Evolution Is A Theory On Which You Base A Religion

[mared juwan]

If fish is allowed to pick and choose his own definition of what a "fact" is then we can't ever get through to him. It's like me saying I don't believe in electricity. PROVE to me that my computer doesn't work by magic, fish. I can't see the electrons moving so how do I know electricity really works like these scientists say? We only see the "effects" of electricity. Sure, almost every reasonable person in the world looks at all the clues about electricity and understands that it is not magic, but I like to go my own way.... you know, just to be special. And I would really really really love it if you would say to me "You're wrong. We see electricity in lightning." Because then I get to say, "PROVE to me that lightning is made of electricity." I think they're the daggers of Zeus meant to punish the wicked

 

[hitch420]

Nice posts boys and girls

 

[fish601]

If fish is allowed to pick and choose his own definition of what a "fact" is then we can't ever get through to him. It's like me saying I don't believe in electricity. PROVE to me that my computer doesn't work by magic, fish. I can't see the electrons moving so how do I know electricity really works like these scientists say? We only see the "effects" of electricity. Sure, almost every reasonable person in the world looks at all the clues about electricity and understands that it is not magic, but I like to go my own way.... you know, just to be special. And I would really really really love it if you would say to me "You're wrong. We see electricity in lightning." Because then I get to say, "PROVE to me that lightning is made of electricity." I think they're the daggers of Zeus meant to punish the wicked

Is this your way of saying NO i can not prove evolution and there are no facts?




"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard Professor of Paleontology)



Dr. Etheridge, paleontologist of the British Museum "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts.
This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."

 

[mared juwan]

Is this your way of saying NO i can not prove evolution and there are no facts?

No, it's my way of saying you are silly.

That's another nice creationist cartoon you posted there. You guys are great at making cartoons but not so great at research it seems. Does your cartoon imply that evolutionary theory suggests ROCKS are part of the formula? Seriously? And where did you get these quotes please? Who is this Dr. Etheridge? Never heard of him. And what the other guy said about no gradual change doesn't mean evolution didn't happen. When you view the history of life on Earth in the billions of years then evolutionary changes can be quite sudden by comparison.

 

[litteringand...]

This thread is purely laughable. Heres an idea prove creationism to me. Guess what creationist believe the earth is 7000 years old carbon dating, radiation dating, and a slew of other technologies tell us the earth is more like billions of years old. You really think they are that far off. You want to combat a scientific study good for you science is and always will be under scrutiny thats the scientific method. What about god? what about the bible the most worthless pages on the best seller list? You know the bible tells you not to shave your beard? wow real relevant to todays time maybe it is an allegory right?lol So let's shift gears here and I want you to prove to me that the bible is gods word and that god exists and knows how many hairs are on all of our heads and how many times i have said fuck and masturbated. Go ahead i'll wait

 

[litteringand...]

i like how evolution is faith in the invisable isn't that the whole premise of EVERY religon. Quick question how many people have been killed for not believing in evolution? hmmmm none to my knowledge can we say the same about religon? So no matter what you want to argue or believe seems to me science is actually more morally sound than religon ever can be just by that fact alone.

 

[fish601]

Does your cartoon imply that evolutionary theory suggests ROCKS are part of the formula? Seriously? ? .

rocks mayb, mayb not

Some question whether life began on Earth at all, asserting instead that it came from a distant world or the heart of a fallen comet or asteroid.



One of the greatest mysteries in science is how life began. Now one group of researchers says diamonds may have been life's best friend. 26 July 2008

type How Life Began in wiki and you are redirected to Abiogenesis how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter
inanimate definition not animate; not endowed with (animal) life

Guess what creationist believe the earth is 7000 years old carbon dating, radiation dating, and a slew of other technologies tell us the earth is more like billions of years old.

You know the bible tells you not to shave your beard?

Not all creationist believe earth is young
however dating methods are a joke

Old Testament law forbid priests from shaving their heads or beards but what does that have to do with us?

 

[Nocturn3]

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard Professor of Paleontology)



Dr. Etheridge, paleontologist of the British Museum "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts.
This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."

Here we go again with the fucking quote mining.

For your first one:

The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change . . . - Stephen J. Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Natural History 86:22 (1977)
​

First the necessary recital: this quote comes from a discussion of Eldredge's and Gould's proposed theory of Punctuated Equilibria. Here it is in greater context:

Many evolutionists view strict continuity between micro- and macroevolution as an essential ingredient of Darwinism and a necessary corollary of natural selection. Yet, as I argue in essay 17, Thomas Henry Huxley divided the two issues of natural selection and gradualism and warned Darwin that his strict and unwarranted adherence to gradualism might undermine his entire system. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it -- selection can operate rapidly. Yet the unnecessary link that Darwin forged became a central tenet of the synthetic theory. [1]
​

Note how the quote miners must cut off the sentence in mid stride (not all bother with an ellipsis) lest their readers be confused by facts and learn that Gould, in speaking of "gradual change", is not talking about "evolutionary change" being unsupported by the fossil record.
What was he alluding to? Since Gould referred to essay 17 in The Panda's Thumb, entitled "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", let him explain it himself:

On November 23, 1859, the day before his revolutionary book hit the stands, Charles Darwin received an extraordinary letter from his friend Thomas Henry Huxley. It offered warm support in the coming conflict, even the supreme sacrifice: "I am prepared to go to the stake, if requisite ... I am sharpening up my claws and beak in readiness." But it also contained a warning: "You have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Naturra non facit saltum so unreservedly."
The Latin phrase, usually attributed to Linnaeus, states that "nature does not make leaps." Darwin was a strict adherent to this ancient motto. As a disciple of Charles Lyell, the apostle of gradualism in geology, Darwin portrayed evolution as a stately and orderly process, working at a speed so slow that no person could hope to observe it in a lifetime. Ancestors and descendants, Darwin argued, must be connected by "infinitely numerous transitional links" forming "the finest graduated steps." Only an immense span of time had permitted such a sluggish process to achieve so much.
Huxley felt that Darwin was digging a ditch for his own theory. Natural selection required no postulate about rates; it could operate just as well if evolution proceeded at a rapid pace. ...
​

As noted in the Introduction to the Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes Gould is arguing for a "jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change" in evolution. But he also contends that evolution is fully supported by the empiric evidence, including the fossil record. [2]
Creationists are free to argue against Gould's conclusions, of course, but the fact that they are reduced to ripping his words from their context in a blatant attempt to distort his intent, only demonstrates that they don't have an argument worth stating.

Source


As for Dr Etheridge:

As has been pointed out on the talk.origins newsgroup, the his use of the term “transmutation of species.” gives away that this is a quote from the 19th century. Indeed this quote got wide circulation in the 1920s. Ronald L. Numbers1 discussed the use of quote in the evolution/creationism controversies in the 19th century: The widely touted “Dr. Etheridge, of the British Museum,” who always appeared in creationist literature without a given name, was quoted by Townsend as saying, “In all this great museum there is not a particle of evidence transmutation of species. Nine-tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views.” The content of Etheridge’s statement varied from work to work, and its source remained unidentified, except for Alexander Patterson’s comment that Etheridge was answering a question put to him by a Dr. George E. Post. When curious parties in the 1920s inquired about the identity of Etheridge, the director of the British Museum surmised that the man in question was “Robert Etheridge, Junr., who was Assistant Keeper of Geology in this Museum from 1881 to 1891,” at which time he left for Australia, where he died in 1920. The director hastened to add that “Mr. Etheridge’s opinion on this subject should not be considered as in any way representing scientific opinion in this Museum.”

Thus instead of a contemporary distinguished scientists doubting evolution we have an obscure nineteenth century figure that never had any fame at all. In short the creationists have been dishonest in their presentation of the quote.

Source


So, of your two quotes, one was taken completely out of context, and the other was written by some nobody over a century ago.

 

[Stoney McFried]

Species in the middle of an evolutionary transition:


http://www.sms.si.edu/IRLspec/Clarias_batrachus.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper
http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/species.php?species_id=646
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freshwater_hatchetfish

 

[PadawanBater]

Here we go again with the fucking quote mining.

For your first one:
Source


As for Dr Etheridge:

Source


So, of your two quotes, one was taken completely out of context, and the other was written by some nobody over a century ago.

Good post man! I can't rep you anymore..

I'm gonna call fish out on his bullshit every single time I see it!

That's two different times the guy has tried to lie to pass off his trash as genuine. Both times he knew exactly what he was doing.

It's seriously like he's the typical stereotype believer adamant against evolution. They lie, never admit defeat, only provide their ''faith'' as ''evidence'' or the bible, quote mine, dismiss SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE if it contradicts their belief... down the list... your doing them ALL fish... I've been doing this shit for atleast 3 years now man, I've heard IT ALL, trust me. I've heard almost every single argument against the theory of evolution, I know where they come from and how they're supposed to be interpreted... usually it's some smug ass looking white guy with a part in his hair talking about shit he knows absolutely nothing about... wait a minute, fish, do you have a part in your hair?! Anyway... the funny thing about their bullshit is always the fact they themselves don't know the theories they ''refute'', so whenever they attempt it, they fuckin' CRASH AND BURN! Anyone out there like me watching knows exactly what's going on, exactly where the guy deliberately lied or simply didn't know what the fuck he was talking about. Two douches I can think of right now who represent this shit to a T are Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. Holy shit those guys are retarded, I love watching their stuff! It's so damn funny how stupid those guys are!!

So basically fish, until you get a little smarter, come up with your own ideas that HAVE NOT been completely debunked yet, like the ''no transitional species'' argument that you will not give the fuck up on, even though I already explained to you why that argument is invalid... remember my little demonstration with the letters... A...B...C...c...D...E...? Or like the way you don't recognize the accuracy of the dating methods...

It feels like I'm pitching to a blind kid...

 

[Keenly]

how life began? they have already discovered how the first life could have been formed


when you take a protein filled liquid (the primordial ooze if you will)


and you hit it with an electric current (lightning strike)

you are left with protiens and amino acids, the building blocks of life, from which the first single celled organisms came to be...

 

[Katatawnic]

There's fourteen of them in this picture.

https://www.rollitup.org/attachments/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/559898d1253913505-evolution-theory-you-base-religion-dam_u_fish.jpg Anyone else catch the photo name?

No, it's my way of saying you are silly.

That's another nice creationist cartoon you posted there. You guys are great at making cartoons but not so great at research it seems. Does your cartoon imply that evolutionary theory suggests ROCKS are part of the formula? Seriously? And where did you get these quotes please? Who is this Dr. Etheridge? Never heard of him. And what the other guy said about no gradual change doesn't mean evolution didn't happen. When you view the history of life on Earth in the billions of years then evolutionary changes can be quite sudden by comparison.

Go to this search result, then find "Etheridge" on any/every page the search returns.

So far, I've found the exact same quote that Fish quoted, mostly on Christian sites such as this one:

Dr. Etheridge, famous paleontologist of the British Museum "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupportable by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."

May 29, 2006 4:34 PM

Interesting Quotations from Scientists on Evolutionism:

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)

OH, here's one from a "Men's Style" site forum post/thread:

What do evolutionists and other well respected scientists say about evolution? Evolutionists themselves disagree, and those with scientific backgrounds often deny the evidence of evolution. Consider these sources:

The Dissidents No less an authority than the world-renowned paleontologist (with Dr. Colin Patterson) for the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. N. Etheridge, has remarked: "Nine tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, their is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (quoted by Lindsay Gordon, Evolution - The Incredible Hoax, 1977)

Same poster, several paragraphs down:

Another topic would be population growth. There have been estimates of population growth as high as 2% per year. Assuming that population grows at only .5% per year, it would take only 4000 years to achieve today's population beginning from a single couple. Many creationists feel that Noah's flood was about 4000 years ago, so this fits creation theory quite nicely. If the Earth is as old as evolutionists claim, and the population grew at .5%, in a million years there would be lOE2100 people! Even if it took a million years to get at our present population, there would have been about 3,000,000,000,000 people before us! Where is the fossil evidence? Where is the cultural evidence?

So far, anyone citing just where Etheridge's quote is cited appears to be coming from the book "Evolution - The Incredible Hoax" by Lindsay Gordon, 1977. But I haven't yet found Etheridge stating this anywhere as of yet; only other people quoting Lindsay Gordon's book. From what discussion/article/journal/etc. did Gordon retrieve this quote? WTH is Etheridge?

 

[Katatawnic]

i like how evolution is faith in the invisable isn't that the whole premise of EVERY religon. Quick question how many people have been killed for not believing in evolution? hmmmm none to my knowledge can we say the same about religon? So no matter what you want to argue or believe seems to me science is actually more morally sound than religon ever can be just by that fact alone.

Here we go again with the fucking quote mining.

For your first one: Source

As for Dr Etheridge: Source

So, of your two quotes, one was taken completely out of context, and the other was written by some nobody over a century ago.

I posted before reading further .... didn't want to forget what I was going to say.

Species in the middle of an evolutionary transition:

http://www.sms.si.edu/IRLspec/Clarias_batrachus.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper
http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/species.php?species_id=646
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freshwater_hatchetfish

Good post man! I can't rep you anymore..

I'm gonna call fish out on his bullshit every single time I see it!

That's two different times the guy has tried to lie to pass off his trash as genuine. Both times he knew exactly what he was doing.

It's seriously like he's the typical stereotype believer adamant against evolution. They lie, never admit defeat, only provide their ''faith'' as ''evidence'' or the bible, quote mine, dismiss SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE if it contradicts their belief... down the list... your doing them ALL fish... I've been doing this shit for atleast 3 years now man, I've heard IT ALL, trust me. I've heard almost every single argument against the theory of evolution, I know where they come from and how they're supposed to be interpreted... usually it's some smug ass looking white guy with a part in his hair talking about shit he knows absolutely nothing about... wait a minute, fish, do you have a part in your hair?! Anyway... the funny thing about their bullshit is always the fact they themselves don't know the theories they ''refute'', so whenever they attempt it, they fuckin' CRASH AND BURN! Anyone out there like me watching knows exactly what's going on, exactly where the guy deliberately lied or simply didn't know what the fuck he was talking about. Two douches I can think of right now who represent this shit to a T are Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. Holy shit those guys are retarded, I love watching their stuff! It's so damn funny how stupid those guys are!!

So basically fish, until you get a little smarter, come up with your own ideas that HAVE NOT been completely debunked yet, like the ''no transitional species'' argument that you will not give the fuck up on, even though I already explained to you why that argument is invalid... remember my little demonstration with the letters... A...B...C...c...D...E...? Or like the way you don't recognize the accuracy of the dating methods...

It feels like I'm pitching to a blind kid...

Amazingly, I've "over" repped today! So here's pseudo-rep for you all!

 

[litteringand...]

I don't know why you bother researching these quotes one scientist disagreeing with evolution is a drop in a bucket. Scientist can be just as misguided as all the rest of you that talk to your invisable friends for answers you can't find. The bottom line is MOST scientist agree with evolution! They agree, because there is evidence that supports it! Thats how theories are made do I need to post a cartoon of the scientific method to get it across? By the way still waiting on evidence from any of you that supports a creation in ANY way. Not proof that evolution big bang and such are false but that you are correct. Furthermore to think that is is so mind blowing that we on earth can support life the probability is .006 that one of the planets we know about could support earth. Out of the 1000's of plantes that we know just one can support earth. Not too mind blowing if you ask me.

 

[fish601]

Here we go again with the fucking quote mining.

For your first one:

The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it -- selection can operate rapidly.
Source

it wasnt out of context.. can evolution happen rapidly?

As for Dr Etheridge: Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense

Source


So, of your two quotes, one was taken completely out of context, and the other was written by some nobody over a century ago.

still true today

 

[Katatawnic]

It was asked who this Etheridge is/was, as none of us had heard of this "famous" Dr. Etheridge. Hence researching the quotes.

 

[fish601]

Species in the middle of an evolutionary transition:


http://www.sms.si.edu/IRLspec/Clarias_batrachus.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper
http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/species.php?species_id=646
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freshwater_hatchetfish

does this mean that flying fish are ancestors of birds?

there are about 25,000 species of living fish that have been identified, with 200–300 new species being discovered every year how many have allready became extinct?

i wonder if the walking fish is of the same kind as the famous Tiktaalik 375 million years old fossil geez evolution sure is slow

how do scientist explain evolution? they dig up fossils from different places around the world and arrange them in the order they want them to be in
like this one

 

[OregonMeds]

Fish you can stop trying to explain anything related to how scientists think or how theories are formed because you just don't get it and simply never will. You don't have even the first clue how a scientist thinks you're assuming they act and think like you do where you start with an agenda and line things up in your own head to fit that agenda. Many many many times now people have tried to clue you in and you just did it yet again, still not learning. Only the worst most laughable scientists in the world work that way, the ones you so often quote.

You're superimposing your own mental flaws on everyone elses thought processes as if it's normal or standard, and it's simply not. (Well it's normal human nature technically, nothing that odd about you actually, but it's just completely the opposite of scientific)


You do fine talking about how you think and feel though, you should really just stick to that.

 

[fish601]

between impersonators and evolutionist

When Elvis Presley died in 1977, there were an estimated 37 Elvis impersonators in the world. By 1993, there were 48,000 Elvis impersonators, an exponential increase. Extrapolating from this, by 2010 there will be 2.5 billion Elvis impersonators. The population of the world will be 7.5 billion by 2010. Every 3rd person will be an Elvis impersonator by 2010. – Source: Caen, H., San Francisco Chronicle; October 27, 1993

 

[litteringand...]

between impersonators and evolutionist

When Elvis Presley died in 1977, there were an estimated 37 Elvis impersonators in the world. By 1993, there were 48,000 Elvis impersonators, an exponential increase. Extrapolating from this, by 2010 there will be 2.5 billion Elvis impersonators. The population of the world will be 7.5 billion by 2010. Every 3rd person will be an Elvis impersonator by 2010. – Source: Caen, H., San Francisco Chronicle; October 27, 1993

LOL 1 in 3 is almost as many catholic priest that are in N.A.M.B.L.A here is fishes youtube page

http://www.stumbleupon.com/s/#9FJGo7/www.spikedhumor.com/articles/178208/If-Atheists-Ruled-the-World.html?rh=19653/topic:Religion

this is what we deal with.
by the way at least scientist have fossils to arrange. you have a warm feeling in your bosom? Solid logic good show.