that was your proof article regarding macroevolution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

No, you didn't doctor it, but that was your proof article regarding macroevolution.

No, it was a quote regarding methodology. I have much better information against macro-evolution.

But I glad to see that you admit that it was not doctored. I note that you earlier accused me of doctoring it - will you demonstrate your personal integrity and apologize for your false accusation?

Just so you cannot deny it, it is in post 261 and treads:

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3 View Post
Unlike you, I do not call someone a bad scientist because of what they believe. It is whether they are open to the truth and to looking at evidence that matters.
Truth? The New Scientist article had been edited (sentences removed) to fit what someone wanted it to say, to have a scientist (falsely) say something about evolution.

I also wonder if Akoue now with show us if he has the integrity to apologize.

Tj:

Quote:

The Biblical explanation fits the facts better.

[[Meaning: The Biblical explanation fits the facts of general biology better than the standard scientific explanation does.]]

Asking:

Quote:

I'd like to see you defend this assertion.

Asking:

Quote:

Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of hundreds of fossil embryos.
Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of the existence of egg-laying mammals.
Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of extinct dinosaurs that lived 80 million years ago.

[[No Reply from Tj except to reject that the fossil embryos are half a billion years old. A digression to explore a quote from a paper supposedly debunking the fossil record, but which paper turns out not to. The actual paper does not reveal itself in any case.]]

Tj:

Quote:

It is whether they are open to the truth and to looking at evidence that matters.

Asking:

Quote:

We are still awaiting your evidence.

Tj:

Quote:

Of?

Asking:
Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of half-a-billion-year-old fossil embryos.

Ad infinitum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

No, it was a quote regarding methodology. I have much better information against macro-evolution.

Please refer back to your posts #241 and earlier.

Quote:

But I glad to see that you admit that it was not doctored.

Slippery little rascal, aren't you! I said it had not been doctored BY YOU. You did use a doctored quote as your proof, and don't forget to look back at those older posts of yours.

Quote:

I wonder if Akoue now with show us if he has the integrity to apologize.

The last thing he needs to do is apologize.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asking

Tj:
[[Meaning: The Biblical explanation fits the facts of general biology better than the standard scientific explanation does.]]

The explanation put forward by you is what you mean.

Quote:

[[No Reply from Tj except to reject that the fossil embryos are half a billion years old. A digression to explore a quote from a paper supposedly debunking the fossil record, but which paper turns out not to. The actual paper does not reveal itself in any case.]]

Asking, must you lie to defend your position? My response was to ask you to show the evidence of the age. I said nothing either way about the age pending your proof.

Quote:

Asking:
Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of half-a-billion-year-old fossil embryos

.

Show us the proof of the age.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

No.

So it was not you who wrote post #228?

Quote:

Ho hum. I doctored nothing. False accusations will get you nowhere.

If you are going to start down that line again, I am sure that this thread will face the fate of every other thread where you start making false accusations and other abusive comments.

EDIT: I note now that even Wondergirl has conceded that the quote was NOT doctored. Are you a man of integrity? Will an apology therefore be forthcoming?

I think Wondergirl is being far too charitable to you. I stand by her earlier claim that sentences were deleted in order to support an agenda. It was deceptive of you to insert the ellipsis where you did, and even more to cut the quote short before it got to this:

Quote:

Irrespective of one's view of the biological causes of such a pattern (and there continues to be much debate about this), it leads in practice to description of long-term evolution, or macroevolution, in terms of the differential survival, extinction and proliferation of species. The species is the unit of evolution.

You purposefully deleted sentences that did not support your view. That is deceptive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

EDIT: I note now that even Wondergirl has conceded that the quote was NOT doctored. Are you a man of integrity? Will an apology therefore be forthcoming?

That is an out-and-out LIE, Tom. I said, "No, you didn't doctor it, but that was your proof article regarding macroevolution."

There is no doubt it has been doctored. Someone beat you to it.

***ADDED -- If you were the one who doctored it, may God have mercy on your soul!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Please refer back to your posts #241 and earlier.

That was back BEFORE I posted that quote, so comments that I made prior to that quote were not claiming that quiote was about evolution. I posted the quote separately for a reason.

Quote:

Slippery little rascal, aren't you! I said it had not been doctored BY YOU. You did use a doctored quote as your proof, and don't forget to look back at those older posts of yours.

Now we degrade into name-calling. You did claim use of doctored posts, leaving the assumption that I had done so. But I guess that I have my answer as to whether you will apologize for your false accusation. The posts were neither doctored by me, nor anyone else, nor I might add were they edited. You simply think that more of the quote should have been added.

My, the nasty responses one gets when one hit on a sacred cow!

Quote:

The last thing he needs to do is apologize.

I guess that I was brought up in a different era, one where integrity was important.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

That is an out-and-out LIE, Tom. I said, "No, you didn't doctor it, but that was your proof article regarding macroevolution."

There is no doubt it has been doctored. Some beat you to it.

Two lies in one posts - wow!

First, I did not use it as a proof againts macro-evolution. You have already had that clatrified, and yet you keep keep repeating it, so it is no longer just an error but a deliberate mis-representation.

Second, the quote was NOT doctored by myself or anyone else.

I hope that when false accusations were made, personal integrity would compel one to apologies, but if not, then let's just move on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

That was back BEFORE I posted that quote, so comments that I made prior to that quote were not claiming that quiote was about evolution. I posted the quote separately for a reason.

#241 IS the doctored quote. "...for a reason"?? What, pray tell? This thread is about evolution.

Quote:

Now we degrade into name-calling.

What? Liar Liar, pants on fire? That name-calling? You owe us an apology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

So it was not you who wrote post #228?

The quote under discussion was well after that so whatever 228 is has nothing to do with this.

Quote:

I think Wondergirl is being far too charitable to you. I stand by her earlier claim that sentences were deleted in order to support an agenda. It was deceptive of you to insert the ellipsis where you did, and even more to cut the quote short before it got to this:

So I am left to assume that you refuse to acknowledge your error or apologize for your mis-representation.

That says a great deal.

Quote:

You purposefully deleted sentences that did not support your view. That is deceptive.

And your comment above is an outright lie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Second, the quote was NOT doctored by myself or anyone else.

You're blind too??

>Thread Closed<
As it has more than run it's course!!