tgamble

He's selling the "evised quote book"
<a href="http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=products&specific=jnorqqc0" target="_blank">http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=products&specific=jnorqqc0</a>

so is the ICR
<a href="http://www.icr.org/creationproducts/creationscienceproducts/The_Revised_Quote_Book.html" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/creationproducts/creationscienceproducts/The_Revised_Quote_Book.html</a>

Holy shit it's not just them!
<a href="http://www.creationtruth.com/Bookstore/book/books/B-074.htm" target="_blank">http://www.creationtruth.com/Bookstore/book/books/B-074.htm</a>

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

RufusAtticus

Twenty-eight pages! Damn that's a hell of a lot of quotemining material. I bet refuting them would take nearly 100 pages.

tgamble

yup.

Kinda like a dog shit stain. A few seconds to make. Hours to clean it up.

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

Bubba

I think the sad thing is that this is irrefutable proof in my mind that these people are lying. To read Gould and accuse him of being a creationist or as saying that there are no transitional fossils is the heart of deceit.

Bubba

Valentine Pontifex

While plenty of creationist have accused Gould of saying there are no transitonal fossils, I have yet to see one suggest that Gould did not accept evolution. We really should avoid this exageration since it really helps the antievolutionist cause by allowing them an escape hatch: we did not quote out of context since we made it clear that Gould is an evolutionist.

Albion

This "no transitional fossils" thing is just tiresome. A scientist tries to explain that there's no way we can tell if a particular fossil was ancestral to a modern form or if it was ancestral to an extinct form, and creationists take it and run with it and pretend the scientist was saying that there are no transitional forms at all. That's what the whole flap about Colin Patterson was about as well.

The Lone Ranger

That's one big reason that I find the Creationist movement so disgusting. I don't really blame the Joe Sixpack Creationist on the street who doesn't know any better. He or she probably honestly believes that Gish et alia are actually telling the truth, or at least thinks that it's a reasonable assumption that where there's so much smoke there must be at least some fire.

But people like Morris and Gish and Hovind flat-out lie to make their case. They carefully comb through the works of legitimate scientists to find passages that they can then trumpet (with appropriate editing) as "proof" that "even 'evilutionists' doubt the veracity of evolutionary theory" or "even 'evilutionists' admit that there are no such things as transitional fossils" or some such malarky.

Surely, they can't possibly be unaware that what they're doing is blatantly dishonest.

Ignorance I can forgive. It's curable.

Stupidity I can forgive. It's not the victim's fault.

Dishonesty I cannot forgive.


To top it off, these are the same people who claim that a belief in "evilution" encourages bad behavior -- like lying, for instance.

If they weren't dead serious, the irony would be downright funny.

-- Michael

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: The Lone Ranger ]</p>