Bogus Claims by Evols that Christians Misquote: A Test Case

BobRyan · Sep 3, 2006

UTEOTW said:

From his own commentary on the paragraph and from other statements he has made, it is quite clear that what he was claiming is that intermediates exist but that you cannot tell with certainty which are directly ancestral.

If you want to accept this meaning, great. I am glad you have come to accept that evolution happened.

If you wish to say that he meant something else,
Click to expand...

Ahh and now your old failed debunked and tired fallacy that "To QOUTE an Atheist Darwinist you must first BE ONE" ---

How much more obvious does this have to be for you UTEOTW?

You do not have to BE an ATHEIST DARWINIST to accurately QUOTE one!!

UTEOTW
. You can accept Patterson's intended meaning and thereby admit that you accept evolution.
Click to expand...

You do NOT have to BE an ATHEIST DARWINIST to accurately QUOTE one!!

I just can not imagine how your mind has gotten this befuddled UTEOTW!

Bob

UTEOTW · Sep 3, 2006

How hard it must be to be Bob.

You claim that you did not quote Patterson out of context. But when I ask for you to show us the context so we can see for ourselves, you try desparately to shed that burden.

Why are you avoiding that so hard?

What are you hiding from us?

If you think that you quoted in context, then you should be able to provide the full text of the letter to Sunderland so we can judge for ourselves.

Without the text, where is your evidence that you quoted in context? We do not have the context.

I'd bet that the context is something you'd rather us not see. I doubt it is useful to your case. If it were, we ould have seen it by now.

UTEOTW · Sep 3, 2006

And now the kicker.

You refuse to give us the context of the letter, so you have zero evidence to point us towards what Patterson might have meant in the quote.

NONE.

But here are the facts and they are without dispute.

Patterson was indicating in the quote that we have intermeadiate fossils but that we cannot say for sure which ones are directly ancestral and which are from closely related side branches. (That he is saying that there are intermediates is the death blow to any point you wish to make.)

This is my assertion. How is supported?

First, we have the letter he wrote to Theunissen where he calls this interpretation of the paragraph "correct."

Second, we have his other writings, such as the quote on the previous page and elsewhere in this thread, where Patterson discusses the existance of intermediate fossils.

These are the facts and they have not been disputed.

You have nothing but your own assertions if you wish to build a case for another interpretation.

Whether or not you have misquoted I'll let you decide. But if you wish to assert an interpretation other than what is given here, you are wrong and you are misquoting. For you have no evidence, zero, zilch, zippo, nada to support any other interpretation.

And your worldview cannot accept the correct interpretation.

BobRyan · Feb 12, 2007

Let's make it simple - as I already did here!

Since UTEOTW seems to need some help -- HERE is a good example - (going back to UTEOTW's first pont of accusation against me- where I DO quote Patterson and SHOW my view of his text)

------------------------------------------

Here is my first quote of Patterson in the SAME thread where UTEOTW attempts to claim I have misquoted Patterson.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=784211&postcount=65
Here we have a classic blunder where believers in atheist darwinism are seen to cling to their "orthodoxy" so blatantly that they are willing to "tell story after story" just to prop up their orthodox faith in evolutionism - presenting them as if they are "science".

Quote:
The late Colin Patterson, while serving as senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, summed it up best when he stated that Archaeopteryx has simply become a patsy for wishful thinking. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is [b]no way of answering the question.[/b]

It is easy enough to [b]make up stories[/b] of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (as quoted in Sunderland, 1988, p. 102).

The "obvious" point here is that we have one of the heroes of believers in atheist Darwinism - an actual atheist - admitting that they are engaged in "story telling" and then this source actually confesses the "obvious" saying that such stories "are NOT science".

What a huge confession!

Yet die hard devotees to atheist darwinism will turn a blind eye to this and come away from it "whining" that some dared to expose this inconvenient "detail" out in the open. They "spin" their complaint in some bogus argument claiming that Bible believing Christians can not dare quote Patterson UNLESS they can ALSO show that Patterson becomes a Bible believing Christian and accepts the Genesis account after confessing to such a huge blunder among evolutionists!

How sad that UTEOTW and other must resort to such antics.
Click to expand...

BobRyan · Feb 14, 2007

Post #81 is very instructive on this thread - it shows UTEOTW simply fizzling out while I patiently try to get him to respond to facts -- to use sound reason and logic to build up his case --
-----------

Originally Posted by UTEOTW
Still maintaining the same deceit?

Why?

Why do you think that bearing fallse witness is a good debating tactic?

I guess when it is the only thing you have going...
Click to expand...

You have confused ME -- with YOU!

I am the one ACTUALLY SHOWING what is in the text of the letter AND the context as shown by Talk-Origins - YOU are the one RUNNING away from it - post after vaccuous post -- then demonstrating the way you "talk to yourself" never quoting anything "but you".

Why is this concept so difficult for you UTEOTW?

Surely you have at least one second to be honest in your posting.

Quote:
UTEOTW
YOu cannot get around the fact that Patterson uses the very words you quote to proclaim
Click to expand...

In fact I KEEP INSISTING that Patterson IS using the VERY quote I give as the one HE PROMOTES!!

How can your constant gloss-over of all details in all your failed examples continually keep you from seeing that?

UTEOTW
Quote:
that "I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false." There is just no way around that for you.
Click to expand...

Please wake up for half a second and be prepared to deal with the truth.

Patterson is not making your bogus and vaccuous claim that "all Bible believing Christians are wrong in every argument they make" as your fantacy seems to want the reader to imagine.

INSTEAD - as the LINK SHOWS - it is a SPECIFIC claim that is being addressed and a SPECIFIC point that Patterson is making.

You wild misquote of PAtterson trying to get him to "attack any words a Bible believing Chrsitian says" DID NOT PAN out in the ACTUAL quote!!

Why are these simple concepts SOOOO difficult for you to comprehend?

Why do you not GO to the DETAILS IN the talk-Origins post ALREADY SHOWN to fully debunk your empty Christian-bashing views?

IN Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Feb 14, 2007

UTEOTW said:

How hard it must be to be Bob.

You claim that you did not quote Patterson out of context. But when I ask for you to show us the context so we can see for ourselves, you try desparately to shed that burden.
Click to expand...

Here is the sad truth of UTEOTW's ploy -- HE accuses me of somehow misquoting Patterson - but apparently has no CLUE as to how to SUPPORT his own slander of me. Then he whines that I DO NOT try and help him!!

When you accuse others UTEOTW it is up to YOU to prove your wild accusations - when you then simply and utterly fail to get to step-1 -- then ALL can SEE that what your are doing is nothing more than issuing slander in defense of your failed dogma and blind faith in atheist darwinism.

The reader can easily see this.

And when you have squirmmed long enough - I shall also provide more details about the Aug 16, 1993 letter from Patterson.

I provided the ENTIRE letter and you pretend that ALL of the letter is STILL insufficient "CONTEXT" to get you out of the hole you dug for yourself on this thread.

How "instructive" for the objective thinking - reasoning reader.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Feb 14, 2007

This is soooo much fun -- I will post it "again"

I phoned the British Museum of Natural History and to my delight discovered that Dr. Patterson was still working there. I faxed him the text of the quote and asked him whether my interpretation, the creationist interpretation, or some other interpretation of his words was correct. Here is his reply dated 16 August 1993:

Dear Mr Theunissen,

Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.
That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayrpublished in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.

Yours Sincerely,
[signed]
Colin Patterson
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

BobRyan · Feb 16, 2007

On the "Christians Misquote" thread - the point is made that "Christians need to be honest" and certainly we can all agree with that point. Christians do need to be honest - even those that claim to be Christian and yet cling to atheist darwinism "anyway".

So here is a "test case" proposed by one of our atheist dawinist true believers -

Bob said
Quote:
Here is my latest reference to UTEOTW's own decision to bring up the Patterson test case --

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...&postcount=165

Here UTEOTW shows explicitly that he would like to label me with this problem specifically -

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...&postcount=164

He does this by stating the following -

"He specifically states that the interpretation of the quote that you are peddling is "wrong."

Surely you can step up to such a simple easy case. UTEOTW has provided such a perfect example as a test case showing my error. Why not take a little interest in actually SHOWING the details here?
Click to expand...

I am starting this new thread -as a special focus on THIS test case - it will be very instructive for all in seeing how the bogus claims of evolutionists are made and foisted onto the public.

The quote above is from my note to Charles Meadows asking that IN his stated agreement with UTEOTW's wild bogus claims on this topic - he at least accept this test case selected by UTEOTW and SHOW the work - SHOW the math SHOW that in fact I have some kind of misquote posted on this very issue that Patterson is identifying.

UTEOTW has SELECTED the Patterson quote as proof of his bogus claims - so now is a good time to LOOK at the details and SEE who his method of false accusation "actually works".

In Christ,

Bob

Bogus Claims by Evols that Christians Misquote: A Test Case

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Useful Searches

Bogus Claims by Evols that Christians Misquote: A Test Case

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member