|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
Date: 10/10/2003 3:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Pffft! I'd bet the farm that these aren't the exact quotes but were taken out of context. Even IF they are; there is NO basis for them; nothing but opinion. Sounds like ONLY something that would come from the "Intelligent design" camp. NO real scientist, or biologist would make such a statement. WHO is this "Doctor" Ridley? Doctor of WHAT; Dr of Theology??  |
| Date: 10/10/2003 3:21:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 62243 Dr Mark Ridley is Lecturer at Somerville College, and a member of the Zoology Department, University of Oxford. He is an evolutionist, and according to the statements by Gould, Richard Dawkins, and others, he seems to be a real scientist. This Conklin fellow I've never heard of, I just found the quote in a book - he doesn't believe in evolution I guess. *ENDER* |
Date: 10/10/2003 3:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
I liked em....  |
Date: 10/10/2003 4:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 52155
"You didn't come from a monkey so quit acting like it!" - my mother when I was 5  |
Date: 10/10/2003 4:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 1225
"The probability of life originating from an accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." Given the number of planets in the universe, this probability analogy serves to re-enforce the evolution theory. Refer to chaos theory.  |
|
Date: 10/10/2003 4:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
LOL@Eddo |
|
Date: 10/10/2003 4:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Sorry, but I don't care WHAT the creationists CLAIM Ridley to be; or CLAIM the real scientists allegedly said about him, THAT statement/quote is in direct opposition to what REAL scientists have to say regarding the fossil record, especially Dawkins. |
|
Date: 10/10/2003 4:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
You're right, as usual, Neptune. |
|
Date: 10/10/2003 5:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
Are quotes now debates?? |
|
Date: 10/10/2003 5:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Well, KC, the way I look at it is this: IF anyone puts up ANYTHING in ANY category that is debatable; or erroneous, or misleading, and or a down right falsehood; it can and should be pointed out. One time.....only ONCE did I post a quote in the quote section, and I did NOT do research on it. I just put it up there. Wellll....ENKI came in there and set me straight. I thanked him; and I am glad he did that, for it taught me to NEVER take these things for granted again. The quote was fact, but the alleged AUTHOR was wrong. It was attributed to bin Laden, when in fact it was Abu Nadal who said it. |
|
Date: 10/10/2003 5:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
Well, that's OK I guess. But quotes are just that, quotes. Many are not factual, only interesting. I found these interesting and based upon what I believe, I agree. You and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum Thinker. We both have strong beliefs, but very much different. But, I'd still like that dance... |
Date: 10/10/2003 5:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
um...ok, if you can do the tango, KC, c'mon over ta my house. I'll dance with ya.  |
|
Date: 10/10/2003 6:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
The Tango?? I may have bit off more than I can chew, LOL. |
| Date: 10/10/2003 7:46:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 62243 Thinker, listen to yourself - you should at least research the person in question (in this case Dr. Mark Ridley) and see what he/she believes before accusing me of getting all my (allegedly false or distorted) information from creationists. Knowing that probably the most famous evolutionist in the world, Stephen Gould, didn't believe that the fossil record supported the standard evolution theory seems to me to strongly suggest that your definition of a real scientist is distorted. Stephen Gould (a REAL scientist) was THE most ardent supporter of the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution – DEVELOPED to explain the extreme LACK of support for the standard theory of evolution in the fossil record. |
|
Date: 10/10/2003 8:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Sorry, but I've done extensive research on MANY of the scientists and alleged creation scientists; and books, famous authors quotes which the creatioinists quote, etc. etc., and MOST always find out where something is mis-quoted, or taken out of context, re-written, or it wasn't said at all. THIS is the TYPICAL modus operandi of the creationist camp. Now, having said that; I AM A SKEPTIC because of it; and I went and looked up the two you mentioned. This Ridley guy hardly warrants any commentary, except that he has a ton of books to sell and I am quite certain that he does NOT receive the support of the scientific community on HIS opinions. Now, there is my strong suspicion that the quote you gave by Gould is either one that was taken out of context, or rewritten because from everything else I can find and or quotes by him, it is NOTHING like what I have found. It just smells really bad, you know, quite the opposite of Gould. Here is just a couple of the many many that I found. I would have posted a whole bunch of them but this is not in the debate section. "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered." -- Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" Science and Creationism, p. 118 (1984) "The board transported its jurisdiction to a never-never land where a Dorothy of the new millennium might exclaim: "They still call it Kansas, but I don't think we're in the real world anymore." -- Stephen Jay Gould, responding to the Kansas School Board's decision, under pressure from Christian funadamentalists, to remove mention of evolution from all public school science curricula, in John Nichols, "Gould Was a Scientist for the People" (The Capital Times: May 30, 2002) "The basic formulation, or bare-bones mechanics, of natural selection is a disarmingly simple argument, based on three undeniable facts (overproduction of offspring, variation, and heritability) and one syllogistic inference (natural selection, or the claim that organisms enjoying differential reproductive success will, on average, be those variants that are fortuitously better adapted to changing local environments, and that these variants will then pass their favored traits to offspring by inheritance)". -- Stephen Jay Gould, to which he adds, in a footnote referenced immediately following the first parenthesis: "Two of these three ranked as 'folk wisdom' in Darwin's day and needed no further justification -- variation and inheritance (the mechanism of inheritance remained unknown, but its factuality could scarcely be doubted). Only the principle that all organisms produce more offspring than can possibly survive -- superfecundity, in Darwin's lovely term -- ran counter to popular assumptions about nature's benevolence, and required Darwin's specific defense in the Origin." Quoted from his, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002), chapter 1, "Defining and Revising the Structure of Evolutionary Theory," p. 13. |
|
Date: 10/10/2003 8:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
I could find nothing on the Conklin guy. NOTHING. |
|
Date: 10/10/2003 8:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- (whether through design or stupidity), I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups. -- Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" Science and Creationism, p. 124 (1984) |
|
Date: 10/10/2003 8:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
As a biologically oriented researcher who has made controversial claims, Rutgers social theorist Robin Fox notes with irony that secular creationist academics seem to have replaced the church as the leading opponents of Darwinism: "It's like they're responding to heresy." Stephen Jay Gould, who has devoted much of his career to critiquing misuses of biology, also detects parallels between religious and academic creationist zeal. While holding that many aspects of human life are local and contingent, he adds, "Some facts and theories are truly universal (and true) -- and no variety of cultural traditions can change that...we can't let a supposedly friendly left-wing source be exempt from criticism from anti-intellectual positions." The new creationism is not simply a case of well-intended politics gone awry; it represents a grave MISUNDERSTANDING of biology and science generally. |
| Date: 10/11/2003 9:52:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 62243 I never said that Gould wasn't an evolutionist, I said that his observations of the fossil record are at odds with many scientists. Also, of course there are transitional fossils between species, but species to species transformations are not evolution. From the essays and reports I've read on punctuated equilibrium I understand that punctuated equilibrium started as much more than an explanation for species to species transitions only. Anyways, mabye I'll bring this up in the debate section later. See you there. *ENDER* |
Date: 10/11/2003 9:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
"Who said the talking monkeys get into Heaven?" - God  |
|
Date: 10/11/2003 10:09:00 AM
From Authorid: 1225
lol at RodTodThisIsGod |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
