Did we evolve from apes?

Why are there efforts to make man out of apes?
Dr. David Pilbeam (a distinguished professor of anthropology) suggested the following:

"Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy."

No, we are not descended from apes or any other ape or monkey-like creature.

At 5/17/2012 3:06:43 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Why are there efforts to make man out of apes?
Dr. David Pilbeam (a distinguished professor of anthropology) suggested the following:

"Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy."

No, we are not descended from apes or any other ape or monkey-like creature.

Do you have an actual source for this?
The reason I ask is because it seems to be either a quote mine or made up out of whole cloth by creationists:
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com...

"Moving on, Menton quotes Dr. David Pilbeam from his review of Leakey's Origins (In the May-June 1978 issue of American Scientist) as saying:

"My reservations concern not so much this book but the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropology…Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about."

It appears as if Dr. Pilbeam is admitting a horrible truth about evolution: It's all based on your "world view" and there isn't enough evidence to say for sure. But did he really say that? A trip to American Scientist shows that no review for Leakey's book was written in the May-June 1978 issue. Not only that, but there is no article by Dr. Pilbeam in that issue. A google search for the quote only turned up creationist sites, so I am inclined to be suspicious, especially knowing creationists' long track record of misquoting."

At 5/17/2012 3:06:43 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Why are there efforts to make man out of apes?
Dr. David Pilbeam (a distinguished professor of anthropology) suggested the following:

"Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy."

No, we are not descended from apes or any other ape or monkey-like creature.

No one has ever claimed we descended from apes, the question is how to describe the common ancestor from which apes and human evolved. I'm not sure what the quote from Pilbeam is saying. I think he's saying the fossil record is not complete enough know exactly how to describe the common ancestor. There is not the slightest doubt that Pilbeam believes that there was a common ancestor. His field of study is human evolution.

At 5/17/2012 3:06:43 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Why are there efforts to make man out of apes?
Dr. David Pilbeam (a distinguished professor of anthropology) suggested the following:

"Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy."

No, we are not descended from apes or any other ape or monkey-like creature.

Nah ah ahh... chimps and humans derive from a common ancestor, and it's fair to say that this common ancestor (which we've discovered) did share characteristics with both chimps and humans.

But then again, chimps and humans share characteristics, as well.

At 5/11/2012 1:19:57 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/11/2012 12:32:09 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 5/11/2012 8:49:46 AM, SeanMichael wrote:
If you are to prove evolution as you claim it. Then every comparsion of every skeleton should be of skeletons of the same age group. A 25 year old compared to other 25 year olds of the same gender, and each from different generations. Has this been done? and if so has there been any jumps?.

I dont understand the reasoning behind this argument.

For fossils, age has nothing to do with it. Your skeletal structure remains the same throughout your lifetime.

Also is it possible that huamns, animals, and insects, that are believed to have evolved from another form of themselves, is it possible they are just an extremely similar species?.

Insects and humans, no. Humans and some species of animals, yes. Chimps for example are extremely similar to humans.

Our skeletal structure may remain the same, but it grows. I was wondering if say a 25 year olds now woud it be bigger, smaller, have the same growth rate than that of earlier humans. I was also wondering if you took 25 year olds skeletons from every generation would there be a gradual differnce between now and the earliest forms of humans barely noticeable to the human eye or would there be jumps?. How do they even know what age the person was when they died when looking at the earliest skeletons?. It does not have to be 25 year olds, but any exact same age and exact same gender, to compare.

When it comes to figuring out things about skeletons, you can actually take a bit out of forensic anthropology. Someone trained in such matters can tell you the gender by looking at the hip bone, the age range by looking at the spine, and even if they had developmental abnormalities.

There is a margin for every species which has to be accounted for in terms of individual growth. For instance, as you note, we might find skeletons that are 5 foot versus 6 feet tall, but this may not tell us they are different species because a single species might have members that are from five to six feet tall.

Now, if, instead, we find ten skeletons whose brain mass is 1/3 to 1/4 our own while having larger skulls and an extra bone in their hand, we know that we are finding something beyond the margin of error for any given species.

These changes take tens if not hundreds of thousands of years. Recorded human history goes back around 10,000 years. That's our common-sense reference point for the variation a human can take on.

At 5/17/2012 3:06:43 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Why are there efforts to make man out of apes?
Dr. David Pilbeam (a distinguished professor of anthropology) suggested the following:

"Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy."

No, we are not descended from apes or any other ape or monkey-like creature.

Lets assume for a second that the quote is genuine.

How is this in any way, not an argument from authority. Is the only method you have, to rely on logical fallacies to get your point across?

At 4/16/2012 4:19:25 PM, tvellalott wrote:
http://www.thisblogrules.com...

If we evolved from monkeys, how come I'm not this small?

That is cute.

At 5/10/2012 7:27:38 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/10/2012 7:11:46 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

At 5/10/2012 6:20:55 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/10/2012 4:49:57 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Nature is rich everywhere with biological designs which defy evolutionary explanation.

Diversity is expected through evolution. I suspect the flaw here is in your understanding of what evolution is, how it operates, and the expected outcome in reality.

Maybe your assumptions are out of reality!

Evolution is both fact and theory.Theory because it is always changing from new information.*also a hurt to evolution
And it is fact because methods and patterns observed are proven.
Though the question is, has the evolutionary theory really completely explained evolution?No it hasn't.Have they discovered any process of genetics which can evolve anything new?No

Yes.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Fossils speak of sudden appearances of the kinds of fast paced change not exzactly hand in hand with evolution.

This is perfectly consistent with evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Nature is rich with biological designs which out right deny evolution.
Amounst animals that do are:the bombardier beetle,the giraffe, the gecko, and the humming bird to name a few.

Bombardier Beetle:
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Giraffe:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

I didn't see anything on the gecko or humming bird, so you'll have to be more explicit.

While we able to apprehend a Creator we can not comprehend Him and that is the problem.
If specific animals do not fit the theory of evolution the house of cards implodes.
Ultimately with animals and fossils recorded not fully supporting evolution the design of the world rests upon a Creator.

I'm going to go with my original assertion that you truly don't understand evolution or its implications.

God damn it, i was about to post a link to talk origins. Way to steal my post!

At 5/18/2012 11:13:41 AM, bossyburrito wrote:

At 5/10/2012 7:27:38 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/10/2012 7:11:46 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

At 5/10/2012 6:20:55 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/10/2012 4:49:57 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Nature is rich everywhere with biological designs which defy evolutionary explanation.

Diversity is expected through evolution. I suspect the flaw here is in your understanding of what evolution is, how it operates, and the expected outcome in reality.

Maybe your assumptions are out of reality!

Evolution is both fact and theory.Theory because it is always changing from new information.*also a hurt to evolution
And it is fact because methods and patterns observed are proven.
Though the question is, has the evolutionary theory really completely explained evolution?No it hasn't.Have they discovered any process of genetics which can evolve anything new?No

Yes.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Fossils speak of sudden appearances of the kinds of fast paced change not exzactly hand in hand with evolution.

This is perfectly consistent with evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Nature is rich with biological designs which out right deny evolution.
Amounst animals that do are:the bombardier beetle,the giraffe, the gecko, and the humming bird to name a few.

Bombardier Beetle:
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Giraffe:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

I didn't see anything on the gecko or humming bird, so you'll have to be more explicit.

While we able to apprehend a Creator we can not comprehend Him and that is the problem.
If specific animals do not fit the theory of evolution the house of cards implodes.
Ultimately with animals and fossils recorded not fully supporting evolution the design of the world rests upon a Creator.

I'm going to go with my original assertion that you truly don't understand evolution or its implications.

God damn it, i was about to post a link to talk origins. Way to steal my post!

Was not happy with that quote?

Here is a few more by the same guy!!And others!

"We (evolutionists) have been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and, therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice." John T, Bonner

"We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not." Miles Eldredge, pro-evolution

"...the philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified...whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature." G.A. Kerkut, pro-evolution

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." T.L. Moor, pro-evolution

"We cannot disprove that it (the universe) was created in 4004 B.C...." George Simpson, pro-evolution

"It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions."

"Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions." Roger Lewin, pro-evolutionist

"I have come to believe that many statements we make about the how and whys of human evolution say as much about us, the paleoanthropologists and the larger society in which we live, as about anything that really happened." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution

"We do not see things the way they are; we see them the way we are." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution

"...in my own subject of paleoanthropology, `theory' heavily influenced by implicit ideas (assumptions) almost always dominates `data'...Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution

"Racism, as we would characterize it today, was explicit in the writings of virtually all the major anthropologists of the first century, simply because it was the generally accepted view." Roger Lewin

"The problem is that because we know the `end of the story' (that evolution is true), we tend to interpret earlier events as if their sole purpose was to reach that end." Roger Lewin, pro-evolution

"Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative -- special creation -- is clearly incredible." D.M.S. Watson

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." Arthur Keith

"...there is an important difference between going to the empirical evidence to test a doubtful theory against some plausible alternative, and going to the evidence to look for confirmation of the only theory that one is willing to tolerate." philip johnson

"This situation, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science." W.R.Thompson, pro-evolution, in his introduction to Origin of Species by Darwin.

At 5/18/2012 5:00:54 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

At 5/18/2012 11:13:41 AM, bossyburrito wrote:

At 5/10/2012 7:27:38 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/10/2012 7:11:46 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

At 5/10/2012 6:20:55 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/10/2012 4:49:57 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Nature is rich everywhere with biological designs which defy evolutionary explanation.

Diversity is expected through evolution. I suspect the flaw here is in your understanding of what evolution is, how it operates, and the expected outcome in reality.

Maybe your assumptions are out of reality!

Evolution is both fact and theory.Theory because it is always changing from new information.*also a hurt to evolution
And it is fact because methods and patterns observed are proven.
Though the question is, has the evolutionary theory really completely explained evolution?No it hasn't.Have they discovered any process of genetics which can evolve anything new?No

Yes.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Fossils speak of sudden appearances of the kinds of fast paced change not exzactly hand in hand with evolution.

This is perfectly consistent with evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Nature is rich with biological designs which out right deny evolution.
Amounst animals that do are:the bombardier beetle,the giraffe, the gecko, and the humming bird to name a few.

Bombardier Beetle:
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Giraffe:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

I didn't see anything on the gecko or humming bird, so you'll have to be more explicit.

While we able to apprehend a Creator we can not comprehend Him and that is the problem.
If specific animals do not fit the theory of evolution the house of cards implodes.
Ultimately with animals and fossils recorded not fully supporting evolution the design of the world rests upon a Creator.

I'm going to go with my original assertion that you truly don't understand evolution or its implications.

God damn it, i was about to post a link to talk origins. Way to steal my post!

Was not happy with that quote?

Here is a few more by the same guy!!And others!

"We (evolutionists) have been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and, therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice." John T, Bonner

"We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not." Miles Eldredge, pro-evolution

"...the philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified...whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature." G.A. Kerkut, pro-evolution

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." T.L. Moor, pro-evolution

"We cannot disprove that it (the universe) was created in 4004 B.C...." George Simpson, pro-evolution

"It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions."

"Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions." Roger Lewin, pro-evolutionist

"I have come to believe that many statements we make about the how and whys of human evolution say as much about us, the paleoanthropologists and the larger society in which we live, as about anything that really happened." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution

"We do not see things the way they are; we see them the way we are." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution

"...in my own subject of paleoanthropology, `theory' heavily influenced by implicit ideas (assumptions) almost always dominates `data'...Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution

"Racism, as we would characterize it today, was explicit in the writings of virtually all the major anthropologists of the first century, simply because it was the generally accepted view." Roger Lewin

"The problem is that because we know the `end of the story' (that evolution is true), we tend to interpret earlier events as if their sole purpose was to reach that end." Roger Lewin, pro-evolution

"Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative -- special creation -- is clearly incredible." D.M.S. Watson

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." Arthur Keith

"...there is an important difference between going to the empirical evidence to test a doubtful theory against some plausible alternative, and going to the evidence to look for confirmation of the only theory that one is willing to tolerate." philip johnson

"This situation, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science." W.R.Thompson, pro-evolution, in his introduction to Origin of Species by Darwin.

Again, how is this not an argument from authority?

And by the way, just by a glance, i know the Sir Arthur Keith quote is a fake. The source for that Quote was a forward for the 100th or 150th anniversary for the origin of specie, yet Arthur Keith had already died years before the anniversary and therefore could not be the author, nor could anyone find a copy of the 100th or 150th anniversary of the Origin of species, with a forward like that, and is therefore a complete fabrication of creationists.

Quote mine fail. Nice try though.

At 5/19/2012 2:25:49 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 5/18/2012 5:00:54 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

At 5/18/2012 11:13:41 AM, bossyburrito wrote:

At 5/10/2012 7:27:38 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/10/2012 7:11:46 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

At 5/10/2012 6:20:55 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/10/2012 4:49:57 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Nature is rich everywhere with biological designs which defy evolutionary explanation.

Diversity is expected through evolution. I suspect the flaw here is in your understanding of what evolution is, how it operates, and the expected outcome in reality.

Maybe your assumptions are out of reality!

Evolution is both fact and theory.Theory because it is always changing from new information.*also a hurt to evolution
And it is fact because methods and patterns observed are proven.
Though the question is, has the evolutionary theory really completely explained evolution?No it hasn't.Have they discovered any process of genetics which can evolve anything new?No

Yes.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Fossils speak of sudden appearances of the kinds of fast paced change not exzactly hand in hand with evolution.

This is perfectly consistent with evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Nature is rich with biological designs which out right deny evolution.
Amounst animals that do are:the bombardier beetle,the giraffe, the gecko, and the humming bird to name a few.

Bombardier Beetle:
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Giraffe:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

I didn't see anything on the gecko or humming bird, so you'll have to be more explicit.

While we able to apprehend a Creator we can not comprehend Him and that is the problem.
If specific animals do not fit the theory of evolution the house of cards implodes.
Ultimately with animals and fossils recorded not fully supporting evolution the design of the world rests upon a Creator.

I'm going to go with my original assertion that you truly don't understand evolution or its implications.

God damn it, i was about to post a link to talk origins. Way to steal my post!

Was not happy with that quote?

Here is a few more by the same guy!!And others!

"We (evolutionists) have been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and, therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice." John T, Bonner

"We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not." Miles Eldredge, pro-evolution

"...the philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified...whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature." G.A. Kerkut, pro-evolution

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." T.L. Moor, pro-evolution

"We cannot disprove that it (the universe) was created in 4004 B.C...." George Simpson, pro-evolution

"It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions."

"Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions." Roger Lewin, pro-evolutionist

"I have come to believe that many statements we make about the how and whys of human evolution say as much about us, the paleoanthropologists and the larger society in which we live, as about anything that really happened." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution

"We do not see things the way they are; we see them the way we are." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution

"...in my own subject of paleoanthropology, `theory' heavily influenced by implicit ideas (assumptions) almost always dominates `data'...Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution

"Racism, as we would characterize it today, was explicit in the writings of virtually all the major anthropologists of the first century, simply because it was the generally accepted view." Roger Lewin

"The problem is that because we know the `end of the story' (that evolution is true), we tend to interpret earlier events as if their sole purpose was to reach that end." Roger Lewin, pro-evolution

"Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative -- special creation -- is clearly incredible." D.M.S. Watson

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." Arthur Keith

"...there is an important difference between going to the empirical evidence to test a doubtful theory against some plausible alternative, and going to the evidence to look for confirmation of the only theory that one is willing to tolerate." philip johnson

"This situation, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science." W.R.Thompson, pro-evolution, in his introduction to Origin of Species by Darwin.

Again, how is this not an argument from authority?

And by the way, just by a glance, i know the Sir Arthur Keith quote is a fake. The source for that Quote was a forward for the 100th or 150th anniversary for the origin of specie, yet Arthur Keith had already died years before the anniversary and therefore could not be the author, nor could anyone find a copy of the 100th or 150th anniversary of the Origin of species, with a forward like that, and is therefore a complete fabrication of creationists.

Quote mine fail. Nice try though.

How you know he did not write before he died?

At 5/19/2012 2:43:00 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

At 5/19/2012 2:25:49 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 5/18/2012 5:00:54 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

At 5/18/2012 11:13:41 AM, bossyburrito wrote:

At 5/10/2012 7:27:38 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/10/2012 7:11:46 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

At 5/10/2012 6:20:55 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/10/2012 4:49:57 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Nature is rich everywhere with biological designs which defy evolutionary explanation.

Diversity is expected through evolution. I suspect the flaw here is in your understanding of what evolution is, how it operates, and the expected outcome in reality.

Maybe your assumptions are out of reality!

Evolution is both fact and theory.Theory because it is always changing from new information.*also a hurt to evolution
And it is fact because methods and patterns observed are proven.
Though the question is, has the evolutionary theory really completely explained evolution?No it hasn't.Have they discovered any process of genetics which can evolve anything new?No

Yes.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Fossils speak of sudden appearances of the kinds of fast paced change not exzactly hand in hand with evolution.

This is perfectly consistent with evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Nature is rich with biological designs which out right deny evolution.
Amounst animals that do are:the bombardier beetle,the giraffe, the gecko, and the humming bird to name a few.

Bombardier Beetle:
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Giraffe:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

I didn't see anything on the gecko or humming bird, so you'll have to be more explicit.

While we able to apprehend a Creator we can not comprehend Him and that is the problem.
If specific animals do not fit the theory of evolution the house of cards implodes.
Ultimately with animals and fossils recorded not fully supporting evolution the design of the world rests upon a Creator.

I'm going to go with my original assertion that you truly don't understand evolution or its implications.

God damn it, i was about to post a link to talk origins. Way to steal my post!

Was not happy with that quote?

Here is a few more by the same guy!!And others!

"We (evolutionists) have been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and, therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice." John T, Bonner

"We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not." Miles Eldredge, pro-evolution

"...the philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified...whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature." G.A. Kerkut, pro-evolution

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." T.L. Moor, pro-evolution

"We cannot disprove that it (the universe) was created in 4004 B.C...." George Simpson, pro-evolution

"It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions."

"Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions." Roger Lewin, pro-evolutionist

"I have come to believe that many statements we make about the how and whys of human evolution say as much about us, the paleoanthropologists and the larger society in which we live, as about anything that really happened." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution

"We do not see things the way they are; we see them the way we are." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution

"...in my own subject of paleoanthropology, `theory' heavily influenced by implicit ideas (assumptions) almost always dominates `data'...Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution

"Racism, as we would characterize it today, was explicit in the writings of virtually all the major anthropologists of the first century, simply because it was the generally accepted view." Roger Lewin

"The problem is that because we know the `end of the story' (that evolution is true), we tend to interpret earlier events as if their sole purpose was to reach that end." Roger Lewin, pro-evolution

"Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative -- special creation -- is clearly incredible." D.M.S. Watson

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." Arthur Keith

"...there is an important difference between going to the empirical evidence to test a doubtful theory against some plausible alternative, and going to the evidence to look for confirmation of the only theory that one is willing to tolerate." philip johnson

"This situation, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science." W.R.Thompson, pro-evolution, in his introduction to Origin of Species by Darwin.

Again, how is this not an argument from authority?

And by the way, just by a glance, i know the Sir Arthur Keith quote is a fake. The source for that Quote was a forward for the 100th or 150th anniversary for the origin of specie, yet Arthur Keith had already died years before the anniversary and therefore could not be the author, nor could anyone find a copy of the 100th or 150th anniversary of the Origin of species, with a forward like that, and is therefore a complete fabrication of creationists.

Quote mine fail. Nice try though.

How you know he did not write before he died?

because there is no such thing as the 100th anniversary edition of the Origin of species with his introduction, anywhere in the world. It only exists in the minds of a certain creationist who posted it on a website

Fair enough.

Are you new to the interwebs Scotty? The reason I ask is because I thought the quote mining stuff was old hat, something that went out with a few dozen other PRATTs in 2005.

To see someone quote mining today is simply odd...On a debate site, no less.

At 5/21/2012 7:12:34 AM, Meatros wrote:
Are you new to the interwebs Scotty? The reason I ask is because I thought the quote mining stuff was old hat, something that went out with a few dozen other PRATTs in 2005.

To see someone quote mining today is simply odd...On a debate site, no less.

I am new and with any intelligence you could have seen i joined three weeks ago.

At 5/31/2012 4:17:41 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

At 5/21/2012 7:12:34 AM, Meatros wrote:
Are you new to the interwebs Scotty? The reason I ask is because I thought the quote mining stuff was old hat, something that went out with a few dozen other PRATTs in 2005.

To see someone quote mining today is simply odd...On a debate site, no less.

I am new and with any intelligence you could have seen i joined three weeks ago.

Of course, the ad hominems never seem to go out of date.

At 5/31/2012 4:18:57 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

At 5/31/2012 4:17:41 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

At 5/21/2012 7:12:34 AM, Meatros wrote:
Are you new to the interwebs Scotty? The reason I ask is because I thought the quote mining stuff was old hat, something that went out with a few dozen other PRATTs in 2005.

To see someone quote mining today is simply odd...On a debate site, no less.

I am new and with any intelligence you could have seen i joined three weeks ago.

Of course, the ad hominems never seem to go out of date.

Touche' right back to you witty one.