Re: Solid Argument Against Evolution: Appeal to Tactics

On Oct 23, 4:25 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[I have recently indicated that I do not reply to Dana Tweedy posts
when they employ his usual slander or one line, substanceless
caricature and distortions of opponents arguments.


Well, since I have never slandered anyone, and I do not employ 'one
line subtanceless caraicature, or distortions", it's obvious you don't
reply because you know you have no ability to argue rationally.

But this post by
Dana is a rarity in that it departs the previous indictment enough to
where I feel a reply is warranted.]

Ray, everyone knew you were lying when you said you weren't going to
respond to me any more. You also lie when you claim "slander" when
people tell the truth about you. You are fairly consistent that you
lie whenever you apparently think you can get away with it.


snip

Since the quoted words say exactly that

Not in the context. Dennett was pointing out that the "tree of life"
was not a miracle, but the result of natural processes.

No one has disputed this.

That is what you implied by your claims.

He went on to say that it "just happened to
happen" which I have made fun of for mirroring creation ex nihilo,

But it's not "mirroring". It's not even close. Ex nihlo suggests a
magic origin, where Dennett's statement is about natural processes.

and
the obvious hypocrisy of making fun of Creationism in view of the fact
that Dennett is admitting that the beginning of the tree of life "just
happened to happen."

How is that hypocritical? Dennett's phrase related to the natural
processes that science observes, and studies. Creationism offers as
it's full explanation "Goddidit". There is nothing more to a
Creationist's explanation. Dennett's statement did not suggest that
there was nothing more than chance involved. You are comparing a
twelve volume encyclopeda (science) to an empty scrap of paper
(creationism), and saying they are equivalent.





(as anyone who can read could
verify for them self by reading the quote posted in this message) the
denial written above reveals that this person feels the quote is so
evidently ridiculous in its harm to the perceived intellectual
reputation of evolutionary theory

There is no "harm" to the "intellectual reputation" of evolutionary
theory. A statement by one person can hardly "harm" the massive amount
of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. By taking Dennett's
words out of context, you only damage your own "reputation" (such as it is)

It is a bad idea to claim "quote mine" or "out of context" in order to
enact damage control for an honest admission by a pro-evolution
scholar.

Since that's not what I did, why would it matter? When you take a
quote, such as Dennett's out of context, and try to use it
dishonestly, like you did, you will get called for 'quote mining'.

There is no need for "damage control", as Dennett's statement does
no damage to the evidence, and it was not an "honest admission" of
anything wrong with evolution. The context of the quote makes it
clear that Dennett was not saying that things "just happened", and
leaving it at that. He was saying that science does not require
miracles as explanations.


that he must deny that evolution
accepts that life or common ancestry "just happened."

As opposed to a instantaneous miracle, yes. Life began by a natural
process, and evolved the same way. There is nothing wrong with that
statement.

I agree that from the evolutionary perspective there is nothing wrong
with said statement, never said there was,

But you did try to imply that there was "something wrong". That's
why it's dishonest to take such a quote and misuse it.

but Dennett did say
something natural "just happened to happen" which is equivalent to ex
nihilo.

Wrong again. Ex nihlo is creation out of nothing, by no known
mechanism. Dennett was saying that natural processes produced the
"tree of life". There really is no comparison.


Your comments again, are engaged in damage control.

Why would I need "damage control" when there is no damage? Again,
the words of one individual, no matter how learned, or respected, do
not damage to enormous amount of evidence for evolution.



It also reveals
the ignorance of this person in that he did not know that evolution
has no answer as to how biological life began other than it did "just
happen."

Ray, I'm quite aware that evolution does not explain the origin of life.

So am I and so is Dennett, who said it quite bluntly.

Again, Dennett was not talking about the origin of life. He was
talking about the diversity of life, sometimes referred to as the
"tree of life". He was also, not talking about how nature itself
began, as you implied. Evolution is not concerned with how life
itself began. That's a separate but related field.


If you check my posting history, you will see I've been correcting
Creationists on this point for a long time. Evolutionary theory is not
meant to answer the question of abiogenesis. It's an explanation of
how life diversified.

But evolutionary theory seeks to explain biological First Cause from
inanimate matter someday.

No, it does not. Remember, that how life began is not an issue for
evolution. Evolution is concerned with how life diversified AFTER it
began. The search for abiogenesis is a separate field of study.

This will never happen.

Forgive me if I don't accept your biased claims. I don't know if it
will ever be found, but it certianly won't be by Creationists, who
refuse to look.

Evolution is
falsified right here.

How? Evolution is not required to explain the origin of life. It's
only concerned with how life diversified after it began. How would
not knowing how life began falisfy something that happened
afterward?

Evolution is diametrically backwards and in
defiance of Genesis biological "cosmogony."

The science of evolution doesn't care in the least about the Genesis
creation stories, or any other religious creation story. It's a
study of the evidence, and if Genesis doesn't fit with the evidence,
that's not science's concern.


Evolution can never
explain how life and the selection process began;

Since evolution is not meant to answer that question, why would it
matter? Science, I suspect will, someday find how life began. But
even if it never does, the theory of evolution still stands as the
best explanation of how life diversified.

that is why Dennett
said it "just happened to happen" = no explanation whatsoever.

Once more, you show how you don't understand what Dennett was talking
about. That's another problem with using mined quotes. You miss the
thrust of the argument. Here's what you keep missing

1. Dennett was not talking about how life began.
2. Dennett was not offering a scientific explanation for the tree of
life by that phrase.
3. Dennett, and others know quite well that evolution does not try to
explain how life began.
4. Dennett's words were taken out of context to change his meaning,
which is the definition of quote mining.



The question of abiogenesis is currently under investigation by
scientists, and they have made some progress in understanding the likely
chemical processes that began life. However it does not matter in the
least to evolution the exact method by which life began. Even if it
could be shown that life began as a "cosmic poof", the evidence for
evolution still stands.

In other words the supposition of evolution can never be harmed and is
off the table and not subject to falsification.

If you could show some reason why genetic changes cannot be inherited,
that would falsify evolution. If you could show that inherited
traits have absolutely no impact on reproductive fitness, that would
falsify evolution. If you could show that genetic change does not
occur, that would falsify evolution. So, no I'm not saying that
evolution cannot be falisfied.

What I am saying is that attacking abiogenesis is not a refuation of
evolution. There is nothing in the origin of life that would falsify
how it later diversified.



This is why Darwinism
is Scientism,

no one but you calls it that.


Atheist religion attempting to objectify itself via
Science.

That's only your claim, and you are demonstratably wrong. Evolution
is a scientific theory, supported by the evidence, and does not
support atheism any more than any other scientific theory would.


Dennett is not a scientist, and he's not a researcher into abiogenesis.
His statement was intended to make a point that one does not require a
magic story to explain the origin of life. It does not mean there is no
means of telling how life began.

Caricature, straw men and distortion.

No, Ray, it's not. Those are all things you use yourself.

No one says an Atheist was
advocating a Creationist concept,

But you were claiming that his statement was a "mirror" of the
Creationist claims.

but he was advocating that a
Materialist concept somehow caused a "creationist" effect.

Which he was not, as I've pointed out before. Dennett was not saying
that things happened for no reason. He was talking about natural
processes.

That is why
you are engaged in heavy handed damage control.

Once again, when there is no damage, there is no need for "Damage
control'. Dennett's statement does no damage at all to science.
Your misuse of it only damages your own reputation (as poor as it is
already).



Dennett was simply reporting that evolutionary "science" has no
explanation for the origin of life,

But Dennett was *not* talking about the origin of life, something you
claimed to have admitted. He was talking about the "tree of life",
ie, the branching pattern of heirarchy displayed by the relationships
of living things. You misinterpeted Dennett, and tried to make a
cheap point by misusing an out of context quotation.

In any case, Dennett admitting that evolution doesn't explain how
life began would hardly be an earth shaking "admission" even if that
was what he was saying. Scientists are quite aware that evolution
explains the diversity of life, not it's beginning. Scientists are
also quite aware that there is presently no scientific theory to
explain how life began.

and he said it bluntly, and he
said it in such a manner that it has caused you to misrepresent anyone
who accepts what he says at face value by insinuating "quote mine."

I'm not "misrepresenting" anyone. You did use the quote out of
context, and it is an instance of quote mining. You didn't bother to
find out what Dennett was talking about, and you didn't bother to see
if his statement actually supported your claim. You took at at "face
value" by stripping off the context, which is dishonest.

I do not misrepresent people, Ray. You should know that by now.
You consistenly project your own behavior on others.

I
happen to know that Dennett submitted his texts to review by at least
"14?" different biologists.

So what? Those biologists would have known what Dennett was talking
about, because they read the entire section, not just one out of
context quotation.

Apparently none disagreed with the passage
we are discussing (including Gould).

I don't disagree with Dennett's statement either, that is what he
actually said. What I disagree with is your out of context quotation,
and your attempt to dishonestly use that quote to say something that
Dennett did not mean.




Daniel Dennett, a scholar, was forthright, as all evolution
scholars are on this issue.

Dennett was not saying what you are trying to twist his words into.
Quote mining is a dishonest way of arguing.

It's a bad idea to misrepresent and engage in damage control by an
accusation of quote mine since Dennett wrote in prose.

Maybe it is, but since that's not what I've done, how does that
apply? I am not disputing that Dennett wrote in "prose" rather than
in verse. I'm not engaged in 'damage control' because there is no
damage. I've not misrepresented anything you've said. On the
contrary, it's you who is misrepresenting Dennett.

So, yes, it is a bad thing for you to misrepresent Dennett, and to use
quote mining.

snip

is a common practice for
writers to add explanation in brackets so that the context of the
quote can be understood by anyone who happens upon it.

However your "explanation" is false and misleading. I did not intend
to say "Darwinian" science, as science does not recognize such a
distinction.

I have never seen any dictionary define 'science' with the word
evolution or Darwinism.

So, why did you insert something that doesn't apply? You were being
dishonest, obviously.

It is imperative for a reader to know that a
Darwinist was presuming to speak for science.

I was pointing out that real science doesn't use your kind of "logic"
or "commonsense", both of which are wildly out of step with reality.
You attempted to change my statement, and misrepresent what I was
saying. I am not talking as a "Darwinist" (whatever you mean by
that), but as someone who is aquainted with the concept of science.



Educated
persons know that anything written in the bracket is added by the
writer and was not part of the original quote.

But your "adding" changes the meaning of the "original quote" and
distorts what I said. It's dishonest.

Brackets is the accepted literary way of indicating that what is
enclosed was added by the author and not in the original.

It's still tampering with a quotation to change it's meaning. It's
still dishonest. I did not mean "Darwinian" science, as there is no
such thing. I was talking about science..period.



Without the bracket
content added in this quote no one would know what the issue was;
therefore, the added portion is perfectly legitimate.

The isssue was not "Darwinian" science. It was science. Your addition
of the bracketed word changes the meaning of my statement.

Comment ignores the validity of brackets and seeks to defend the right
to speak for science while protesting the outing of bias.

You haven't shown that I have any "bias" that would change the meaning
of the word science. Putting words into other people's mouth is
never valid, even if you used brackets. Your changing my words was
dishonest.

If you had
stated your bias up-front then I would not have had to do it for you.

Again, you have not shown that my statement does not reflect what
mainstream science accepts. You just tried to change my statement
for me, which is very dishonest. Your own attempt to "speak for
science" by making such outrageous claims as "Creation and Design are
the sole proprioters of science" did not get such treatment.

snip

This is standard Darwinian tactic
attempting to infer that something is left out and if it was not then
the quote would not make evolution look so bad.

Again, you leaving things out of the context is basically a lie of
omission. By distorting the meaning of the quote, it only makes you
look bad. Again, the quotation of one individual cannot make the
mountains of evidence for evolution go away.

All false suppositions, Dana's preferred method of attack.

No, Ray, that may be your "preferred method", but I prefer to use the
truth. I have used no false suppositions here. I defy you to show
where any of my statements or "suppositions" are false. You did
take it out of context. You did distort the meaning. You did
practice the lie of omission. And your dishonesty does not make the
evidence for evolution go away.


Darwinists say "quote
mine" or "out of context" automatically,

No, only when the quote is mined, and/or taken out of context.

I didn't expect you to admit.

Why should I admit something that is not true? There is no
"automatic" reflex to claim quote mine. The fact remains that
creationists do use quote mining quite often, and in this particular
case, you were caught at it.



it is a tactic, and for them
a necessary tactic because the facts in any given quote are perceived
to harm the validity of evolution.

If the full context were given, the "perceived harm" is negated. That's
why Creationists so often use the quote mine. It's a dishonest form
of argument, and a lie of omission.

The full context was given, but Dana did not like Dennett's
implication or way of saying it, which, in his mind, made evolution
look bad (life or tree of life "just happened to happen").

Ray, when you try to peer into my mind, you fail even worse than in
your attempts to boost your own ego. The full context did not
support your claim. Dennett's statement in context did not make
evolution look bad. What Dennett was saying was that science does
not require miracles as an explanation for the tree of life. It
happened by natural processes over generations.


And, by the
way, Dennett's next phrase ("in the fulness of time") is Biblical
plagiarism.

No, Ray, it's a common phrase.


Do a Bible Gateway KJV search. Dennett was saying that a
creationist concept was accomplised by some unknown materialist
phenomenon.

That's the point you are ignoring. Dennett was not invoking some
"unknown materialist phenomenon". He was talking about a known
natural process, that has been closely studied.

It's your own claim that life was produced by some unknown, and
unknowable supernatural event, that cannot, even in principle be
studied. You are mis-quoting Dennett and using your own
misunderstaning of science to do so.

snip

This is the "misunderstanding tactic" and it is most commonly used by
Darwinists.

Ray, you are misunderstanding the quote. It's not a "tactic" but a truth.

Defense of "misunderstanding tactic."

Once again, when you ARE misunderstanding something, it's not a
"tactic" to point that out. You seem to be concerned about someone
using "tactics" that you don't seem to grasp that you really ARE as
ignorant as others claim.


snipping what Ray has ignored, yet again...


DJT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Solid Argument Against Evolution: Appeal to Tactics
    ... Dennett, as the more complete quote below shows. ... Dennett was pointing out that the "tree of life" ... of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Solid Argument Against Evolution: Appeal to Tactics
    ... as the more complete quote below shows. ... A statement by one person can hardly "harm" the massive amount of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. ... Life began by a natural process, ... Dennett is not a scientist, and he's not a researcher into abiogenesis. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Solid Argument Against Evolution: Appeal to Tactics
    ... Dennett, as the more complete quote below shows. ... has no answer as to how biological life began other than it did "just ... Dennett is saying that the "tree of life" just happened, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Interesting Quotations from Scientists on Evolutionism
    ... OOPs I cut and pasted the wrong quote I meant to cut and paste the quote ... that said evolution is too simple for the complexities of life probably ... Keep spam illegitimate, Report spam to: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Christof Koch
    ... Simpler Origin for Life" from earlier this year by Prof. Robert Shapiro, ... Life began with the appearance of the first RNA molecule. ... before proteins and DNA in the evolution of life. ...
    (talk.origins)