Originally posted by telerion
Your backpedaling . . .
TalkOrigins has one up though. While it is biased, it is biased and extremely well-educated on the issue. The education leads to the bias in this case, because in science their are not always two-sides to every story. If you don't understand what they're saying, that's your own fault. I figured given the Creationist pr at science or logic you have to step upon, you will attack every semblance of evolution.
[/b][/i]
TalkOrigins has one up though. While it is biased, it is biased and extremely well-educated on the issue.
In many cases, half of writing history is hiding the truth.
The education leads to the bias in this case, because in science their are not always two-sides to every story.
Like the Korean scientist who claimed to have successfully cloned humans?
If you don't understand what they're saying, that's your own fault.
Ha. Comprehension skills? Pffft. π
I figured given the Creationist propaganda you eagerly embrace, obfuscation would be a bonus in your book.
(
*delete long, verbose, tasteless reply*) π΅ππ.
Anyway if it is your unbiased opinion that we should not celebrate Darwin's memory because some people have tried to use his big idea to justify their selfish motives, then by the same reasoning, you should be out passionately protesting Christmas.
I never said we shouldn't celebrate his memory. It was my intention to start off a discussion on Darwin, racism and evolution - I guess we got a little sidetracked into an exchange of
ad hominems. I see you have carefully dodged my main question: did the Theory of Evolution have ethical ramifications?
Let's call a spade a spade. You don't like the implications of evolution, not because you've found serious holes in it or because some people have misapplied it, but rather because you haven't found a way to make it jive with your superstition. For that reason, no matter what science or logic you have to step upon, you will attack every semblance of evolution.
Ever heard of theistic evolution? I guess not. BTW, which theory do you mean? Darwinian evolution? Neo-Darwinian evolution? Punctuated Equilibrium?
You want to call a spade a spade? I have not seen one supporter of evolution on this forum honest enough to admit the evidential short-comings of the theory. So allow me to quote some excerpts from the great Charlie's "Origin":
"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined... But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the Earth?
...Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Let me also quote the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould (who, I don't need to remind you, was an ardent evolutionist):
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record: The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."*
*Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History (May 1977): 14
Gould continues to say:
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."*
*Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History 86(6): 22-30 (1977)
It's not surprising that he formulated "punctuated equilibrium", he had to somehow get around the lack of evidence.