Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tom Ames · 04-18-2003, 02:09 PM

From "IDJon" on ARN:

Quote:

There's a very new ID forum that branched off of TrueIntelligence.org Thought maybe some of you would be interested. I just recently signed up.

http://com1.akheva.com/btrueintelligenceforum

["TrueIntelligence"??!?]

Jinto · 04-18-2003, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tom Ames
["TrueIntelligence"??!?]

[/B]

Probably not.

Mageth · 04-18-2003, 04:00 PM

TrueIntelligence? It should be TrueDimwittedness.

I went to the site to see what they had. Here's a quote. I've put in italics a few of the more glaring grammatical and spelling errors , but the entire paragraph is horribly written. I've added a few comments in brackets as well.

Quote:

Transitions between organisms. Do they exist? Do what exist?

We can confidently say that the evidence for transitions between one organism into another is undoubtedly weak. Nontheless, evolutionists still point you to examples "appear" to be a transition, but aren't really. Some discoveries have been actually hoaxed. Moreover, even if there was a transition that looked real, it couldn't be counted as evidence for evolution. Example, in episode 2 of the PBS evolution series, Philip D. Gingerich found numerous whale fossils. Near this site of fossils he also found tiny legs, thus justifying that whales used to be land animals, and gradually formed over many years into sea-dwelling creatures. [yes - this whole sentence sucks. Did he or the whales "gradually formed over many years into sea-dwelling creatures"?] But what is the problem with this? Henry Gee, chief science writer of the magazine Nature (a pro-evolution magazine), states the following: "the intervals of time that seperate are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent." [nice quote mining. I wonder what the rest of Gee's quote was, and the context - and it sounds like they even got this part wrong] So even if a transition between species appeared to be true, it cannot be used as evidence for evolution in a scientific sense. [Huh? Is he really saying that, even if scientists identify transitional fossils, it's not evidence for evolution?] Transitional forms are also debated by many paleontoligists today.

Obviously the author is a well-trained paleontoligist.

And someone let me know if a debate between a transitional form and a "paleontoligist" is coming to Austin. I'd like to hear that.

Principia · 04-18-2003, 04:56 PM

Oh look, there's yet another truthseeker at TrueIntelligence. Maybe this one is the Real IDiot?

Coragyps · 04-18-2003, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Henry Gee, chief science writer of the magazine Nature (a pro-evolution magazine), states the following: "the intervals of time that seperate are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent."

Pro-evolution magazine, huh?

The Gee quote is from his book Deep Time, my copy of which isn't here. It's probably accurately quoted - the book struck me a a cautionary tale from an old veteran "evolutionist" to others to not put too much credence in just-so stories that claim that "fossil A" is the grandad of "fossil B". Gee points out that you will never have that sort of resolution of relationships in a genealogy as imperfect and ancient as the fossil record. It surprises me that the book hasn't been quote-mined much more extensively: when I read it maybe three years ago, at the start of my interest in the evo-cre fuss, I thought it would get trotted out a lot. Maybe the title doesn't lend itself to young-earth agendas.

KC · 04-18-2003, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Coragyps
Pro-evolution magazine, huh?

The Gee quote is from his book Deep Time, my copy of which isn't here. It's probably accurately quoted - the book struck me a a cautionary tale from an old veteran "evolutionist" to others to not put too much credence in just-so stories that claim that "fossil A" is the grandad of "fossil B". Gee points out that you will never have that sort of resolution of relationships in a genealogy as imperfect and ancient as the fossil record. It surprises me that the book hasn't been quote-mined much more extensively: when I read it maybe three years ago, at the start of my interest in the evo-cre fuss, I thought it would get trotted out a lot. Maybe the title doesn't lend itself to young-earth agendas.

Gee does get quoted by creationists a lot, but for a perfectly trivial reason: Gee makes the obvious point that one cannot directly infer an ancestral relationship between two fossils, even ones in a transitional sequence. The most one can say is, that the oldest came from a population closely related to the ancestor of the later one. Big frickin deal, sez I.

Here is a site where Gee objects to being misrepresented by the DI:

Gee Disses the DI

KC

RBH · 04-18-2003, 08:57 PM

Please fix the link. It tosses me into Post Reply. Thanks!

RBH

KC · 04-18-2003, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RBH
Please fix the link. It tosses me into Post Reply. Thanks!

RBH

Sorry about that! Try it now

KC

RBH · 04-18-2003, 09:25 PM

Works fine. TNX!

scigirl · 04-19-2003, 08:13 AM

Ugg. Any site which claims to have The Truth (Tm) is very suspect in my book. Not even the great holy Nature or Science makes that ridiculous claim.

scigirl

04-18-2003, 08:57 PM	#7
RBH Contributor Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 15,407	KC = Fix the link! Please fix the link. It tosses me into Post Reply. Thanks! RBH

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-18-2003, 04:56 PM	#4
Principia Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: anywhere Posts: 1,976	Oh look, there's yet another truthseeker at TrueIntelligence. Maybe this one is the Real IDiot?

04-18-2003, 09:25 PM	#9
RBH Contributor Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 15,407	Works fine. TNX!

04-19-2003, 08:13 AM	#10
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Ugg. Any site which claims to have The Truth (Tm) is very suspect in my book. Not even the great holy Nature or Science makes that ridiculous claim. scigirl

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.