Religions > Atheism > Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History...
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Tim Campbell" |
| Date: |
11 Jun 2005 12:42:29 PM |
| Object: |
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of
Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists
today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge",
saying that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as
revealed truth". In another address he called evolution
"story-telling".
.
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
11 Jun 2005 02:02:22 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 11 Jun 2005 10:42:29 -0700, "Tim Campbell"
<timcall@sbcglobal.net> let us all know that:
Dr. Colin Patterson,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
Patterson Misquoted
A Tale of Two 'Cites'
Copyright © 1997 by Lionel Theunissen
[Last Update: June 24, 1997]
Other Links:
Letter from Patterson to Sunderland
Carl Wieland of the Australian Creation Science Foundation was
reluctant to provide the author of this article with a copy of this
letter from Dr. Colin Patterson to creationist Luther Sunderland.
[Note: The link listed above was originally provided to the FAQ author
by anti-evolutionist David Buckna, who challenged Lionel to include it
in the FAQ. The link is disabled because it no longer links to that
letter (as of 2002/01/06). -- Wesley R. Elsberry]
n 1993 I attended a public lecture on the Queensland University of
Technology (Australia) campus by Carl Wieland, the director of the
Creation Science Foundation here in Brisbane. That was my first
encounter with Carl Wieland and the CSF, and it wasn't to be my last.
In his lecture Wieland made a string of absurd claims, to which I
objected vocally much to his chagrin. On each point Wieland refused to
answer my objections and stated that questions would be allowed at the
conclusion of the lecture (where I was allowed to ask one whole
question!). Anyway that's another story...
During the lecture a quotation of Dr. Colin Patterson was used to
justify the standard creationist argument that 'there are no
transitional forms.' Numerous other creationists I have encountered
have used the quote, and an extended version (which fills in the text
between the ellipsis) appears in the CSF "Revised Quote Book",
published in 1990. So the quote is in wide usage, at least in
Australia:
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration
of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or
living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the
line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a
watertight argument."
-- Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of
Natural History.
I decided to get to the bottom of the matter. The quote is from a
personal letter dated 10th April 1979 from Dr. Patterson to
creationist Luther D. Sunderland and is referring to Dr. Patterson's
book "Evolution" (1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.). My first step
was to read the book. (I believe it is now out of print, but most
university libraries should have a copy.) Anyone who has actually read
the book can hardly say that Patterson believed in the absence of
transitional forms. For example (p131-133):
"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to
bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example,
the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their
closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an
extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a
small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the
rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull.
There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as
Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs
(Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links
land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils)
fishes. . ."
Patterson goes on to acknowledge that there are gaps in the fossil
record, but points out that this is possibly due to the limitations of
what fossils can tell us. He finishes the paragraph with:
". . .Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never
disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else."
It is actually this statement which is the key to interpreting the
Sunderland quote correctly; it is not possible to say for certain
whether a fossil is in the direct ancestral line of a species group.
Archaeopteryx, for example, is not necessarily directly ancestral to
birds. It may have been a species on a side-branch. However, that in
no way disqualifies it as a transitional form, or as evidence for
evolution. Evolution predicts that such fossils will exist, and if
there was no link between reptiles and birds then Archaeopteryx would
not exist, whether it is directly ancestral or not. What Patterson was
saying to Sunderland was that, of the transitional forms that are
known, he could not make a watertight argument for any being directly
ancestral to living species groups.
Of course, my opinion on the interpretation was never going to impress
a creationist -- I don't think anything is enough to convince a
creationist -- so I decided to see if I could get the full text of the
letter and see if it would clarify the context. Since the quote
appears in the "Revised Quote Book", and the editor claims in the
introduction that the text of each quote is held in full, I faxed the
CSF and asked if they would supply me with the text of the letter. I
received the following fax back from Carl Wieland (Dated 18 June 1993)
who apparently remembered our exchange at QUT:
FAX to: Lionel T
From: Carl Wieland
Re: Your requests.
Our past exchanges would have served to show you (if your intention
was bona fide) not only the bona fides, but the validity of many of
the things you were challenging. Instead of coming back for a genuine
discussion in the interests of discovering truth, you have sidestepped
these issues and are moving into a totally unrelated area.
I can only assume that your intention is not, and is unlikely to
become, bona fide and will therefore not permit our staff to give you
the references etc you seek as you are clearly simply looking for the
negative and cannot be relied upon to give an objective assessment
(not meant as any personal disrespect, but from our encounter at Uni
you are clearly so emotionally involved and hostile to our platform
that it would serve no useful purpose for us to do your work for you.
the quotes in the RQB are extensively referenced, and you have access
to public libraries, etc. You are even free to write to the authors
yourself, since most would be still alive.
The very reason the RQB is the Revised Quote Book is that the original
"Quote Book", published in 1984, had been withdrawn due to an
embarrassing number of errors. (Some quotes even seem to have been
fabricated.) The introduction of the RQB coyly refers to that fiasco
as follows:
"With CSF, as usual, sorely under-funded and overworked at the time,
the original Quote Book had been hastily put together from quotes sent
in by a number of people. Some of these turned out to have been simply
written down on a card after listening to a creationist speaker at a
lecture. . ."
It is ironic that so-called Creation 'scientists' (including those of
the CSF) often complain that they are not treated with the respect
they feel they deserve. Yet any scientist who published a work of such
appalling scholarship would probably lose his or her job and certainly
would never be taken seriously by the scientific community again. If
the sort of 'science' peddled by those responsible for the "Quote
Book" is not being taken seriously, it is because creationists are
treated exactly the same way that any scientist who acts incompetently
would be.
Looking through the RQB does not inspire any confidence that it is any
better than the original "Quote Book". Many of the quotations are
clearly out of context. Also, out of the 130 quotes, at least 13 (10%)
are secondary references. Secondary quotes are a convenient way to
misrepresent. Sure, the 'quote' might accurately reproduce the
secondary text, but does the secondary text accurately reflect the
original text? Then there are the 'uncheckable' quotations: sources
like personal letters, lectures, TV interviews, etc. which cannot be
referenced in a library. Interestingly, Dr. Colin Patterson is quoted
five times. Every single one is from a source uncheckable in a
library.
Hence the onus was clearly on the CSF to prove its own 'bona fide'
intentions and allow its references to be checked. After all, what is
the point of claiming to have the full text on file if no one is
allowed to see it?
I wrote back to Carl Wieland and explained that the quote I was
interested in was from a personal letter, and as such could hardly be
referenced in a library. He was unsympathetic and so as a last resort
I took Wieland's own advice and set about contacting Dr. Patterson
personally. Wieland only has himself to blame for the response.
I phoned the British Museum of Natural History and to my delight
discovered that Dr. Patterson was still working there. I faxed him the
text of the quote and asked him whether my interpretation, the
creationist interpretation, or some other interpretation of his words
was correct. Here is his reply dated 16 August 1993:
Dear Mr Theunissen,
Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was
away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually
to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you
mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is
accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a
watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and
descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the
ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of
answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how
one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages
should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part
of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your
interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the
creationists' is false.
That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my
first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the
American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It
was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an
(extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on
"Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr
published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious
talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than
good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there
was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much
the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional
systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.
I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing
with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that
scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose
us to ridicule.
Yours Sincerely,
[signed]
Colin Patterson
Click here to view a scan of the original letter [113k]
Note that not only does Patterson confirm that the creationist
representation of the quote is false and that my interpretation is
correct, but he goes on to point out that another quote which appears
in the RQB has been misrepresented. (I only sent him the text of the
one, but did mention the other four quotes in the RQB.) The quote
which claims to be from a keynote address was actually from an
informal talk, and is a comment on systematics only, rather than a
general comment on evolution as it is represented in the RQB.
I sent Patterson's reply to the CSF requesting that they retract the
quotes in question. Carl Wieland sent me a very long letter giving all
sorts of contradictory reasons why the quotes were supposedly valid.
For example:
"Incidentally, if space permitted, I would have been quite happy for
the continuation of his quote to also go in to the Quote Book. Because
I do NOT agree that the continuation shows clearly that your
interpretation is correct. Nor is it fair for Patterson to comment on
the creationist interpretation without a clearer definition of what is
meant by 'transitional forms'..."
Wieland seems to completely miss the point. How can it be unfair to
ask Dr. Patterson to comment on the meaning of his own words? What
could be more fair? He is, after all, the only person who truly knows
what he meant. Whether Wieland agrees with him or not is neither here
nor there. As for the comment about a definition of transitional
forms, the exact opposite is true; creationists should supply a
clearer definition of 'transitional forms' when they quote scientists.
When quoting scientists like Patterson or Gould as saying 'there are
no transitional forms' they neglect to mention that they are only
referring to transitional forms at the species level. They know full
well that Gould has stated that transitional forms between orders and
families are in fact abundant, and even a cursory read of Dr.
Patterson's book will yield numerous examples of transitional forms.
Wieland's comments on the 'keynote address' were almost comical:
"Since we have the entire tape, I assure you that it is a typical
example of somebody squirming [I hesitate to use this word re such an
honest and genuine scientist as Dr Patterson seems to be] when a
quotation has been used by creationists which they didn't want to be
used. I assure you, the context does not alter the meaning, and in any
case Dr Patterson does not say that it is taken out of context in the
sense of a misquote, but merely states that it was an address 'to
systematists'. Reading the entire address, it would scarcely matter if
it were a girl guides meeting, the comments are valid."
I have to point out that Dr. Patterson certainly does imply that he
was taken out of context. He states that his talk concerned
systematics only, and nothing else. Yes, the comments are valid. But
they are valid comments about systematics, not about evolution in
general as implied in the RQB. I will also point out that at least in
terms of my understanding of Australian Law, taping someone without
their knowledge and then publishing excerpts is illegal. It's
certainly unethical.
I think that this whole saga demonstrates just how deceitful
creationists can be. Whether they are willingly deceitful or just
don't know any better, I don't know. But deceitful they are. To top it
off I wasn't surprised when soon after I had released the letter on
fidonet, a creationist was posting the claim that I had written to Dr.
Patterson and that he had confirmed that the quotes of him in the RQB
were genuine, by selectively citing the following sentence:
"The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated
10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes."
It seems that no matter how thoroughly one destroys a creationist
argument, you can be sure that they'll find some twisted way to
justify using the same argument tomorrow. It is frustrating to have to
repeat the same explanations over and over, but you really do need the
patience of a saint to argue with a creationist. I guess the price of
truth is eternal patience. Anyway, if there are still creationists who
think the quotes of Patterson are valid, I'd like to know what part of
the following sentence you don't understand:
"I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your
interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the
creationists' is false..."
Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links
The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of
the Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates
Thus we see how cretinists must lie, dissemble, inveigle, and
out-and-out ***** in order to attempt to make a point.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
11 Jun 2005 03:31:03 PM |
|
|
In article <1118511749.428797.15150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of
Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists
today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge",
saying that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as
revealed truth". In another address he called evolution
"story-telling".
Telling lies gets you sent to the Lake-o-fire, you know. And Jesus will
watch your torment there for eternity. It's in the Bible. Look it up.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
11 Jun 2005 03:50:18 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:31:03 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote:
In article <1118511749.428797.15150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of
Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists
today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge",
saying that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as
revealed truth". In another address he called evolution
"story-telling".
Telling lies gets you sent to the Lake-o-fire, you know. And Jesus will
watch your torment there for eternity. It's in the Bible. Look it up.
It always strikes me as a bit odd that, if Christianity is true, why
must its followers lie to defend it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
11 Jun 2005 05:34:50 PM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:pijma19pfflq24l12jgaauhgbfu9atepmv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:31:03 GMT, *nemo*
It always strikes me as a bit odd that, if Christianity is true, why
must its followers lie to defend it?
Yes! Bizarre, isn't it?!
The point seems to be -- impossible though it is for a normal, healthy
person to really understand it! -- that *they 'know inside' that it's true*,
but *they just can't show that it's true*, so *they have to lie to get
people to accept that it's true*. Once they've succeeded, *they've got those
people to obtain the 'right answer'*, and *that makes it okay* that the only
reason they have that answer is *that they've been duped*...
Katt.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
12 Jun 2005 04:27:04 AM |
|
|
In article <pijma19pfflq24l12jgaauhgbfu9atepmv@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:31:03 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote:
In article <1118511749.428797.15150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of
Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists
today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge",
saying that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as
revealed truth". In another address he called evolution
"story-telling".
Telling lies gets you sent to the Lake-o-fire, you know. And Jesus will
watch your torment there for eternity. It's in the Bible. Look it up.
It always strikes me as a bit odd that, if Christianity is true, why
must its followers lie to defend it?
One of the best arguments against Christianity is Christians. Who'd want
to spend even a couple of weeks in heaven with some of that bunch, let
alone eternity?
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
11 Jun 2005 12:49:32 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jun 2005 10:42:29 -0700, "Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of
Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists
today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge",
saying that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as
revealed truth". In another address he called evolution
"story-telling".
Ya know what, Tim? I think you're lying.
But then, that's what cretinist do, isn't it?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Campbell" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
11 Jun 2005 01:13:39 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
Ya know what, Tim? I think you're lying.
What if I'm not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
11 Jun 2005 03:28:31 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jun 2005 11:13:39 -0700 in alt.atheism, Tim Campbell ("Tim
Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
John Baker wrote:
Ya know what, Tim? I think you're lying.
What if I'm not?
Then you'll doubtless be able to substantiate your assertion by
reference to the original source material.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
11 Jun 2005 03:16:37 PM |
|
|
"Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1118513619.038074.253290@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
John Baker wrote:
Ya know what, Tim? I think you're lying.
What if I'm not?
That question is moot since you are unquestionably
lying. Do you think Jesus appreciates the fact that
you are a liar for Christ?
Richard
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
12 Jun 2005 10:17:07 AM |
|
|
"Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1118513619.038074.253290@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
John Baker wrote:
Ya know what, Tim? I think you're lying.
What if I'm not?
Provide cites that this man said what you claimed he did. Otherwise,
there's no reason to believe it.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
11 Jun 2005 02:02:35 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 11 Jun 2005 11:13:39 -0700, "Tim Campbell"
<timcall@sbcglobal.net> let us all know that:
John Baker wrote:
Ya know what, Tim? I think you're lying.
What if I'm not?
But you are.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
11 Jun 2005 03:48:40 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jun 2005 11:13:39 -0700, "Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Ya know what, Tim? I think you're lying.
What if I'm not?
If you *weren't* lying, I suppose it would mean that Patterson had
become a creationist, not that it would make any difference to the
truth or falsity of evolution if he had. But you *are* lying, and we
both know it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
There, again, is the refutation of your lie. Don't run away from it
this time.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
11 Jun 2005 08:03:38 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jun 2005 11:13:39 -0700, "Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Ya know what, Tim? I think you're lying.
What if I'm not?
It's obvious.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
11 Jun 2005 01:19:03 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jun 2005 11:13:39 -0700, "Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Ya know what, Tim? I think you're lying.
What if I'm not?
What if you are a over ripe tomato.
Squash.
Ooops.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Campbell" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
11 Jun 2005 01:31:04 PM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
What if you are a over ripe tomato.
Squash.
Ooops.
Cute, but what do you mean by this Kate?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
11 Jun 2005 05:00:03 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jun 2005 11:31:04 -0700, "Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Kate wrote:
What if you are a over ripe tomato.
Squash.
Ooops.
Cute, but what do you mean by this Kate?
That your question was meaningless and made you look stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BDK" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
12 Jun 2005 01:12:59 PM |
|
|
In article <42dd5e7b.1324143843@news-west.newscene.com>,
cobalt@newscene.com says...
On 11 Jun 2005 11:31:04 -0700, "Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Kate wrote:
What if you are a over ripe tomato.
Squash.
Ooops.
Cute, but what do you mean by this Kate?
That your question was meaningless and made you look stupid.
I would bet he's used to it!
BDK
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museumof Natural History... |
12 Jun 2005 12:36:07 PM |
|
|
Tim Campbell wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Ya know what, Tim? I think you're lying.
What if I'm not?
Then you would have referenced the quote
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museumof Natural History... |
12 Jun 2005 06:54:55 AM |
|
|
Tim Campbell wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Ya know what, Tim? I think you're lying.
What if I'm not?
but you are ! your quotes from Patterson are taken completely out of
context .... and twisted, deliberately, to mean something they don't
........ hence you are lying ....
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
12 Jun 2005 09:10:29 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:54:55 +1000, Masked Avenger
<cootey_59@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tim Campbell wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Ya know what, Tim? I think you're lying.
What if I'm not?
but you are ! your quotes from Patterson are taken completely out of
context .... and twisted, deliberately, to mean something they don't
....... hence you are lying ....
What puzzles me is why they should accept one particular thing he is
alleged to have said when they have been calling him a liar about
everything else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museumof Natural History... |
13 Jun 2005 09:00:56 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:54:55 +1000, Masked Avenger
<cootey_59@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tim Campbell wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Ya know what, Tim? I think you're lying.
What if I'm not?
but you are ! your quotes from Patterson are taken completely out of
context .... and twisted, deliberately, to mean something they don't
....... hence you are lying ....
What puzzles me is why they should accept one particular thing he is
alleged to have said when they have been calling him a liar about
everything else.
the sheer hypocrisy is astounding .....
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
13 Jun 2005 06:43:21 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:42:29 -0700, Tim Campbell wrote:
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of
Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists
today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge", saying
that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed
truth". In another address he called evolution "story-telling".
In a stunning bit of news, the Pope today announced that the entire
Christian religion, and indeed, the Judeo-Christian God Himself, are all
an elaborate hoax. Careful study by the Vatican scholars has shown
conclusively that the RCC was founded by a group of adolescent boys after
a drunken binge. So many people started taking them seriously, they just
couldn't disappoint them all. The Pope said, "There is no God, no Heaven,
no afterlife. When you die, you die. That's it. Sorry."
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History... |
13 Jun 2005 07:09:44 AM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.06.13.11.43.21.327748@stopspam.net...
In a stunning bit of news, the Pope today announced that the entire
Christian religion, and indeed, the Judeo-Christian God Himself, are all
an elaborate hoax. Careful study by the Vatican scholars has shown
conclusively that the RCC was founded by a group of adolescent boys after
a drunken binge. So many people started taking them seriously, they just
couldn't disappoint them all. The Pope said, "There is no God, no Heaven,
no afterlife. When you die, you die. That's it. Sorry."
Questioned by journalists at a Vatican press conference, His Holiness asked
for the world's forgiveness and understanding. Wearing a casual outfit
consisting of trainers, jeans and a hooded top, the new-look Pontiff said,
"Come on: you know what it's like. You have a few drinks, and you start
messing around. A little dogma here, a few credenda there -- and for the
first 15 or 20 centuries you're having a great laugh. Then one day you wake
up with a worldwide following of 1 billion believers, and you realise that
it's all getting a bit out of hand. So I'm sorry, but it was all just a
joke. Really: there's nothing in it. But I can keep the palace, though,
can't I...?"
Katt.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
