Quote From Charles Darwin

[fourgs]

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth?" - Charles Darwin, Evolution or Creation, p.139.

[chillbilly]

When you start mentioning transitionals, you will be directed to a site that provides lip service about them but shows precious little graphic illustration to back up the assertions about them.
They're simply not there.

[geerair]

Originally posted by fourgs
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth?" - Charles Darwin, Evolution or Creation, p.139. The rest of the quote that was edited out:

"It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the Earth is a vast museum but the natural collections have been imperfectly made and only at long intervals of time."

Darwin continues: "These causes [the imperfection of the fossil record, the limited exploration of the record, poor fossilization, poor fossilization of certain body types, etc.] taken co-jointly, will to a large extent explain why--though we do find many links--we do not find intermidable varieties connecting together all extinct and exsisting forms by the finest graduated steps. It should be constantly borne in mind that any linking between two forms, which might be found would be ranked unless the whole chain could be perfectly restored as a new and distinct species for it is not pretended that we have any sure criterion by which species and varieties can be discriminated."


Darwin, as he often did in his writing, posed a question and then answered it. Your quote omitted the answer in an attempt to imply something that Darwin never meant.

This is called quotemining and is a highly dishonest practice. You do your cause no favors by engaging in this type of deceitful practice.

[oloenneker]

Fourgees=Just another Jesus spammer.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by fourgs
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth?" - Charles Darwin, Evolution or Creation, p.139. The rest of the quote that was edited out:

"It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the Earth is a vast museum but the natural collections have been imperfectly made and only at long intervals of time."

Darwin continues: "These causes [the imperfection of the fossil record, the limited exploration of the record, poor fossilization, poor fossilization of certain body types, etc.] taken co-jointly, will to a large extent explain why--though we do find many links--we do not find intermidable varieties connecting together all extinct and exsisting forms by the finest graduated steps. It should be constantly borne in mind that any linking between two forms, which might be found would be ranked unless the whole chain could be perfectly restored as a new and distinct species for it is not pretended that we have any sure criterion by which species and varieties can be discriminated."


Darwin, as he often did in his writing, posed a question and then answered it. Your quote omitted the answer in an attempt to imply something that Darwin never meant.

This is called quotemining and is a highly dishonest practice. You do your cause no favors by engaging in this type of deceitful practice.

Besides, it is a democrat tactic and therefore underhanded and wrong.
Don't be like them fourgs, come back to the light.

[sysint]

"This is called quotemining and is a highly dishonest practice. You do your cause no favors by engaging in this type of deceitful practice."

Geer, sorry to completely disagree but the quotation is a complete thought. By nature of it being in question form, you can bring out that the question is answered in some form, however that does not discount what was stated. The reader would logically conclude that there is an answer somewhere, a conclusion of the question.

Perhaps you could clarify his statement:

"It should be constantly borne in mind that any linking between two forms, which might be found would be ranked unless the whole chain could be perfectly restored as a new and distinct species for it is not pretended that we have any sure criterion by which species and varieties can be discriminated."

[Edited by sysint on 08-03-2006 at 09:49 AM]

[geerair]

Originally posted by sysint

Geer, sorry to completely disagree but the quotation is a complete thought. By nature of it being in question form, you can bring out that the question is answered in some form, however that does not discount what was stated. The reader would logically conclude that there is an answer somewhere, a conclusion of the question.Not necessarily. Someone not familiar with Darwin's works would miss the point that he often couched his thoughts in a question and answer format, asking a question then answering it.

Quoting just the question is an intentional attempt to imply that Darwin thought there were no transitional forms, a view that is disspelled in the omitted answer.

Why do you think 4gs posted only the question? He is an ardent evolution foe and would hardly be likely to post the answer when that answer supports evolution.

I can't say if 4gs knew there was an answer or knew that the quote is deceptive but there is an attempt to deceive by either 4gs or his source.



Perhaps you could clarify his statement:

"It should be constantly borne in mind that any linking between two forms, which might be found would be ranked unless the whole chain could be perfectly restored as a new and distinct species for it is not pretended that we have any sure criterion by which species and varieties can be discriminated."[/quote]Darwin is speaking of the difficulty in reading the fossil record. He is saying that unless a perfect line of graded specimens is found it would be difficult to tell exactly where a specimen should be placed in the chain and in fact might constitute a new species.

Keep in mind that Darwin was writing this 150 years ago when the fossil record was was exceedingly thin and not nearly as extensive as it is today.

[chillbilly]

LOL
A complete thought is a complete thought.
If someone is not familiar with the rest of the text, it would behoove them to check it out.
One does not have to be an evolutionist to understand what Darwin was conveying and bringing up the rest of the text does not dismiss the part of the text that fourg's supplied.
The statement made stands on it's own and the author meant it in the context given.

This is the problem with you and your perpetual "quotemine" analogy.
It completely dismisses the relevance of the thought itself and is a perfect example of deflection away from the topic at hand so that you do not have to address and acknowledge what the author wrote.

[chillbilly]

Keep in mind that Darwin was writing this 150 years ago when the fossil record was was exceedingly thin and not nearly as extensive as it is today.
__________________________________________________ _______

What a croc of crap. How about some graphic illustration of the fossil record? You're implying the transitional record is extensive? Yea' sure it is. I'll be waiting patiently to see all of this extensive "evidence" you can supply.

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly
[QUOTE]A complete thought is a complete thought.And a question without the answer is incomplete. Especially if it is a literary device.



If someone is not familiar with the rest of the text, it would behoove them to check it out.4gs should have provided the rest of the quote for those not familiar with Darwin's work. That would be the honest thing to do. Of course it would have killed the purpose 4gs had in mind when he posted this quotemine.




One does not have to be an evolutionist to understand what Darwin was conveying and bringing up the rest of the text does not dismiss the part of the text that fourg's supplied.Oh but it absolutely did kill 4gs intent of the quotemine which was to infer that Darwin stated there were no transitionals.

I expect you missed the part where Darwin says "though we do find many links." This on its own clearly shows that the question was not intended by Darwin to mean there are no transitionals.




The statement made stands on it's own and the author meant it in the context given.The question is one half of a literary device which when the answer is edited out becomes something Darwin never intended. Thus the dishonesty.






This is the problem with you and your perpetual "quotemine" analogy.It is not an analyogy it is a real and dishonest practice of creationists.




It completely dismisses the relevance of the thought itself and is a perfect example of deflection away from the topic at hand so that you do not have to address and acknowledge what the author wrote.Nay sir, it points out the dishonesty of the quoteminer while supplying the missing context.

You rationalize and excuse quotemining because it is such a large portion of your arsenal.

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly

What a croc of crap. How about some graphic illustration of the fossil record? You're implying the transitional record is extensive? Yea' sure it is. I'll be waiting patiently to see all of this extensive "evidence" you can supply. here ya go:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html


These are your people, Christians.

[coolie]

should dig deeper... but be careful ya don't ''punctuate yer equilibrium'':
'
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/buckna/ten.htm
'
Coolodon

[skrewt]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by chillbilly

What a croc of crap. How about some graphic illustration of the fossil record? You're implying the transitional record is extensive? Yea' sure it is. I'll be waiting patiently to see all of this extensive "evidence" you can supply. here ya go:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html


These are your people, Christians.

Another geer bogus post.
The guy starts with an explanation of why the fossil record is incomplete.
You don't even have to read the whole post to put this one to bed.
You're getting sloppy.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt
Another geer bogus post.
The guy starts with an explanation of why the fossil record is incomplete.
You don't even have to read the whole post to put this one to bed.
You're getting sloppy. [/B]It's called honesty in case you didn't recognize it. Of course the record is incomplete, who said it wasn't?

The article goes on to point out the extensive fossil record we do have.

Of course I am not shocked you are afraid to read further as the article does a fine job of summing up and clarifying the fossil record.

Putting your head in the sand doesn't make it go away.

I suppose you have trouble sleeping at night when your myths are shown to be just that myths.

Sleep well in your ignorance.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by skrewt
Another geer bogus post.
The guy starts with an explanation of why the fossil record is incomplete.
You don't even have to read the whole post to put this one to bed.
You're getting sloppy. It's called honesty in case you didn't recognize it. Of course the record is incomplete, who said it wasn't?

The article goes on to point out the extensive fossil record we do have.

Of course I am not shocked you are afraid to read further as the article does a fine job of summing up and clarifying the fossil record.

Putting your head in the sand doesn't make it go away.

I suppose you have trouble sleeping at night when your myths are shown to be just that myths.

Sleep well in your ignorance.

[/B]

It's a nice post and an interesting read, however, it still stands that it doesn't meet the demands of the original challenge. Therefore, bogus.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt

It's a nice post and an interesting read, however, it still stands that it doesn't meet the demands of the original challenge. Therefore, bogus.Sleep tight.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by skrewt

It's a nice post and an interesting read, however, it still stands that it doesn't meet the demands of the original challenge. Therefore, bogus.Sleep tight.

Actually I have nightmares about the retarded treasonous democrats in the congress invading my home.
Read to me and sing me to sleep....PLEASE!?!

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt

Actually I have nightmares about the retarded treasonous democrats in the congress invading my home.
That would be the Culture of Corruption who insist you have no rights. Sleep tight.