CTD, I see you are at it again.
CTD in message #256008
[quote]It's encouraging to think I may be doing something worthwhile & not just vainly pursuing an obsession to attack every lie I encounter.
But has no qualms at all about posting falsehood after falsehood. Before you know what is a lie you need to know what is the truth. Engaging in personal fantasy about what you have done again?
You propose to lecture me about what is lie and what is truth? I anticipate many a chuckle!
I directly engaged the slanderous statement & all subsequent attempts to alter it or otherwise obfuscate the issues. Rather than being man enough to retract the lie, RAZD has chosen to mount an incompetent campaign of disinformation.
You completely avoided the issue and the evidence that shows that Harum Yahya did in fact misrepresent PE.
I avoided no such thing. I exposed the truth by quoting
Gould himself, and other sources. You must be hoping
everyone reading this is plagued by a terribly short attention span.
Of course the actual words of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge that actually show that they did not say PE was NOT due to evolution,
A new red herring. HY didn't say anything about PE being "NOT due to evolution"; an neither has anyone else mentioned in the thread. Are you simply spewing nonsense for purposes of obfuscation, or is this intended to be a new accusation?
that they did not say that PE was due to sudden large changes, both items claimed in the quote text from Harun Yahya, somehow seems to be missed in all your "direct engagement" on this matter.
You seem to have missed my direct engagement. Or should I rather say you seem to have forgotten the content thereof? I think I should.
And you can NOT equivocate their other articles, some of which are speculative (the gill arch becoming a jaw bone due to epigenetic effects), as it is clear that Harun Yahya was talking about PE and PE alone.
I have made no attempt to equivocate. In fact I made it pretty clear.
You, on the other hand,
did include the phrase "any such thing" in your original accusation. This means that even if you're successful in misleading
some readers about PE, the honest ones must conclude your accusation is still false.
So we are definitely talking about PE and Harun Yahya is definitely saying that PE involves sudden large changes of a "hopeful monster" kind -- much larger than the color of caterpillars or the size of bacteria -- the exact kind of misrepresentation that both Gould and Edridge are ON RECORD as saying is a false representation.
I've seen that Gould changed his story. I seem to have missed the evidence that Eldredge has done so as well.
That they have said so vigorously and continually is a matter of record, that they did so over 20 years ago means that to claim otherwise today is either to knowingly claim a falsehood, or to display a total lack of desire to find the truth, neither of which are characteristics one would look for from a source when looking for the truth, but the characteristics that are typical of sites that are untrustworthy and questionable ... at best.
You realize this includes about half of the evolutionists who've evaluated PE, don't you? Good show! (Not to imply that your summary is half accurate... )
On the other hand CTD's constant misrepresentation of my posts as deceptive, dishonest, disinformation, and slanderous is ... but it amuses me that the only way he can argue against the facts is to attack the messenger. It also amuses me when a person's most telling argument is conveyed by the use of "smileys" (I don't use cartoon's to argue my case).
No, what I've done isn't attacking. It's counter-attacking.
You continue to slander creationists rather than meet their arguments. In recent memory you've slandered HY, Russ, and Bex. Seems to be the bulk of your gameplan.
Even if it were true, (best case for you two) that HY wouldn't call a macromutation a macromutation, RAZD's actual accusation would still be false! You'd like folks to forget that, but I'd like for both of you to demonstrate just how arrogant you really are. To that end, I have so far continued to post.
Typical CTD red herring argument. Harun Yahya's claim was that the Gould and Eldredge PE theory "proposed that living species came about not through a series of small changes, as Darwin had maintained, but by sudden, large ones," and the question remains whether Harun Yahya would call the change in color of a caterpillar or the size of a bacterium "sudden, large" changes (as Gould did in two references provided).
You have not established that macromutations are synonymous with PE, but your argument assumes this to be the case. PE doesn't even
require macromutations, as anyone following the evidence already presented already knows. PE
welcomes macromutations, but does not (in its present form, at least) need them.
Now it is remotely possible that Harun Yahya meant that "large, sudden" change includes the size change in Escherichia coli and the color change in Lymantria dispar caterpillars, and that this would be enough to change a reptile into "another species of reptile, or even a mammal" ... I just doubt that this is the case.
It has nothing to do with the case until you demonstrate that anyone apart from yourself is talking about macromutation = macroevolution, or PE requires macromutation. Just because you confuse these terms does not mean anyone else is required to become confused.
You like to use bold to emphasis points you think your opposition is ignoring:
The fact remains, the statement quoted from Harun Yahya's website about PE has been demonstrated to be false and it has been shown to be misleading, it displays the kind of gross errors that are easily checked against the original resources, and it is the kind of misinformation that makes the site untrustworthy and questionable as a source of truth, especially when it has been shown to be false for over 20 years.
You have yet to show that HY is confusing macromutation with PE or macroevolution. You have yet to demonstrate that anything HY said about PE is untrue.
Your argument consists of injecting macromutations into the discussion (pretending they are the same thing as macroevolution) and pointing out more recent statements from Gould which differ from his original statements. How this reflects negatively upon HY is something you have not yet explained.
Don't like bold? How about red?
[color:"red"] The only way such dusty old falsehoods can be posted, is for the people posting them to use questionable sources themselves and to fail to check the validity of the claims before including them, or for the poster to intentionally repeat them to deceive the gullible willing believers that don't check their sources (I'll leave out the possible stupidity and ignorance) ... or they are deluded into thinking it is the truth, and that they don't need to check the validity of the statements. [/color]
Now observe how well this applies! After laying out the gameplan, RAZD employs it to the letter, presenting the words of his prophet as if they contain truth:
Dawkins:
Ignorance Is No Crime"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.
[color:"white"].[/color]
...
[color:"white"].[/color]
I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under "insane" but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed. Sincere people who are not ignorant, not stupid, and not wicked can be cruelly torn, almost in two, between the massive evidence of science on the one hand, and their understanding of what their holy book tells them on the other.
Interesting reading. Couple it with what we know about cognitive dissonance and delusion (false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness) we can see where this fifth category falls. Believing something to be true does not make it so. Posting what you
believe to be true is not sufficient grounds to claim it is true.
So how impressive is any of this to one who doesn't accept the doctrine of Dawkins' infallibility? And while I do not doubt that one who has experienced delusion & cognitive dissonance on a continual basis might
become quite an authority on them, I dispute the presumption that RAZD
is at present a trustworthy authority on either.
