Are creationists purposely misquoting evolutionists?

Follow closely because I am not exactly going to go in order here.

To follow along with the spirit of the OP, I am going to start with a quote of which this discussion reminds me. A quote from Darwin, in fact. From Descent of Man.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."

Why do I bring this up? Well Let's look at something Scott said near the end of his latest response to me. I had made the assertion that one way in which evolution produces new and useful genetic sequences is through duplication and mutation. Scott has conveniently snipped my example of duplicating globin genes and how they show us just how it is that hemoglobin evolved. I then expanded that to include the observation that almost all genes show evidence of being members of one of a relatively small number of families of genes all produced through duplication and mutation. My summary introduction to that line of argument was to say "Empirically, we see where this seems to be the case over and over."

Scott responded "Empirically.... seems..... Yes, that is the evolution argument. Claim that it is certain while in reality it is only what "seems" to be..."

Now,let's look at this.

Go find some scientific papers and read them. Most any will do. You will find that researchers very often frame their statements in such a way as to make liberal use of works like "seems" or "appears" or "suggests." Those that know the most about a subject are also those most likely to use caution when making statements about it.

This even seems to be a significant source of the dispicable quote mining that goes on. Surely we have all seen where AIG or some other group will quote these phrases trying to suggest that even those who support evolution may have some doubts. You seem Scott here trying to score points for using such words and I am just a layman. Science is by its nature an ever changing field. To be a scientists, you must be willing to change your mind, to fit theories to new data as it comes in.

But then look at the arguments of the YEers. Do you ever see any such phrasing from them? Rarely! Look at this thread. Any such phrasing from the YEers? Go to AIG or ICR. Do you see much there written by scientists educated in biological evolution? I don't. A lot of engineers and lawyers. You may get the occasionally chemist or even biochemist. But not really anyone who is a professional, an expert.

But have you ever seen a more confident group! Close minded indeed.

Only by being an expert in some field can you know enough to really understand it. And knowledge tends to lead towards cautiousness. The evolution deniers are extremely confident about science which they collectively know very little about.

If your car is stalling you are not going to see your doctor about it and if your knee hurts you shouldn't go see your mechanic. And for good reason. But YEers want us to throw reason out the window when it comes to science. They say that we should not listen to the experts, those who have dedicated their life's work to the field and who are the most knowledgable in it. They say that we should instead listen to the rantings of those who are comparitively ignorant of the sciences, who do not have a full plate of knowledge in front of them and those who proclaim things that the experts repeatedly show to be wrong.

Rarely would you ever advise someone to ignore the experts and go with the lay, uninformed opinion, but that is just what they want us to do here. Confidently.

 

So where were we?

I said: "We can trust empirical data. And, to date, that data does not require any more than natural causes."

Scott responded: "Nope... and to date, that data does not "require" total dependence on natural cause. [...] If I found an arrowhead on the ground, it would not require any more than natural cause... but would that be the best explanation for it? No. The necessary events of natural cause would be incredibly improbable. And so it is with evolution. I have said before that it is possible... just so improbable as to be unreasonable."

The error of your statement is that YE is unable to show any scientific reasons why evolution is "improbable." Oh, many have tried. But their calculations of probability are always so flawed as to be unrelated to the asserted problem. For example, you commonly see long odds for the possibility of some amino acid sequence "randomly" forming. The ignored parts are largely that protein sequence is not a random thing, it is built up bit by bit, and that studies have shown that there are huge numbers of protein possibilities for a given, needed function.

So, the fact remains that we have yet to find any situation where we can rightly say that it is unlikely that natural causes suffice. Furthermore, we have yet to identify any circumstances where it is more probable to have a cause other than natural causes. We have yet to identify any positive evidence for design. Once again, we can say that there have been attempts. Irreducible complexity tries to show such. But go read the Dover transcripts. Behe put forward a few cases in which he asserted IC. Upon cross examination, however, we found that there have been dozens of papers written on how these systems may have evolved, most of which he admitted to having never even read!

Ignorance begetting confidence in action.

"You want to condemn creationism because its processes and causes do not avail themselves to experimentation... be consistent- evolution's necessary mechanisms and events are not testable either."

Wrong again.

Ignorance of the literature is not an excuse for denying that exists. We can and do study many of the mechanisms of evolution. We observe mutations leading to novel and useful genetics. We observe genetic drift. We observe gene flow. We observe migration. We observe the effects of selective pressures. Search the literature. A bit of knowledge about what really goes on might shake your confidence a bit.

But you are right on one thing. No observations supporting YE are available for investigation.

 

[discussion on fossil whale transitionals]

"Of course these are placed in order as necessitated by the theory and are completely speculative."

Ignorance of the available literature continues to not be an excuse.

I think that you might find that the order of the fossil whales in the proposed lineage is closely matched by their order in stratiography. Now you would expect this to be the case if evolution were true. You have no such reason to expect this to be true in the case of YEism. I have read studies that show how there is a statistical correlation between order of transitional fossils based on morphology and the order based on age. There is absolutely NO reason for such a correlation in the case of YEism. All "kinds," whatever they may be, originated at the same time, thus all should be found at any given age.

The fossil sequence is also bolstered by the other observations that you so causually dismiss. The combination of these various lines of evidence that all point to the same thing together remove doubt and "speculation" and replace it with justified confidence.

"The best proof that these sequences are unreliable is another necessary idea for evolutionists- convergent evolution.

You would have us believe that the lineage designed to force whales and hooved animals into common ancestory due to similarities between supposed ancestors but conveniently ignore for the moment that evolution requires many species to share similarities that arose independently. This is a clear case of trying to have it both ways... of course you don't mind when evolutionists engage in such speculation... only when creationists make a mistake."

I do belive that I addressed convergent evolution in my previous round. Perhaps you missed it.

I said: "You expect us to think that an intelligent designer not only came up with numerous solutions to given design issues, but also decided which organisms got a given design not by some logical reason such as how they would be used but instead by something illogical, like whether they were mammals or not. YOu expect us to believe that the intelligent designer, for some reason, decided to not optimize the design but to mix and match parts that sort of work but often not so well."

So let's look at this again.

I am going to cover a bit of ground already covered by another poster and expand on it a bit. There are obvious differences between similarity because of convergent evolution and similarity because of common ancestry. It is not to hard to tell apart, either.

All tetrapods, plus the lobe finned fish, share a common structure with regard to the limbs. Look at your own arm. A humerous at the top, a pair of bones, the radius and ulna, lower down, followed by a wrist and then fingers or toes. They all share this form because of common ancestry. Your arm, the leg of an elephant, the flipper of a whale, the wing of a bird, the wing of a bat. They all share the same form because they all share the same orignal form.

Perhaps that is just because of common design, you say. Well, let's see. The example was previous given of comparing the fins of a whale and a shark. Similar in exterior form and similar in shape. But look under the skin. Only the whales have the tetrapod limb still in there. If we were dealing with common design, why would the same shape and function be designed twice with completely different structures underneath? Would it not follow more closely the design assertion for them to have the same design in total?

Let's give a new example. Wings. Bats and birds both share the tetrapod arm structure due to common ancestry. They both have modified their limbs into wings. But take a closer look. You will see that they modified their limbs in completely different ways. Each lengthened and shortened different bones to make wings. So this is an example where both common ancestry and convergent evolution matter. But a comon designer offers no insight at all into the design of bird and bat wings. Again, even starting with the same template, two different designs are present for the same problem. This is not fitting in with the expected pattern of common design but it fits perfectly with common descent.

 

"You've stated that creationists' dishonesty partly caused you to become an evolutionists. I find that extremely odd since there have been many outright cases of fraud and dishonesty amongst evolutionists... such as claiming certainty on these ancestral trees when there is none."

Just what are you talking about? This is another case where ignorance of the literature is no excuse.

Go look up articles on phylogeny based on genetic testing, for example. There will be statistical data presented that shows just how likely or unlikely that tree is.

Do you have ANY frauds currently being used to support evolution that you can document? I can go through a long list of such YE frauds.

"Further, things like Haeckel's drawings are patently dishonest and still go into science textbooks because they are consistent with evolution's needs... never mind that they are inconsistent with reality."

Give me one textbook in current use that presents Haekel's drawings as he did. A single one. (Note, presenting Haekel for historical purposes is a different and legitimate animal. Presenting ontogeny is also perfectly valid and is not Haekel.)

Can't give one? Can you withdraw the false charge?

I said: "You have genetic tests which show the same pattern of decent."

"Nope. You have assumptions of such."

That argument might carry weight if it were in isolation. If we only had the one line of evidence and other potential lines gave a different answer, you might have something going.

Instead, different lines from unique ways of viewing the situation all arrive at the same answer. YOu can bury your head in the sand all you want, but it will not make the similarity of the independent phylogenies go away.

I think we have already discussed how statistics tells you just how likely the trees are without having to make assumptions that they are valid beforehand.

I said: "YOu have other genetic hints, such as the cetacean pseudogenes for a sense of smell."

"Try convergence"

This should be good.

Please tell us how convergence explains why cetaceans have a large set of disabled genes for a sense of smell that would is identical to and only useful for that of land dwelling animals.

It seems to be cut and dry to me. The only reasonable answer is that cetaceans had land dwelling ancestors. Maybe you can tell us how instead the whale "kind" (is it one "kind" or are there multiple whale "kinds?" If so, what are the whale "kinds" and how can you tell?) went through a convergence where it developed independently a set of genes just like that that land dwelling animals have and then lost them to mutation? Or maybe you want to tell us why an intelligent design would give whales such a useless set of genes?

I said: "You have developmental comparisons of the embryos of extant relatives."

"Pure speculation and not considered reliable even by honest evolutionists. "

Please, tell us which scientists who support evolution do not consider ontogeny and/or evo/devo to be good science. Please.

Please tell us just why it is that little embryonic whales have little embryonic legs that are later destroyed.

I said: "You have vestigal structures and atavisms. "

"Nope. You have assumptions of such."

We can observe atavistic whale legs whale legs. Some whales still have observable vestigal legs and pelvis. We can observe atavistic human tails. We can observe vestigal splints in horses which sometimes develop into atavistic toes. There are so many more examples. You do not have to assume, you can go see them for yourself.

As I said, you must try and deal with all of hte independent phylogenies in isolation. Only there can you spin your tenuous webs of doubt. Your spin in isolation is not fact based and falls completely apart when one notices that these dierse and independent means of determining phylogeny all converge. YE has not answer for the data in aggregate.

"Perhaps He made them optimized for a world without sin, corruption, and decay but since those things now exist they are no longer optimum."

Let's see. Sin is why all tetrapods have the same limbs even for wildly different purposes? Sin is why the fins of whales and sharks have similar shape and function but wildly different design? Sin is why birds and bats both have wildly different versions of the tetrapod limb design for wings? Hmmmmm.

I said: "It is proposed that one of the mecahnisms for generating new and useful genetic sequences is to take some of what you got, make a copy and let one of the copies mutate while the other continues to perform the same duty. "

"Not without costs... and not in a way that has EVER been proven to create a whole new functioning biological system."

I am not even sure what you are getting at there. What would be considered a "whole new functioning biological system." I sense a movement of the goalposts here. Mechanisms which you claimed don't exist have been shown to exist. Now that you are caught, you are trying to move the goalposts by it seems suggesting that something has not been observed that science says should not be observed, at least not in a timescale comparable to a human lifetime.

Just what are you asking for? And what cost?

 

Trying once again to herd this back towars the OP...

BobRyan posted

No Bob. Sorry.

You are putting words into our collective mouths.

All I insist upon, and what you seem to have a hard time accepting, is that for a quote to be valid it must relfect the actual opinion of the author.

Your spin above is nothing but a red herring trying to divert attention from the real issue. If the quote in question changes the meaning of the original then it is a misquote. Period!

We are instructed to not bear false witness. I cannot understand how you can go through such lengths to try and justify lies about what someone has said. It is quite simple. If you quote, quote accurately including context.

Just how can you in good conscience argue that it is OK to change the meaning of the quote in order to make it look like the author said something which he did not intend?

 

BTW -- It is always a pleasure to see UTEOTW flee from the Bible account of Creation week. This thread being no exception. This would have been a good place for UTEOTW to stand up with Mercury and show some interest in a consistent view of God's Word as he mixes it into atheist darwinism.

That is patently false UTEOTW. You floundered so badly when confronted with your own atheist darwinist camp's confessions about the blunders of evoutionism that you were eventually reduced to "Hey that is just a quote and I don't need to read no stinking quotes - cause quotes are nuttin'"

Basically your argument in this area totally fell apart - in a most astonishing way sir.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
When you admit that Moses DOES intend us to BELIEVE that "IN SIX DAYS the LORD made the heavens and the earth" you ADMIT that your views conflict with the INTENDED MEANING of scripture.

Of course you don't - you are a believer in evolutionism!

That is the obvious part.

The actual "challenge" here is to show enough interest in the text of scripture to "actually" exegete the text!

I would recommend makind a good start along those lines if you really want to claim you are willing to accept scripture on this point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
Mercury "pretends" that reading this text lead him to conclude "SIX days you shall labor and do all your work for in SIX days the LORD DID NOT MAKE the heavens and the earth! RATHER THEY EVOLVED over billions of years - so do your LABOR in SIX days and rest the seventh... ANYWAY".

Hard to believe you are not actually reading your own posts.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, you and I both make assertions. The difference is that I back my assertions up. Two posts up, you quoted my assertion, stopping mid-sentence to be sure to excise all of what I wrote to back it up.

Already done. Just read the rest of the three paragraphs that begin with the assertion you quoted and continue on to explain it. It's in post #36.

 

You apparently do not know how to "begin" exegeting the text of scripture.

Hint: you do NOT do it by listing your rationalizations for ignoring the text seeking excuse after excuse to CREATE loophole logic in scripture!

Scripture has to be faithfully exegeted USING the rules of exegesis - not by simply making stuff up of the form "God does not get exhausted so I get to cut and paste Exodus wrenching it into atheist darwinist doctrines as it pleases me to do so".

Obviously you "need" to do that - but do you have to be so obvious about it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

if only "THAT" were true.

What passes for "backing that up" in your argument is "any old story you wish to tell". I suppose from the standpoint of one who "believes" in atheist darwinism - interpreting the Bible "must look like" just "making up good stories" the same way darwinists do. But what is actually done is something called "exegesis".

On the off chance that you might have an ounce of an interest in the text you claim to discount - (Exodus 20:8-11 or Genesis 1:2:3) lets actually look at it and discover the many ways it debunks atheist darwinism.

And BTW - it should not suprise you that much that atheist doctrines don't fit well in scripture. I just can't believe you have to pretend this is such a mystery.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Not what I've done. I've shown that Exodus 31:17 is describing God in human terms because God does not get exhausted or weary. I don't think most Christians would claim that God literally did refresh himself, especially not if they were familiar with the Hebrew word for "refresh" and where it is used elsewhere (Exodus 23:12 and 2 Samuel 16:14, for those who care).

 

Some may think that I am being too hard on Mercury as I keep insisting that he is doing "nothing CLOSE" to exegesis.

here is my "proof" this is his complete "exegetical review" of Exodus 20:8-11

 

I never claimed to discount those texts and you know it. I said exactly the opposite (end of post #22 and post #33 in this thread). In other threads I've gone into further detail, such as comparing the Sabbath command in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, or comparing Genesis 1:1-2:3 with 2:4-25.

You've made a habit of bearing false witness against me. I cannot stop you from doing so, but this new forum has a handy feature that I can make use of. I will no longer see your posts. This means you can falsely accuse me without worrying about me responding. If you choose that course of action, keep in mind that your words and actions are a demonstration of what has given young-earth creationists at large a bad reputation. They don't all deserve that, and I know many YECs, including friends, who can discuss this issue honestly and respectfully. My last words to you are that you prayerfully consider joining their ranks.

 

Folks, we have the moral bankruptcy required to follow YEism on display right before out eyes.

I said: "All I insist upon, and what you seem to have a hard time accepting, is that for a quote to be valid it must relfect the actual opinion of the author."

Now this is in regard to the subject of the OP, misquoting. Now get Bob's response.

Here is the post. Go make sure I am quoting him correctly.

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

Bob says that it is "patently false" that you must accurately reflect the opinion that the person being quoted was trying to convey. That is absolutely amazing! Bob is defending deliberate and conscious lying!

Such are the depths than one must sink when defending YEism.

Unbelievable. The 10 commandments are more than just a good suggestion. The one about not bearing false witness was still in there last time I checked.

 

The stuff that passes for "exegesis" among believers in atheist darwinist evolutionism is truly amazing!

 

In response to UTEOTW's bogus claims and revisionist history I respond "That is patently false UTEOTW. You floundered so badly when confronted with your own atheist darwinist camp's confessions about the blunders of evoutionism that you were eventually reduced to "Hey that is just a quote and I don't need to read no stinking quotes - cause quotes are nuttin'"


That post shows that the issue is that UTEOTW's failure to substantively deal with the devastating quotes from HIS OWN atheist darwinist camp was so utterly exposed - that he eventually is reduced to "ignoring all quotes" since they only serve to debunk his argument.

Actually I think I may still have a link to some of UTEOTW's famous "I don't want to read no stinking quote" arguments as quotes from HIS OWN atheist darwinist camp were shown to expose the flaws in the doctrines he holds so dear.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I really don't blame you for running away from the flaw being exposed here regarding your utter failure to exegete Exodus 20:8-11 though you repeatedly "claim" that you have a substantive review that keeps moving from post to post EVEN though I quoted the one you gave "in full" when it came to your treatment of Exodus 20.

I can't imagine having to live with such a vaccuous argument myself - but you seem to find ways to ignore the point - post after post.

By contrast - I am more than willing to "actually exegete" the text instead of merely "claiming" that at some point in the past a post might exist that does that for me.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Yes, Bob, please do link to those posts.

Then perhaps there will be some readers who will go see your quotes for the first time. Of course, they will be forewarned before going, from this thread, that your opinion is that the idea that a quote should actually reflect the opinion of the person being quoted is "patently false."

They will go forewarned that you find it unimportant to follow the commandment against bearing false witness when quoting. YOu have already proclaimed here tonight that it is fine in your eyes to deliberately lie to support your position.

So sure, link to the thread. Let people read your quotes and then see how the meaning completely changes when the context is filled in. Show us all that you practice what you preach.

 

Exodus 20


In this next commandment - the 4th commandment we are drawn back to the Gen 1-2:3 facts themselves and SHOWN how they establish the Sabbath - God HIMSELF SHOWS us this explicitly.

FIRST identifying the duty of mankind - an obligation that brings with it a blessing --(for the Sabbath was made for "mankind" and not "mankind for the Sabbath" Mark 2:27).

THEN the commandment presents the "argument" the facts that demand the obligation of man and establish the first part of the commandment.

Side note: Sometimes you will find believers in atheist Darwinism trying to equivocate between “Law” and apocalyptic writings like Daniel and Revelation”. Hint: The Spoken Law of God is NOT “apocalyptic” literature! At other times they will argue that Moses did not intend that his readers take God literally as God speaks of the literal week to be observed by mankind.

The Duty of Man - that brings with it the blessing:

Notice - No mention of "I hereby make a holy day - the 7th day will now be a holy day" – since it was already made holy and blessed in Gen 2:1-3. We saw this in Exodus 16 where God said “Tomorrow is the Sabbath” and we saw it in the lesson of manna that literally fell 6 six days and not on the Sabbath. The literal 7 day week – in fact the “exact” 7 day week teaching in this command spoken by God is given a context from Exodus 16 that made the first order primary audience reading Moses’ writing fully aware of just how “literal” this concept is.

So the text begins - "Remember the Sabbath" and then the reader is pointed back in time to when it was made the Holy Day of God. This command demands that the listener “understand” that the 7 day cycle of Creation Week – is the same 7-day cycle at the foot of MT Sinai 1000 years after the flood. Mankind is to follow God’s example “on the very day” of the week He points to.

At no point does Moses add narrative or does God add verbiage to the effect “this is not really true”.. Or “This is just a general idea not really specific to a literal 7 day week”.

In vs 10 we find that the seventh day belongs to God not man. Christ states that the day is “made for mankind” Mark 2:27 but never makes man the author of His Creation memorial. The authority and the honor associated with His day is solely based on His literal role as Creator. It is “because” His word IS trustworthy that we have obligation to honor this command.

In the text it is “The Holy Day of God” it is His to Sanctify and mankind is called to honor and observe what God has set aside and made holy. It is instructive that God tells man to do as he did. To literally work for the literal six days of each literal week and then to literally rest on the literal seventh day.

(Note: The term “exhaustion” is not found in the text though some believers in atheist Darwinism have suggested that God was pretending to be “exhausted” thus conveying the idea of apocalyptic symbolism and freeing the reader to invent any meaning they please as a substitute for the text. This is another case among our evolutionist friends of a “story easy enough to tell but it is not exegesis”)

[/B]

Again notice past tense action of blessing the Sabbath of God and making it Holy in Gen 2:1-3. .

Note The Action commanded -
Note The reasonthat establishes the commandment

Oh that everyone would embrace God's Word just as it reads – evolutionism would not be so well accepted among Christians – if they did.

God literally points the reader back to His own literal act in literally creating the world. Indeed God IS our literal Creator friends! The same language is used in Exodus 20:11 as we see in Gen 2:3 stating the very action taken by God on the 7th day of Creation week.

Further the term “Yom” used in Exodus 20 forms a hard and fast contextual link (same author, same topic, same term, same audience) connecting the “Yom” of Gen 2:3 with the “Yom” (day) of Exodus 20:8-11.