 |
"A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of the particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation and note that it confirms that very period. Well it would, wouldn't it?"
(Source: Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil record", New Scientist, Vol.108,No.1485 (Dec 5,1985), p.66)
To clarify, a good scientist will normally not give credence to someone who rejects the conclusions of 99.9% of scientists in the field--which is your position. If you had a new idea that was scientifically credible, it might be interesting to consider your hypothesis. But you have only a very old idea that was never even intended as science as its understood now. Creationism is not scientifically credible. So yes, I absolutely reject creationism out of hand and I am in excellent company--AT LEAST 99% of the nearly one million biologists do so also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
You seem to want people to think that every scientific topic is controversial and there's always a minority opinion about every scientific idea, and that you can point to such minority opinions in support of Creationism. But there is no scientific controversy about whether evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, biologist argue about things like whether bats are two lineages or one, or whether the scrotum evolved once or twice (I'm not making this up!). Even if there WERE controversy about whether organisms evolved, such a controversy would not support Creationism.
To sum up, because of the things you are saying a normal biologist will disagree with you. That is, you have reversed cause and effect.
The rocks were dated using several methods including radiometric dating.Quote:
First show me the proof that the fossils are 580 million years old.
This is one of two papers cited in the paper about the fossil embryos. I assume you won't quibble about 30 million years, since you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old.
You can address your objections to Professor Condon, at MIT. I'm inclined to accept this report at face value, along with other peer reviewed science in respectable journals, in this case Science.
Here is the citation and abstract:
And an excerpt:Quote:
U-Pb Ages from the Neoproterozoic Doushantuo Formation, China
Daniel Condon,1* Maoyan Zhu,2 Samuel Bowring,1 Wei Wang,2 Aihua Yang,2 Yugan Jin2
U-Pb zircon dates from volcanic ash beds within the Doushantuo Formation (China) indicate that its deposition occurred between 635 and 551 million years ago. The base records termination of the global-scale Marinoan glaciation and is coeval with similar dated rocks from Namibia, indicating synchronous deglaciation. Carbon isotopic and sequence-stratigraphic data imply that the spectacular animal fossils of the Doushantuo Formation are for the most part younger than 580 million years old. The uppermost Doushantuo Formation contains a pronounced negative carbonate carbon isotopic excursion, which we interpret as a global event at circa 551 million years ago.
1 Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
2 Nanjing Institute of Geology and Paleontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Quote:
The age of the uppermost Doushantuo Formation (Miaohe Member) is constrained by the age of a third ash bed, JIN-04-2 (Jijiawan Section) that occurs at the top of the black shale member containing the Miaohe biota. Zircons from this ash bed yield variably discordant dates (n = 10) that define a linear array on a concordia diagram anchored by two concordant analyses (fig. S2). All data yield a weighted mean 207Pb/206Pb date of 550.55 ± 0.75 Ma (MSWD = 0.48). The two concordant analyses yield a U-Pb concordia age of 551.07 ± 0.61 Ma (MSWD of concordance and equivalence = 0.48). This ash bed occurs about 85 cm below the base of the Dengying Formation (within the Miaohe Member) at the interface between a black shale unit and overlying carbonates that record a progressive increase in 13C values [from –4 to +0.5 per mil ()] over a thickness of 2.3 m. Negative 13C values occur both above and below the sequence boundary separating the Upper Sequence and Miaohe Member (fig. S1). Below this boundary a pronounced 13C excursion (with values as low as –8) occurs; in the Wuhe section it is characterized by invariant 13C values of –8, whereas in the Jijiawan section there is a return to positive 13C values before the base Miaohe Member sequence boundary is encountered. This local variation is most likely related to variable preservation below the sequence boundary and/or lateral variation in sediment accumulation and preservation. In both sections, the lowermost Dengying Formation dolomites have values of –3 to –1, which increase to about 3 over about 5 m. This trend is interpreted + as being the top of the pronounced 13C excursion (with values as low as –8) that characterizes the top of the Doushantuo Formation (Fig. 1), thus constraining the age of the sustained negative excursion to (just) older than 551.1 ± 0.7 Ma, the time at which 13C values increase to positive values. This interpretation assumes that any period of nondeposition across this sequence boundary has a duration that is less than the duration of the negative 13C excursion itself.
No one. I think we can all agree it is not a complete catalogue of anything.Quote:
Who ever claimed that the Bible provided a complete catalogue of every species that ever existed?
You claimed that," The Biblical explanation fits the facts better."
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.
I don't think everyone views religion that way.Quote:
Rejecting anything which disagrees with what you want to believe is a religion.. .
That would exclude people like Einstein, Galileo, etc... I see your position now. So what is right depends upon what the majority believe even if that is in a flat earth or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Thank you for clarifying that. As for your percentage figure, methinks that cam out of thin air also.
Scientifically credible means that is agree withw hat everyone who you agree with currently accepts.Quote:
If you had a new idea that was scientifically credible, it might be interesting to consider your hypothesis.
Ah, so something which has been accepted for a long time is bad - new ideas that agree with you are good.Quote:
But you have only a very old idea that was never even intended as science as its understood now.
But how does a new idea get to be to be good, when when it is first introduced, it will also be a tiny majority who accept it. I guess that once the priests of your view bless it with their sanctification, it will be okay.
Because it disagrees with you. I am getting it now!Quote:
Creationism is not scientifically credible.
Don't bother trying to tell me what I must think - Good scientists (I mean the real ones) go where the evidence takes them, not what they are told to think. If they did not, there would never be any new discoveries.Quote:
You seem to want people to think that every scientific topic is controversial and there's always a minority opinion about every scientific idea, and that you can point to such minority opinions in support of Creationism.
Maybe not if you reject everyone who disagrees with you. That ensure that there is no controversy within the framework of what you have redefined as science.Quote:
But there is no scientific controversy about whether evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur.
Okay now, please list the assumptions which were made. You know, like the ones where they assume that the sample is not contaminated, and they assume a specific level of radiation at the start of their timeframe. Others?Quote:
The rocks were dated using several methods including radiometric dating.
This is one of two papers cited in the paper about the fossil embryos. I assume you won't quibble about 30 million years, since you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old.
Now that is not the attitude that I would expect of a good scientist. After all, I am sure that you are well aware that scientists, historians and archeologists have all at one time or another use d the Bible as a source document. Or maybe you reject anyone who does - sorry I forgot the rules of your religion of science.Quote:
No one. I think we can all agree it is not a complete catalogue of anything.
Again, the first thing is that you need to validate your facts (o.e. age) and we are starting that discussion on one rock. Second, you seem to think that so many things are problems and honestly, I don't even know what the problem that you see is with the first two. Please explain.Quote:
You claimed that," The Biblical explanation fits the facts better."
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.
I don't think everyone views religion that way.[/QUOTE]
[quote]
And I don't think everyone views science the way that you do (thank goodness! )
I looked through New Scientist's archives and I don't find such an article. Perhaps you can provide a link at New Scientist to the article you mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
In any case, Tom Kemp has written this 1999 book for Oxford University Press, so I sort of doubt that he doesn't believe in evolution.
Quote:
Fossils and Evolution
Description
Rather survey of the extensive data, this book focuses on the ideas, methodology and scope of contemporary palaeobiology. It devotes four chapters to the central principles of the field and then describes in detail five areas of current research: fossils and phylogenetic inference, the mechanism of speciation, taxonomic turnover on the geological time-scale, mass-extinctions, and the origin of new taxa.
Product Details
296 pages; 94 figures;
ISBN13: 978-0-19-850424-5
ISBN10: 0-19-850424-1
About the Author(s)
Tom Kemp, Lecturer in Zoology, and Curator of the Zoological Collections, Oxford University Museum of Natural History
Believe it or don't believe it - I don';t care. You reject everything that fails to agree with you in any case so to take the time to go back through the archives would be wasting my time wouldn't it? You'd probably accuse me of planting it there.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Whether he does or does not is not the point. He is an open minded scientist who is willing to acknowledge that there are problems and is willing to call them as he sees them. BTW, I note your assumption - if he writes a book for Oxford, he must agree with you - the same old argument - whoever agrees with you - good, whoever disagrees bad. If he is an author, he must agree with you.Quote:
In any case, Tom Kemp has written this 1999 book for Oxford University Press, so I sort of doubt that he doesn't believe in evolution.
Unlike some who say that anyone who dares do so (following - good, thinking-bad) is not a "good scientist".
I'd really hate to be a scientific conference (you know places where free exchange of ideas takes place) with you.
From T. Kemp's own website, his list of articles written in 1985:Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Kemp, T.S. 1985. Relationships between reptiles. Nature 317: 669.
Kemp, T.S. 1985. The origin of mammalian locomotion. In Principles of construction in fossil and recent reptiles. Eds J. Reiss and E. Frey. University of Stuttgart and University of Tübingen. Pp181-191.
Kemp, T.S. 1985. Synapsid reptiles and the origin of higher taxa. Special Papers in Palaeontology. No. 33: 175-184.
Kemp, T.S . 1985. Models of diversity and phylogenetic reconstruction. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 2: 135-158.
So far as I've found, the only sites that list the New Scientist article are Christian ones. I will next check WorldCat.
It did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I doubt those are assumptions. Do you have any evidence to suggest that MIT contaminated their samples or that if they did it would make a difference? Do you have any evidence that laws of physics change over time and the half life of isotopes was different half a billion years ago from what it is now? Are you one of those people who says that the speed of light changes over time as well? Do you have any evidence for that?Quote:
Okay now, please list the assumptions which were made. You know, like the ones where they assume that the sample is not contaminated, and they assume a specific level of radiation at the start of their timeframe. Others?
Finally, if you believe these numbers published by an MIT planetary scientist are in error, why don't you ask Science for a correction and show us?
Tom, you claimed that," The Biblical explanation fits the facts better."
Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of fossil embryos that are half a billion years old.
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.
Tom, you stated, "Rejecting anything which disagrees with what you want to believe is a religion . . ."
Do you really believe that?
In a thorough WorldCat search for the Kemp article, the only Kemp who appears in New Scientist is Sandra.
Apparently the article does exist. I found this:
From The Quote Mine Project, Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines, "Sudden Appearance and Stasis" by the talk.origins newsgroup, Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis" --
What has been quoted by some (Quote #33):
"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong.' A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it? ...As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the 'punctuated equilibrium' pattern of Eldredge and Gould." (Kemp, Tom S. "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, pp. 66-67)
In the paragraph this quote is taken from, Kemp is criticizing the claim that the fossil record is incomplete because it does not support gradualism. But the full quote is more illuminating (bolded sentences are in the original article):
The fact that the fossil data did not, on the whole, seem to fit this prevailing model of the process of evolution - for example, in the absence of intermediate forms and of gradually changing lineages over millions of years - was readily explained by the notorious incompleteness of the fossil record. In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be "wrong". A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?
Spearheaded by this extraordinary journal, palaeontology is now looking at what it actually finds, not what it is told that it is supposed to find. As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the "punctuated equilibrium" pattern of Eldredge and Gould. 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.
Note that Kemp states that the fossil record "leads in practice to description of long-term evolution or macroevolution...."
Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
You have cited a magazine article that does not seem to exist. I reject non- evidence, including made-up articles. If it exists, I challenge you to produce it. No one will care if it has a different title or date, but it must bear some resemblance to what you originally said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Edit: I looked some more myself and did not find it, but now I see Wondergirl's post, so I will take a look.
It apparently exists but sentences were deleted so that it would support an agenda. See my post above yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
The more one delves into scientific explanations into natural phenomena, the more I become convinced of a divine creator. Eminent scientists (and aethiests) such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkings produce magnificent insights into how the structure of the universe and life is designed but as more is discovered so much more is revealed as currently inexplicable. Interesting, the two concepts are irrevocably symbiotic.
Thanks, Wondergirl.
There is nothing to suggest that Kemp doubts that evolution occurs. Instead, he is looking for a more sophisticated way of understanding how it occurs.
I found this more recent article of Kemp's especially interesting.
Endothermy is what we often called being "warm-blooded."
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tskemp/pdfs/zjls2006.pdf
Quote:
The origin of mammalian endothermy: a paradigm for the
evolution of complex biological structure
T. S. KEMP*
Oxford University Museum of Natural History and St John's College, Oxford OX1 3JP, UK
Received April 2005; accepted for publication October 2005
Several mutually incompatible theories exist about how and why endothermy evolved in mammals and birds. Some take the primary function to have been thermoregulation, selected for one adaptive purpose or another. Others take
The high aerobic metabolic rate to have been primary. None of these theories is incontrovertibly supported by evidence, either from the fossil record of the synapsid amniotes or from observations and experiments on modern organisms.
Furthermore, all are underpinned by the tacit assumption that endothermy must have evolved in a stepwise pattern, with an initial adaptive function followed only later by the addition of further functions. It is argued that this assumption is unrealistic and that the evolution of endothermy can be explained by the correlated progression model. Each structure and function associated with endothermy evolved a small increment at a time, in loose linkage with all the others evolving similarly. The result is that the sequence of organisms maintained functional integration throughout, and no one of the functions of endothermy was ever paramount over the others.
The correlated progression model is tested by the nature of the integration between the parts as seen in living mammals, by computer simulations of the evolution of complex, multifunctional, multifactorial biological systems, and by reference to the synapsid fossil record, which is fully compatible with the model. There are several potentially important implications to be drawn from this example concerning the study of the evolution of complex structure and the new higher
Taxa that manifest it.
© 2006 The Linnean Society of London,
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 147, 473–488.
Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
The assumptions are true. And, no, I did not suggest that MIT contaminated the samples - where the heck did that come from?? Do you honestly believe that a sample of anything left out in nature exposed to the elements can be assumed to be in a clean room environment? If that assumption is not made, then I would question the integrity of the research. A good scientist would always have to make assumptions and then acknowledge or justify them. This is always necessary because when we are dealing with issues such as this, the reality is that rarely, if ever, do you have all the facts necessary to come to a conclusion, so assumptions are thrown in to try to guess where the evidence may lead.Quote:
I doubt those are assumptions. Do you have any evidence to suggest that MIT contaminated their samples or that if they did it would make a difference?
Any scientist whi claims assumptions have not been made with respect to conclusion made in such circumstances is either not being honest or or is doing sloppy work. It does not mean that using assumptions is wrong - it is doen all the time, but a good scientist will always acknowledge his assumptions and will explaining why he believes such assumptions are justified.
Please stop putting words in my mouth - that is twice just this one post. Where did I say such a thing? I was not even thinking it. But apparently you were.Quote:
Do you have any evidence that laws of physics change over time and the half life of isotopes was different half a billion years ago from what it is now?
Are you one of those people who post innuendo about others on internet when a good rebuttal fails you?Quote:
Are you one of those people who says that the speed of light changes over time as well? Do you have any evidence for that?
Show me the proof of the age.Quote:
Tom, you claimed that," The Biblical explanation fits the facts better."
Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of fossil embryos that are half a billion years old.
What issue do you see? I don't see a problem.Quote:
Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of the existence of egg-laying mammals.
Show me proof of the age.Quote:
Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of extinct dinosaurs that lived 80 million years ago.
Yes, and you have turned what you believe science is into a religion. So far every single scientists mentioned, you have said is a bad scientist if they disagree with you.Quote:
Tom, you stated, "Rejecting anything which disagrees with what you want to believe is a religion . . ."
Do you really believe that?
Well, I don't agree with the idea that religion and science are symbiotic, let alone irrevocably so, but welcome to Ask Me Help Desk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Percy McBlaney
Cheers,
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
That is because you claim anyone is a bad scientist if they disagree withw aht you claim to be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
We are still awaiting your evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Of?Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
I'd like to see your answer to the same question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.Quote:
So far every single scientists mentioned, you have said is a bad scientist if they disagree with you.
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 Tj3
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Ho hum. I doctored nothing. False accusations will get you nowhere.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.
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?
You apparently missed the whole point of the quote. It was not so much about evolution, but about methodology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
No, you didn't doctor it, but that was your proof article regarding macroevolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
No, it was a quote regarding methodology. I have much better information against macro-evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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:
I also wonder if Akoue now with show us if he has the integrity to apologize.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.
Tj:[[Meaning: The Biblical explanation fits the facts of general biology better than the standard scientific explanation does.]]Quote:
The Biblical explanation fits the facts better.
Asking:Asking:Quote:
I'd like to see you defend this assertion.
[[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.]]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.
Tj:Asking:Quote:
It is whether they are open to the truth and to looking at evidence that matters.
Tj:Quote:
We are still awaiting your evidence.
Asking:Quote:
Of?
Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of half-a-billion-year-old fossil embryos.
Ad infinitum.
Please refer back to your posts #241 and earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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:
But I glad to see that you admit that it was not doctored.
The last thing he needs to do is apologize.Quote:
I wonder if Akoue now with show us if he has the integrity to apologize.
The explanation put forward by you is what you mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
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:
[[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.]]
.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.
So it was not you who wrote post #228?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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:
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?
You purposefully deleted sentences that did not support your view. That is deceptive.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.
That is an out-and-out LIE, Tom. I said, "No, you didn't doctor it, but that was your proof article regarding macroevolution."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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!
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:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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.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.
My, the nasty responses one gets when one hit on a sacred cow!
I guess that I was brought up in a different era, one where integrity was important.Quote:
The last thing he needs to do is apologize.
Two lies in one posts - wow!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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.
#241 IS the doctored quote. "...for a reason"?? What, pray tell? This thread is about evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
What? Liar Liar, pants on fire? That name-calling? You owe us an apology.Quote:
Now we degrade into name-calling.
The quote under discussion was well after that so whatever 228 is has nothing to do with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
So I am left to assume that you refuse to acknowledge your error or apologize for your mis-representation.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:
That says a great deal.
And your comment above is an outright lie.Quote:
You purposefully deleted sentences that did not support your view. That is deceptive.
You're blind too??Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
>Thread Closed<
As it has more than run it's course!!
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:04 AM. |