Are creationists purposely misquoting evolutionists?

UTEOTW - Is it right for someone to slander Bible believing Christians who everyone agrees to be using EXACT quotes that CAN not be spun around no matter how much added context is also inserted?

When it turns out that NO MATTER HOW MUCH CONTEXT you add to the quote YOU CAN NOT spin the quote or CHANGE it from what the Bible believing Christian reported - is it ok for you to "slander them anyway" UTEOTW?

Yes or no will do

 

#1 This is a vagary -- you "Accuse" without actually QUOTING ANYONE!

Classic atheist darwinist tactic used there CM - I know you claim you are NOT a believer in those doctrines - why then pick up their tactics?

#2. I have ALREADY PROVIDED my OWN quotes here that UTEOTW slanders as pathetic and despicable where you AFFIRM UTEOTW's slander as well. Wouldn't that be a GREAT place to SHOW your work? SHOW that your accusations CAN be sustained in the very place you are agreeing with UTEOTW?

Seems like it would be really easy to me.

You provide no names, no references and NOT EVEN an exact quote -- so how can we respond to what you claim to simply make up?

Try supporting your claim with something you have actually agreed to on this thread - like one of MY quotes actually POSTED here!

In that case we HAVE the author of the post who did include the inserted quote of the atheist darwinist. What a perfect place to make your case CM!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Simple -

#1. It has to be an EXACT quote - no "INFERENCE INSERTED into the quote" as you have done!

#2. It has to sustain "Context expansion" such that the Simple CENTRAL point initially made is unchanged by adding context. I.E it has to hold up - as my quotes do! It can not be shown to be totally bogus as in the case of your "INFERENCE INSERTED" into my quotes.

EXPANDING the quote and the context can ADD MORE IDEAS but simply ADDING MORE thoughts, more points, more ideas DOES NOT CHANGE the initial idea presented.

For example if I charge you with slandering me by using INFERENCE to INSERT your bogus failed strawman INTO my quotes AND THEN I ALSO say are ignoring the facts that do not please you - I may have added content and added points to my initial statement - but I did not change or deny it!

Is this helping you any UTEOTW?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

I have neither slandered you nor accused you of anything.

I was merely giving and example of the type of quote that is construed as a misquote (I have been at work all day and have not had time to look in my library) - but you seem to be more interested in Ute quoting you, which was not the topic of the thread.

Do you really assert that no creationist has misquoted an evolutionist in these debates; debates in which the creationist is usually an apologist and not a scientist? C'mon. You might more reasonably say that you don;t do it and that you don't condone it if someone else does it. But instead you have attacked the other posters here and referred to us as devotees of atheist Darwinism?

Don't you think the Internet Infidel guys or some others might be lurking here? Doesn't it matter to you that your style of "defending the faith" is responsible for many young people swearing off Christianity?

 

CM I first pointed out you connection to UTEOTW's wild claims here -

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=787723&postcount=124

That quote looks like this --

Sadly your participation here has been much more to the point of the OP than you would care to admit.

UTEOTW

Then in the same thread and almost the very next post – Charles jumps in – in full agreement with UTEOTWs slander!!

[/quote]

 

Then I immediately pointed out that connection between your "I affirm UTEOTW's claims" post and the fact that it closely follows UTEOTW's wild diatribe and then your own post is "followed by" UTEOTW's own confession that she is simply inserting strawman bogus arguments into my quote based on pure inference alone.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=787752&postcount=126

 

Oh, Bob.

Let's look again at that post, shall we?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=784993&postcount=83

You had made the quote :"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature." You had made this quote basically naked, with no explanation of just what you meant.

So of course I responded with the full quote which shows that this quote comes from a passage in which he says that the evolution of the horse is phyletic instead on monophyletic and where he discusses several documented trends in the evolution of the horse.

So you responded that you were not trying to say that "Simpson does not believe in evolution any more nor does Simpson think that horses evolved." (I think you left a word out there and meant to say that neither does "Simpson think that horses [didn't] evolve.")

So my response to this was to say " So you were not trying to suggest to us that 'Simpson does not believe in evolution any more nor does Simpson think that horses evolved.' Boy, it sure seems to me that this is just what you implied with that quote. Great, enlighten us as to what you really meant then. This should be good."

Now if you think that somewhere in here I slandered you by infering something unreasonable, please point it out.

I do not think that it is unreasonable to say that I took your post to mean "X" but you say it doesn't mean "X" so can you tell me what you really meant.

 

I came across another place where Patterson refers to being taken out of context and makes his opinion clear. Both of the following quotes are from Patterson's book Evolution, 2nd edition. Emphasis is added.

from page 122. And from the next page.

And from page 120.

 

Now I have been asking you for days and pages what makes a quote valid. YOu have finally offered something.

Your first requirement: "It has to be an EXACT quote"

I think we would all agree that it cannot just be made up.

Your second requirement: "It has to sustain "Context expansion" such that the Simple CENTRAL point initially made is unchanged by adding context. I.E it has to hold up ... EXPANDING the quote and the context can ADD MORE IDEAS but simply ADDING MORE thoughts, more points, more ideas DOES NOT CHANGE the initial idea presented."

Now, this is what I have been trying to get you to agree to. This seems to me to indicate that you do think that the original intent of the author should be preserved and that it should clearly reflect his opinion on the subject in question. I cannot be completely certain that this is what you meant since you used different wording than how I have phrased the question. And I don't dare try to infere what you mean from the context of your posts anymore lest I be charged with slandering you.

So can you follow up with a simple yes or no to the question of whether a quote should maintain the original intent and opinion of the author?

 

I can not affirm the bogus argument that "Any atheist darwinist who is found exposing a blunder in evolutionism should have that quote SPUN as IF IT IS A GOOD THING for evolutionism SINCE the atheist REMAINS an atheist - ANYWAY" -

Can you confirm that you are not wanting to promote such a silly argument? (I simply can not assume anything with you - as you know).

My point will be "Any atheist darwinist exposing a blunder among evolutionism's devotees DOES NOT CHANGE the fact of that blunder by blindly clinging to evolutionism ANYWAY. Simply remaining blindly devoted to atheist darwinist doctrine ANYWAY does not change the fact of the blunder already admitted".

Can you confirm that you would be willing to adopt such honest objective logic?

Because in this comparison we see the true difference between my position and what might be yours!

 

Your lack of attention to detail is astounding.

The LINK you give is to YOUR OWN POST where YOU SNIPPET my quote REMOVING all of my comments surrounding it!!

Then you post here that I POSTED that quote with NO COMMENT!!

In your every post you can not help but expose your own transparent methods UTEOTW.

Bit of you had an ounce of interest in the FACT of my use you would have GONE TO MY post of that quote -- not YOURS.

Thankfully if we GO BACK FAR enough we find you daring to post a LINK to MY ACTUAL use - but of course when you did that - you provided no actual detailed response to what was IN That link.

But if you trace back far enough you will find YOU actuall admitting that this link "Exists".

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=437298&postcount=164

AND IN THAT link you will see ME using the quote above to SHOW that I equiate "claiming something to be true that NEVER EXISTED" is a form of fraud.

But at the same time - I ALSO state clearly that the atheist darwinist being quoted REMAINS a true devotee to the doctrines and orthodoxy of evolutionism.

I NEVER claim that the POINT of the quote is to SHOW that the atheist darwinist GAVE UP atheist darwinism - which is the mind numbing strawman you keep imagining!

Try GOING to the ACTUAL link to MY post (not simply linking to another one of YOUR OWN posts where YOU strip out my words!)

That is true - I have never claimed that Simpson claims "Horses did not evolve". (At least not intentionally as you point out)

And indeed BASED on that inference alone you then follow with the "pathetic and despicable" accusation.

BUT tracing back far enough where we find a LINK that you gave that was one of the rare times you link TO MY POST - MY Post said THIS

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=437298&postcount=164

Clearly I am using the term fraud to mean "representing to the public that something is true when in fact it NEVER HAPPENED"

Now IF you want to say "It is despicable and pathetic to condemn those who present Evolutionists stories as FACT as TRUTH even in cases where those evol stores claim as fact events that NEVER HAPPENDED" I would at least have to credit you with "some accuracy" in stating my actual position in what you are condemning EVEN if I think you idea of condemning such an obvious moral fact reveals more about you than the one you are condemning.

However as it turns out - CM appears to completely agree with your methods on this - so I would suppose you could still find followers even if you step up and take that more accurate approach.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

Have you noticed that you have turned this whole thread into a tirade about how Ute has slandered you etc.

This is an important topic, and a relevant one. I am sorry to say that you have avoided discussing important issues that need to be discussed. I have yet to see a post discussing the topic and what you perceive to be unjust about someone else's statements.

 

The point is objectivity and accuracy. If simply agree to have the evolutionists pounce on some unknown Christian author/post etc then it is much more difficult to have "all the facts at hand" and then in the gap of the vagaries inherent in that scenario they can insert their smoke screens.

Evolutionism survives in a sea of truth by clinging to isolated islands of obfuscation and misdirection where the facts are not available in exhaustive detail.

That is why I offer MY OWN posts as the ideal target for the wrath of evolutionists. UTEOTW in past years has already demonstrated her "need" to INSERT her idea into my posts that are of the form "Christians claim that atheist darwinists stop being evolutionists as soon as they admit to a single blunder in evolutionist history".

Since we already have that history AND since UTEOTW is more than happy to "repeat it here" AND since you are so quick to announce instant agreement when she does it "again" -- what more perfect scenario could you ask for?

Why would you object?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here is the early post where I point out the classic "Choice" that UTEOTW makes "historically" in INSERTING her own inference into my quotes as if her mere "inference" should be taken as a substitute for "data" when it comes to the bogus argument about "Atheist Darwinists required to become Christian believers IF they confess to even one blunder in evolutionism".

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=782409&postcount=39

Notice - this is at post 39. Pretty early in this thread to "predict" what UTEOTW is going to do. Pretty interesting that UTEOTW then claims that she had no clue that I was explicitly exposing her tactics here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

CM - both you and UTEOTW keep insisting that there is such a thing as a case where simply truncating a quote and omiting the subsequent context results in changing the meaning of the post. I do agree with you that it is "possible" for such quotes

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=784073&postcount=46

 

CM - both you and UTEOTW keep insisting that there is such a thing as a case where simply truncating a quote and omiting the subsequent context results in changing the meaning of the post. I do agree with you that it is "possible" for such quotes to

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=784073&postcount=46

 

CM - both you and UTEOTW keep insisting that there is such a thing as a case where simply truncating a quote and omiting the subsequent context results in changing the meaning of the post. I do agree with you that it is "possible" for such quotes to exist.

In fact I even GIVE you one of MINE that works out in that exact way!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=784073&postcount=46

Here we see that truncating this post would result in an entirely different meaning!


And "predictably" that is EXACTLY what UTEOTW does with it!! And each time she does I come back with the FULL quote showing the actual intent to which she merely responds "again" with the TRUNCATED version.

How "instructive" for the objective thinking mind.

But I would never claim that ALL quotes will naturally morph in this way. But I readily admit that given the right conditions and context certain quotes can and do change meaning depending on the amount of text included.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The mind-numbingly transparent antic of Evolutionists on this thread has been to claim that ALL atheist darwinist quotes that ADMIT to some blunder in history of the devotees to the cult of evolutionism - can be SPUN as a "GOOD THING" if just given enough context. The fact is that a BLUNDER REMAINS A BLUNDER no matter how much context you give it.

Typically these cult leaders of atheist darwinism are trying to direct their troops to NOT repeating the same blunder as was demonstrated in the past. But truly blind cult members will often try to SPIN those historic documented blundrs into "good things" claiming that IF you include ENOUGH context that blunder is actually an AFFIRMATION of the very FAILED practice that the statment - the quote - is condemning OR they argue that SINCE "a new story is offerred" after the FAILED story - we should NOT learn anything from the failed story.

I.e. "PRETEND you don't see it".

In the case of the failed horse series I continually direct the reader to the ELEMENTS that helped to CREATE the success of the failed horse blunder offering a "sequence that NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE" as the "PRIME EXAMPLE of evolutionism PROVEN in the fossil record".

Even the totally blind should be able to grasp this simple "lessons learned" exercise.

In Christ,

Bob

 

True enough. Too bad both you and UTeOTW refuse to allow yourselves to be held accountable for what you post here.

Why not show some integrity - some interest in establishing some truth - some proof for your agreement that goes beyond vagaries and empty accusation after empty accusation?

Lets' take the Patterson quote SELECTED BY UTEOTW and agreed to (implicitlly) by your own "I agree with UTEOTW" statements.

Wouldn't even an ounce of integrity lead you to stop avoiding an honest and detailed review of that bogus claim by UTEOTW?

Well that is a classic case of "projection" now isn't it!!


Let's take the Patterson quote where PATTERSON complains about those dirty rotten stinking Christians - UTEOTW says in effect "Bob this means YOU" actually claiming that the CASE that PATTERSON identifies is in fact MY CASE as I use a quote from that VERY incident that Patterson references.

HERE you can surely make your case CM -- SURELY if EVER there is a time for you to stand up and be counted it is HERE!

Why not then NAME the detail that Patterson is complaining about and NAME the solution "the DETAIL" Patterson gives for the SPECIFIC quote in question?

Why not let yourself be held accountable for the DETAILS of the EXACT quote that PAtterson complains about and the EXACT context he insists MUST BE ADDED to see his full meaning?

SURELY there can be no BETTER case for this!!

Why not step up to the plate that UTEOTW has so diligently FLED by NOT providing - discussing - detailing ANY OF THESE FACTS!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here is my latest reference to UTEOTW's own decision to bringi up the Patterson test case --

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=788798&postcount=165

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

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=788797&postcount=164

She 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?