On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 05:37:15 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
<reddfrogg@NOSPAMlink.net> spake thusly:

"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qeaa40l3su96enbaj2kpfq5p0b03dgo17b@4ax.com...

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 23:06:42 +0000 (UTC),
eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com (Eros) spake thusly:

Caught out again... huh, Friar Dave? When will you ever learn that
blindly cutting and pasting from creationist web-sites can be very,
very embarrassing.

He stated what I said.

So, if I said that the Bible clearly states the following;- "There is
no God", would I be equally correct?

Do you understand what a lie of omission is, Dave?

You don't understand what it is you're saying. To
claim that the Bible says that, would be to cut a
sentence in half. "The fool hath said in his heart
there is no God".

Yes, Dave, and to leave out the rest of the explanation that Stanley
provided in his writings is just as wrong. He only 'stated what I said'
because the fragment of the statement that Stanley actually wrote, had

context removed. It's exactly the same as leaving out the the first

words of the Bible quote. If you can't see that, I can only wonder why.

The following is a statement by L. Harrison Matthews.

"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 the entire quote? No. Is it an accurate quote?
Yes.

the opposite. Dana did.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 05:37:15 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
<reddfrogg@NOSPAMlink.net> spake thusly:

"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qeaa40l3su96enbaj2kpfq5p0b03dgo17b@4ax.com...

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 23:06:42 +0000 (UTC),
eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com (Eros) spake thusly:

Caught out again... huh, Friar Dave? When will you ever learn
that blindly cutting and pasting from creationist web-sites can
be very, very embarrassing.

He stated what I said.

So, if I said that the Bible clearly states the following;- "There
is no God", would I be equally correct?

Do you understand what a lie of omission is, Dave?

You don't understand what it is you're saying. To
claim that the Bible says that, would be to cut a
sentence in half. "The fool hath said in his heart
there is no God".

Yes, Dave, and to leave out the rest of the explanation that Stanley
provided in his writings is just as wrong. He only 'stated what I
said' because the fragment of the statement that Stanley actually
wrote, had the context removed. It's exactly the same as leaving
out the the first seven words of the Bible quote. If you can't see
that, I can only wonder why.

The following is a statement by L. Harrison Matthews.

"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 the entire quote? No. Is it an accurate quote?
Yes. I did not cut a sentence in half and make it say
the opposite. Dana did.

catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<i36a405d1r67oqrspqsarf3gf1l6mpaqbn@4ax.com>...

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:24:37 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

Darwinian Natural Selection is the only theory which even tries to
explain (rather than just account for) adaptaion. There is no choice
for any honest person, but to subscribe to evolution. Even if nothing
had been discovered since Darwin, the case would still be compelling.

That's not what Darwin said.

"When we descend to details we can prove that no one
species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a
single species has changed): nor can we prove that
the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the
groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why
some species have changed and others have not.
The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult
to understand precisely and in detail than the former
case of supposed change" - Darwin, 1863.

First of all, the quote is from a "P.S." to a letter to G. Bentham, May 22,
1863 [Darwin, F., ed. 1905. _The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin_, Vol.
1. New York: D. Appleton & Co., p. 209-10]:

The letter itself is discussing, interestingly enough, the facts that will
eventually lead to the theory of Punctuated Equilibria:

The objection . . . of certain forms remaining unaltered
through long time and space, is no doubt formidable in
appearance, and to a certain extent in reality according to
my judgment. But does not the difficulty rest much on our
silently assuming that we know more than we do? . . . [I]n
judging the theory of Natural Selection, which implies that
a form will remain unaltered unless some alteration be to
its benefit, is it so very wonderful that some forms should
change much slower and much less, and some few should
have changed not at all under conditions which to us (who
really know nothing what are the important conditions)
seem very different.

<http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/letters/letters2_04.html>

In essence, Darwin is saying that the stasis in the *morphology* of species
found in the fossil record is partly due to the imperfection of the record
itself *and*, possibly, partly due to differential rates of change in
species. While Darwin's default position was for gradualistic change in
species, all things are relative. He saw that some change in species could
take much longer than others and, of course, the Punctuated Equilibria
theorists only claim that change tends to come "rapidly" in geologic terms
but over very long times in human terms.

Now to the actual quote:

P.S. -- In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at
present be grounded entirely on general considerations.
(1) On its being a vera causa, from the struggle for
existence; and the certain geological fact that species do
somehow change. (2) From the analogy of change under
domestication by man's selection. (3) And chiefly from
this view connecting under an intelligible point of view
a host of facts. When we descend to details, we can prove
that no one species has changed [i.e. we cannot prove that
a single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the
supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork
of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have
changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me
hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail
than the former case of supposed change. Bronn may ask
in vain, the old creationist school and the new school, why
one mouse has longer ears than another mouse, and one
plant more pointed leaves than another plant. . . . the fact
that they have not been modified does not seem to me a
difficulty of weight enough to shake a belief grounded on
other arguments.

Here Darwin is pointing that Natural Selection can be seen to operate and
serves as a single coherent explanation for many diverse phenomena. Even
if all the details of the individual phenomena are not known, the
"consilience", in William Whewell's phrase, of his mechanism cogently
explaining a wide range of events is, itself, support for its status as a
"vera causa". [See <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whewell/>] Add to
that the fact that the fossil record generally shows change in life over
time and the clear analogy from animal breeding, and there is substantial
support for his proposed mechanism.

As to the quote mined portion, Darwin is saying that, based on the
evidence at the time, before *genetics*, there wasn't enough detail in the
fossil record (the only evidence available) to say that a *particular*
species was the descendant of a *particular* earlier species. By the same
token, then, it would be impossible to show from the fossils that any
*particular* species had changed into another. This is a "problem" with
all fossil evidence, at least until and unless we can recover DNA or other
genetic material. It constitutes some sort of refutation of evolution only
to those who are determinedly hopeful of one and willfully ignorant.

The other point Darwin was making in the P.S. is that it is not necessarily
possible to determine just *what* about a trait makes it advantageous,
given the complexity of the interaction of the organism with the
environment. In fact, Darwin is here warning against the "just so stories"
that Gould would inveigh against 120 years later. Once again, this is an
excellent example of just how deeply and comprehensively Darwin understood
his theory.

[...]

---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

The ultimate tragedy of creationism:

The inability to distinguish between one's personal ignorance and god.

- Howard Hershey -

Thank you Catshark, for researching this instance of quote mining. I
have done similar myself and know how much work it can be.

To Pastor Dave I say that you met my honest assessment with a
dishonest response. What makes you so sure your point of view is so
right when it leads you into dishonesty?

This is the symptom of the deep spiritual problems which lay at the
heart of fundamentalist Christianity and the reason why even if there
were no evidence for evolution I would still not follow your road.
After all, my Christian upbringing left me with no memories of Jesus
telling people to lie.

Another reason I could not follow you is that you don't even use your
real name, whereas I am tracable. If anyone wanted to take me to task
for what I do, they could find me quite easily, so I am accountable
for what I do.

You Christian fundamentlists are sneak thieves who lie from behind the
safety of another lie. When you are honest, I will listen.