Joined: Dec. 2002
|Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,19:02)|
Here's your question: †Exactly how does this extended quote by the late evolutionist John Oro (Schopf 2002, "Life's Origins")....
|In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life. |
....disprove or even disagree what I said earlier about the short version of Oro's quote?
By 'short' you mean doctored, for you never indicate that you lop off half a sentence when you quote it and go so far as to capitalize the O in organic to make it appear as though it is the first word in the sentence. †That is, you take an active rople in deceiving your readers.
|Notice that evolutionists posit the very same driving force for both prebiotic evolution and postbiotic evolutionĖnatural selection. Hence prebiotic evolution is part and parcel of the overall theory of evolution.|
Good luck answering that one, SLP. †But honestly, you can't answer it, and you know it. †Oro simply made clear that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution.
Actually, I've answered it before.
Actually, about 6 other people agreed with my answer, and NONE, not even other YECs agreed with yours.
But first, I have to ask why you had always doctored the quote?
I thought you folks were supposed to be honest for fear of Yahweh's wrath? †I thought journalists would at least not rely on chopped quotes for fear of being found out and discredited.
I suspect you only used the doctored quote because the context showed how wild and unwarranted your extrapolations are.
The short answer is twofold:
1. "Linking" things together does not imply or necessitate relaince.
2. Even if it did, that is one person's opinion, not the concensus view
If you think relying on one person's non-consensus view proves your position true, then surely we can quote Hugh Ross as demonstrating that Creationists think the earth is old...
The longer answer:
YOU are the ONLY person who interprets the quote to indicate that abiogenesis is part of ToE. As is clear to EVERYONE but you, Oro is talking about 'evolution' as such, NOT the Theory of Evolution ala Darwin. Evolution by natural selection as in change through time molded by the environment, be that here on earth or in deep space. Why is that so hard for you to fathom?
Do you really think that refusing to budge on this makes you right or something?
Let me put this in perspective -
You and I are both citizens of the U.S. We are 'tied together' by this. Larry Moran is a Canadian citizen. Despite the fact that he is a citizen in his country and we are citizens in ours - all of us 'tied together' by the concept of citizenshp - we are no more 'dependant' upon Larry as a citizen of Canada for us to engage in our citizenship duties than biological evolution is dependant upon stellar or even abiotic evolution to produce new species.
It is interesting to note, however, that your 'take home message' from that quote has changed a bit since I presented it in context and pointed out that you've been parading around a doctored version.
Why can't you even at least admit that? Why are YEC cultists so darned afraid of being honest now and then? Is your "faith" really so fragile that admitting that you've basically lied about this going to destroy it?
And you claim a journalism background!?!
How do you think an editor would look upon you turning in a story in which had taken a quote from someone, lopped off half of it without indicating that you had done so, and presenting it to mean something that the author did not intend?
And I know you 'stand by' what you've written. W. Bush 'stood by' his claims that Iraq sought out uranium from Niger, too. That didn't make it true.
The evolutionist Oro does not REQUIRE that abiogenesis be part of the Theory of Evolution, as you have erroneously "interpreted" from the doctored quote from him that you've been parading around.
Acknowledging that the CONCEPT/PHENOMENON of "evolution" was involved in both both the origin of species and the origin of life (as well as the origins of stars, etc.) cannot, by any rational person, truly be interpreted to mean that the THEORY of biological evolution ala Darwin et al. thus CONTAINS abiogenesis as one of its foundational hypotheses.
You have had this explained to you before - I found this explanation written plainly to you a year ago on the MSNBC board (as well as PT), yet here you are, a year later, trotting out the same claim that you 'stand by', as if your confidence makes an error of interpretation not an error.
So, I guess I will just have to trot out the claims of creationist PhD Kurt Wise who not only acknowledges that there are transitional forms and that the fossil record provides good evidence for evolution, but that those who say otherwise are more or less lying.
Hey - a quote from a creationist himself - and one with a PhD no less - MUST be the truth!
Furthermore, one of your comrades came up with a very recent De Duve quotation, which only serves to reinforce what Oro said.
|Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories...."|
---Nmgirl's post, Oct 6th, 11:58, "International General 2009 (Conference)"
You must be one horrible journalist.
Please look up the words "linkage" and "concept."
factor or relationship that connects or ties one thing to another; link: Administration officials sought to establish linkage between grain sales and relaxed immigration laws.
a general notion or idea; conception.
The problem with you people seems to be that if the word 'evolution' is used in any way, you immediately conclude that it refers back to biological evolution, regardless of the context.
I should have thought that a journalist would at the very least have a better handle on basic language.
You seem to want to ignore the bulk of Oro's passage and hone in solely on a few terms and phrases. And that is your main problem.
And also basic understanding - look at the sentence you just quoted again:
"The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life. "
He is tying cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life. He is NOT tying the origin of life to bioloigical evolution, excpet in the sense that 'evolutiopn' is the overarching concpet that they share. The concepts are tied together by a common phenomenon.
Just like how gravity ties together falling, diving, dropping bombs, and planetary orbits. But diving is not a part of planetary orbiting.
Note that in the first sentence and into the second (the part you never quote) he wrote:
"In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world..."
Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living things. But Oro goes to explain that the CONCEPT also applies to other things.
Why oh why is that beyond your comprehension?
Also note how I produced the quote - I indicated via ellipses that the quote is not complete. You should understand that.
Anyone agree with your interpretation yet?
Oh, I forgot - you've never answered my questions re: your use of sources. Why do you think Oro's take on this, even if your twisted misinterpretation were correct, is the 'right' one? Why do you present his position as the ultimate, all-encompassing 'evo' position on this matter?
In fact, why do you do that with ALL of your sources? It does not matter the topic or who the person is - if they've said or written something that you interpret as being favorable to your position, you present them as beyond reproach and their claims as set in stone. Why do you do that? You also have the annoying, odd, and foolish habit of simply ignoring individual words in sentences that you do not like. I recently reviewed an old thread on vestigials, for example, in which you took part you insisted that the definition that you had gleaned from a textbook was the ultimate no-questions-asked defitnion of vestigial and you, as you've done with the Oro quote, only presented the part that indicated that vestigials had no function, yet when someone presented more of the quote indicating that reduced or different function (from the original) also counted, you just re-posted the now more complete quote and bolded the word "functionless" and insisted that your point was proved.
What sort of person does that and actually thinks that their point is made?
It is as if I claimed that the U.S. flag were only red and white and to 'prove' this, presented this quote:
"The flag of the United States consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white."
Then, someone who felt the flag were red, white and blue, found the source of my quote, and presented the rest of it:
The flag of the United States consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the canton bearing fifty small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars.The flag of the United States consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the canton bearing fifty small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars."
And I then thanked them for proving my point and to 'prove' this, did this:
The flag of the United States consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the canton bearing fifty small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars.
And just sort of blew off the rest?
That is what YOU'VE done re: this quote.
I have to ask, and I do so sincerely- are you medicated?
And then you ran away....