Lukas deflates Darwin

[shunyadragon]

I wasn't pretending I'd read all of Darwin's book. I read parts of what he wrote on fossils, and got a mistaken impression.


Accusing people of lying is frowned on in this forums.

Blessings,
Lee

I chose to say you dishonestly post non-scientific stuff with a religious agenda. 'arguing from (yours too) ignorance. lack of an education in scient to remotely know what your talking about, , selective out of context references You keep repeating old dishonest threads and posts? or just frustration of failure..

[Roy]

I wasn't pretending I'd read all of Darwin's book. I read parts of what he wrote on fossils, and got a mistaken impression.

I don't believe you.

1) A large part of Darwin's chapter on the fossil record in Origins is about why we may never find some intermediary fossils. He goes into the reasons in detail, and includes several examples of wholesale gaps involving not having rocks from certain periods. Nowhere does he say that the intermediaries will be found. He says the opposite. Your supposed mistaken impression is diametrically opposed to what Darwin actually wrote.

2) Your new claim is too convenient. The quote you provided originally, which could potentially have given you that mistaken impression, is found without context in many places (e.g. here), including the creationist dumps you frequent. It would be a quite a co-incidence for you to independenty cite exactly the same extract that they do, starting mid-paragraph.

3) Your original claim was that "He [Darwin] only proposed that the missing intermediates would be found, ..." If you only read parts of what Darwin wrote on fossils, you couldn't be sure that was the only thing he'd said.

I think you copied that quote from some-where else, based your impression solely on that paragraph, and then linked to the complete text (without reading it) to disguise your actual source.

It wouldn't be the first time you've been caught misrepresenting your sources and/or faking citations.

Accusing people of lying is frowned on in this forums.

Yes, it is. The moderators insist that any such accusations are accompanied by confirmation that the claim made is not only false, but that it cannot be a mistake - it should be shown that the claimant knew the claim was false when it was made.

Which is why I'm not just accusing you of having lied, I'm demonstrating that you lied. And you, by admitting that you had only read part of Darwin's chapter on the fossil record, after making a claim about all of it ("He only proposed..."), have confirmed it.

[rogue06]

I don't believe you.

1) A large part of Darwin's chapter on the fossil record in Origins is about why we may never find some intermediary fossils. He goes into the reasons in detail, and includes several examples of wholesale gaps involving not having rocks from certain periods. Nowhere does he say that the intermediaries will be found. He says the opposite. Your supposed mistaken impression is diametrically opposed to what Darwin actually wrote.

2) Your new claim is too convenient. The quote you provided originally, which could potentially have given you that mistaken impression, is found without context in many places (e.g. here), including the creationist dumps you frequent. It would be a quite a co-incidence for you to independenty cite exactly the same extract that they do, starting mid-paragraph.

3) Your original claim was that "He [Darwin] only proposed that the missing intermediates would be found, ..." If you only read parts of what Darwin wrote on fossils, you couldn't be sure that was the only thing he'd said.

I think you copied that quote from some-where else, based your impression solely on that paragraph, and then linked to the complete text (without reading it) to disguise your actual source.

It wouldn't be the first time you've been caught misrepresenting your sources and/or faking citations.
Yes, it is. The moderators insist that any such accusations are accompanied by confirmation that the claim made is not only false, but that it cannot be a mistake - it should be shown that the claimant knew the claim was false when it was made.

Which is why I'm not just accusing you of having lied, I'm demonstrating that you lied. And you, by admitting that you had only read part of Darwin's chapter on the fossil record, after making a claim about all of it ("He only proposed..."), have confirmed it.

And just a reminder, evolutionary theory has come a long ways in the 163 years since Darwin and Wallace first proposed it (as would any scientific theory over such a length of time) due to new discoveries that continue to support and build on what they wrote.

IOW, something that Darwin may not have had an answer for back in 1859 might not pose much of a mystery to scientists today. This means continuing to harp on something that Darwin couldn't explain in the mid 19th century is not exactly relevant. It is like attacking gravitational theory because Newton couldn't explain various aspects, or physics because Kelvin couldn't explain a lot of things back in the 1890s.

[lee_merrill]

I don't believe you.

I'm sorry, but that's what happened, I did read portions of Darwin's book, and got a mistaken impression.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

And just a reminder, evolutionary theory has come a long ways in the 163 years since Darwin and Wallace first proposed it...

Yes, it's only Roy who's gotten fixated on this.

Back to the main point! Generously, 80% of the phyla of the Cambrian remain unexplained.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Yes, it's only Roy who's gotten fixated on this.

Back to the main point! Generously, 80% of the phyla of the Cambrian remain unexplained.

Blessings,
Lee

Your main point has not point. 'Arguing from ignorance' from the perspective of a religious agenda without the knowledge of science is your repetitive modus operandi. This issue has been covered many times over the years.

[Roy]

I'm sorry, but that's what happened, I did read portions of Darwin's book, and got a mistaken impression.

You read portions of Darwin's book and got an impression that doesn't match what Darwin wrote, but does match what some creationists say about what Darwin wrote? Not believable - unless by 'portions' you mean just that half-paragraph and none of the rest of the chapter (because that's all your actual source presented). .

But let's not forget that by your current admissions, you read portions of Darwin's book then made a claim about the contents of the portions you hadn't read.

[shunyadragon]

You read portions of Darwin's book and got an impression that doesn't match what Darwin wrote, but does match what some creationists say about what Darwin wrote? Not believable - unless by 'portions' you mean just that half-paragraph and none of the rest of the chapter (because that's all your actual source presented). .

But let's not forget that by your current admissions, you read portions of Darwin's book then made a claim about the contents of the portions you hadn't read.

. . . nor understood.