RE: Argument #1: Transitional Fossils
April 24, 2014 at 8:04 pm
(This post was last modified: April 24, 2014 at 8:19 pm by Simon Moon.)
(April 24, 2014 at 7:34 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You presented us quotes from Stephen Gould and this Schwartz fellow. Did you look them up yourself, or did you get them from a creationist source? If it's the latter, which source did you use?
When we looked up those quotes, what did we see, Rev? We found, in the former case, that the quote was part of a larger paragraph of text that represented a complete thought, and what you posted was that thought torn in half so that it said the opposite of what Gould meant. There was no way for the person who took that quote to avoid seeing that he wasn't finished talking, Rev. They had to have known that they were misrepresenting what Gould said.
With your Schwartz quote, it took me only a few seconds on google to find that he does accept evolution, which means that your quote, attempting to make it seem as though he was a creationist was wrong too. You posted two quotes that had been manipulated into saying exactly the opposite of what those quoted actually meant.
So what I want you to do is admit that those quotes you posted were wrong. If they came from a creationist source that isn't you, I want you to admit that those sources lied to you, and to us.
Shouldn't be hard for you, since that's what did happen. Just observe where you were in error and were misled, and we can move on. You are genuinely here to find the truth, right? Well, you've just been shown that something you posted wasn't that, so it's time to retract what you said and take responsibility for that.
Well?
I think we should all just continue to quote and repost the above, so when Rev777 comes back, he will not be able to avoid it, or say he missed it.
Come on, Rev777, respond to this.
Admitting that you were wrong, or being intentionally lied to, is the intellectually honest thing to do.
So, the question is, do you have any intellectual honesty?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.