Denial of Evolution V
- Thread starter Hercules Rockefeller
- Start date
- Status
Leopold - you should consider a career in biology.
You have managed to achieve something quite remarkable.
You have managed to take a horse that has been dead for decades and flog it until, contrary to everything that we currently know about biology, you succeeded to induce the aforementioned dead horse to produce fresh horseshit.
There's got to be a Nobel in that at least.
While I could provide you with links from this very forum which direct you to the many many times you have been supplied with Gould's quote in full and in context, had the quote explained to you, AND had the concept of punctuated equilibrium and what it really means explained to you in language simple enough even for you to understand on a similar number of occasions, it is abundantly clear from the fact that you are still attempting to flog that same dead horse some 15 months after your first posts on the subject demonstrate beyond doubt that it would be a waste of everyone's time to attempt to educate you on the subject any further - your's included.
Instead I will direct you to some learning materials that are clearly more suited to someone at your level of intellectual development:
http://www.alluc.org/search.html?sword=sesame+street
Last edited:
you write the some of longest sentences i've ever read, but there is no need for you to provide anything.
the entire article can be found here:
science, vol. 210 no.4472 ppg. 883-887.
a few excerpts can be found here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2716879&postcount=432
they weren't talking about the fossil record though.
and let's not forget this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110127141657.htm
you DO know what "representative sample" means do you not?
i am also sure you know what it takes to be a biology teacher.
both of the above examples come from a well respected, peer reviewed, source.
Last edited:
leopold:
Are you still persisting with your claim that Stephen J Gould didn't really believe in evolution? Or, if I have that wrong, what exactly is your claim about him or what he wrote? And what evidence do you have for your claim?
To my knowledge you have already been banned several times surrounding this issue. You may need to consider just how important it is to you to express your creationist views, because they may lead you to being permanently banned from sciforums for trolling if you're not careful.
Are you still persisting with your claim that Stephen J Gould didn't really believe in evolution? Or, if I have that wrong, what exactly is your claim about him or what he wrote? And what evidence do you have for your claim?
To my knowledge you have already been banned several times surrounding this issue. You may need to consider just how important it is to you to express your creationist views, because they may lead you to being permanently banned from sciforums for trolling if you're not careful.
Besides, what if Gould falls and hits his head (let's hope not!) and wakes up without a personality but a flaming creationist?
What does that have to do with the evidence that supports the current body of knowledge concerning evolution? How does one man or one incident - whether or not it's true - change such a hugely understood phenomenon?
What does that have to do with the evidence that supports the current body of knowledge concerning evolution? How does one man or one incident - whether or not it's true - change such a hugely understood phenomenon?
i am not claiming anything.
see above.
read the article in question, make your own conclusions.
what i posted came verbatum from the article in question, make of it as you will.
I hope that leopold realises that Gould was a lifetime supporter and populariser of the theory of evolution. Evolution was Gould's life's work. Nothing he ever wrote disputed that evolution is an established fact. His theory of punctuated equilibrium is an evolutionary theory. It in no way clashes with the basics of the theory as Darwin originally laid it out.
So, I'm not sure what he hopes to prove by relying on Gould as some kind of proof of Creationism. That approach will never fly. It's like relying on something that Einstein wrote in order to say that Einstein didn't really believe in the theory of relativity.
Also, I should say that for a person who says he isn't claiming anything, leopold seems awfully fixated on this matter.
So, I'm not sure what he hopes to prove by relying on Gould as some kind of proof of Creationism. That approach will never fly. It's like relying on something that Einstein wrote in order to say that Einstein didn't really believe in the theory of relativity.
Also, I should say that for a person who says he isn't claiming anything, leopold seems awfully fixated on this matter.
no they don't - one is an example of you telling lies and the other is a news story
edit - I suppose I could concede that the first one was peer reviewed - but only in the sense that a whole bunch of us lot reviewed your mined quotes and pointed out to you that you were lying
Last edited:
I always get a kick out of this.
Creationist: "I claim that Stephen Gould's own words demonstrate that the fossil record is poor evidence for evolution!"
Scientist: "Here is the full quote and an explanation from Gould explaining how you took him out of context."
Creationist: "Well, uh . . . that's not . . . ."
Scientist: "What were you claiming again?"
Creationist: "I am not claiming anything."
Yep. I think someone could post "evolution has been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt" and all you would read is "evolution has . . . doubt."
The reason creationists cite Gould is becuase he was critical of gradualism. Walter ReMine the author of "The Biotic Message" an intelligent design book cites Gould over 500 times!
http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm
http://creationwiki.org/Walter_ReMine
His book has been criticised here:
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho41.htm
http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm
http://creationwiki.org/Walter_ReMine
His book has been criticised here:
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho41.htm
.....which does not mean he is critical of evolution as a whole. Quite the opposite.
And, it should be emphasized, Gould does not discount a role for gradualism!
Misunderstandings are one thing. But disingenuous, intellectually dishonest attempts to quote him out-of-context as supposed evidence against evolution as a whole is another thing.
Herc - if Leo was just your average spray-bomb fundie , following the usual modus operandi of bashing out the usual regurgi-post nonsense before moving on to find another forum to troll, then he would just be an occasional irritation, and occasional light entertainment.
However we are now over a year down the road from the start of his hysterics on the subject and have moved no further. Despite constant correction we're STILL seeing exactly the same garbage from him.
It's high time we took out the trash.
However we are now over a year down the road from the start of his hysterics on the subject and have moved no further. Despite constant correction we're STILL seeing exactly the same garbage from him.
It's high time we took out the trash.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
This is a place of science and scholarship, so ALL evolution denialism is antiscientific "trash," regardless of how articulate it may or may not be. It's hard to make a case that one idiotic religionist argument is worse than any other idiotic religionist argument. We've waived the rules by simply allowing this thread to exist.
If Leo is truly repeating himself, then perhaps he has violated the rule against trolling and meaningless content: stalling the forward motion of the discussion.
But again, what "forward motion" can there be in a discussion devoted to crackpottery?
ok, let's put goulds quote aside.
can anyone address the sciencedaily piece?
the majority of biology teachers here in the US are reluctant to teach evolution.
why is that?
you cannot tell the most ardent theist that 2 plus 2 equals 5.
if evolution is indeed the fact some would like you to believe then why are biology teachers reluctant to teach it?
can someone explain this without all the hate?
can anyone address the sciencedaily piece?
the majority of biology teachers here in the US are reluctant to teach evolution.
why is that?
you cannot tell the most ardent theist that 2 plus 2 equals 5.
if evolution is indeed the fact some would like you to believe then why are biology teachers reluctant to teach it?
can someone explain this without all the hate?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Fallacy of argument by popularity.
A lot of people believe you can only balance an egg on its end on the equinox. Does that make it so?
Quite simply it is because the fundies have made it controversial so the teachers are taking the easy road and avoid it.
It is a shame that the US is lagging behind the rest of the industrial world in science education and this is just one more thing that hurts education of out kids.
I find it incredibly sad that we as a nation let a small percentage of fringe religious zealots deny our kids a decent science education.
we are talking about college educated people here, people specifically educated in the field of biology.
this would be a good explanation if a few were reluctant, but the majority?Quite simply it is because the fundies have made it controversial so the teachers are taking the easy road and avoid it.
It is a shame that the US is lagging behind the rest of the industrial world in science education and this is just one more thing that hurts education of out kids.
I find it incredibly sad that we as a nation let a small percentage of fringe religious zealots deny our kids a decent science education.
you can't seriously believe teachers would be reluctant to teach facts.
- Status