Are creationists purposely misquoting evolutionists?

Here is UTEOTW’s supposed secret weapon on this point –

A couple of “sanity points” would be good to note here.

#1. UTEOTW DOES NOT provide the QUOTE that was given to Patterson and it is clearly “Not a quote of ME” – heaven only knows what conclusions were drawn or whether they were drawn in the form “Patterson has given up on evolutionism” or “Patterson has exposed some flaws in the overall doctrines and methods of evolutionists”.

But one thing that is certain – Patterson in this quote INSISTS that he IS being hard and being skeptical about evolutionism IN the speech!.

#2. Patterson CONTINUES the quote of “himself” with the text that I DO QUOTE repeatedly! That section Patterson claims is the part that truly DOES reveal his OWN VIEWS. That is the VERY section I continually quote from Patterson!!

#3. Patterson insists that NOT ONLY are the quotes “accurate” but even that they are from a literal audio recording – not simply inaccurate biased notes of some “creationist”. (Unless you want to claim that audio sounds that reaches a creationst’s tape recorded are dishonest IF they are coming from an atheist darwinist)

Patterson admits -

“The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes”

“Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder.”

 

Another GOOD example of Gould NOT responding to anything I have said.

Another Good example of AVOIDING all the whining that UTEOTW has done with MY quotes while only admitting that he INFERS INTO MY QUOTES all the lies that he prefers to accuse me of posting!

How in the world can you be satisified with such methods UTEOTW??!!

How in the world can you be so happy to expose your methods like this??

IN Christ,

Bob

 

Here is the section that Patterson INSISTS should have been included in the nebulous quote that had been given --

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."


This is the VERY Text I have posted from Patterson - about "a zillion times" to UTEOTW.

And HE WHINES ABOUT THIS ONE TOO!

There is "no limit" to the antics UTEOTW will attempt on this subject.

In Christ,

Bob

 

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

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

 

UTEOTW here admits that HE inferred text into the quote that was not there!

He admits that he invented the "suggestions" and then blamed me for what HE invented.

He admits to the totally bogus illogical claim that I showed being of the form - "atheist evolutionists can only be quoted when they identify a blunder in evolutionism IF they ALSO become Bible Believing Genesis Accepting Christians while doing so"

 

Now what is really instructive is that after CM delcares identity with UTEOTW's slanderous statements (CM makes his claim in post 78, after UTEOTW posts his slanderous diatribe in post 76 - one of many) -- UTEOTW then goes ON to Post 83 to admit that he is simply "INFERRING" all the lies and half truths INTO my quotes that he wanted to then rant about ME posting - using INFERENCE as IF it was actual FACT!

How helpful it is that UTEOTW would so expose his methods RIGHT after CM declares full agreement with his message to this board!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Trying to run up your post count without addressing the heart of the issue?

The heart of the issue is that such quotes must be accurate, that is they must reflect the actual opinion of the author.

But what did Patterson say of that quote which you have used so many times? He said that the interpretation "of the creationists' is false."

What did Gould say of the type of quotes you are peddling? He said that is is "infuriating" to be misquoted "again and again - whether through design or stupidity."

The very authors of your quotes say that you are not quoting them correctly. Yet you stubbornly continue bearing false witness against them.

 

Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob,

I've been here over 2 years now and I've read a lot of posts. UTEOTW is always courteous and patient and does accuse others of slandering him in every other post...

You really have yet to address the main thrust of the opening post, a thrust which UTEOTW and I have echoed in concern.

This concern is that some creationists are not honest in addressing creationist's claims. Just google the words misquoting and creationist and see what you get.

My point (which has yet to be addressed) is that the very people whom these creationist attacks on evolution are meant to help will often be hurt by them if they recognize that the arguments of Gish and his ilk are based on misunderstandings and misrepresentations.

 

The author states "This quote IS ACCURATE".

The author states "this is from an actual audio recording"

The author ARGUES that the part that MUST be included is the part about the "storytelling blunders" of atheist darwinists!

The clear and obvious fact is that the belivers in atheist darwinism are engaged in a system of half-truths and "Story telling" using "inference as fact" as a substitute for data.

As you have done in your wild claims about me so far.

Nothing new there.

And you know - frankly it is a given that just as you claim to be Christian and are using those tactics SO there MUST be out there SOME PLACE a Christian that actuall attemps the bogus mind-numbing rediculous argument that you ADMITTED to trying to INSERT into my posts that Atheist Darwinists BECOME bible believing Genesis-accepting Christians whenever they expose a blunder in Atheist darwinism.

But so far you have shown NONE!

You just keep whining and accusing AS IF you had been successful!!

How sad. But how typical of a system that is based on half-truths and "inference presented as fACT".

Finally your totally vaccuous point about Atheist Darwinist authors NOT LIKING the fact that the blunders, gaps, gaffs and flaws THEY point to in the atheist darwinist practices and doctrines are USED by those that OPPOSE the half-truths of atheist darwinism to SHOW its flaws!

What kind of POINT do you think you are making ???!!

OBVIOUSLY they don't LIKE the fact that the DETAILS they expose are used by their opponents! OBVIOUSLY they would PREFER it if only atheist darwinists "saw those details". OBVIOUSLY these atheist darwinist sources are NOT jumping over the line to the side of pure truth and light and joining Bible believing Christians AND they object to the extent that their own confession are USEFUL in exposing the blunders of atheist darwinism.

OBVIOUSLY those true believers, true devotees in atheist darwinism would LIKE to "pretend" that their religion HAS NO blunders, has NO gaps, NEVER had a bad history of anything and they object to Bible believing Christians pointing out that OBVIOUS fact that EVEN atheist darwinist sources themselves do not take such EXTREME positions as do the devotees to that religion.

In all this there is NOTHING NEW.

What IS new and even "entertaining" is that you would take these facts and SPIN them as IF this was a "MISQUOTE"!!

How transparent UTEOTW!

In Christ,

Bob

 

As my posts on this page pointed out - UTEOTW was VERY specific in slandering ME on my specific posts (even linking to them) I myself ADDED some of the posts that UTEOTW whines about HERE on this thread.

How much more obvious can this BE?

Also it is "odd" what passes for "courteous honest and respectful" in your comment -- occurs without one shred of support!!

Here are the curteous honest and respectful positions that UTEOTW ADMITS are based on his own INFERENCE into my posts "again".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here we have UTEOTW being courteous honest and respectful according to CM.

 

NOW HERE we have a wonderful blunder by UTEOTW --

After discovering that UTEOTW can NOT prove his bogus charge below --

So we see here - UTEOTW admitting that his charges have no more "SUBSTANCE" than his OWN "inference" we now see him claim that MY QUOTES are being referenced by Gould - quotes that ACCURATEly state the author's confessoin about the blunders in evolutionism!!

When in fact Atheist darwinists CAN NOT show my quotes to be anything BUT ACCURATE! (Unless we allow them their standard practice of INSERTING DATA in the form of INFERENCE alone!)

My quotes EXPOSE the blunders of atheist darwinism and OBVIOUSLY I use them to SHOW the perfidity and intellectual dishonesty rampant in that system. Question would THESE SOURCES ALSO conclude "atheist evolutionism" is dishonest? NO and I never say they WOULD! These atheist darwinists are comitted to belief in atheist darwinist doctrines ANYWAY!

Just like CM is dedicated to agreeing with UTEOTW "anyway" -- even when UTEOTW admits he is just making stuff up about my posts via "inference alone"!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, you need to read for comprehension and not for what you can spin. Patterson said that the quote is "accurate" as in he really did say those words. He then says that the statement continued after what was quoted. He says that when you hear the rest of the quote that his actual meaning becomes clear. He says that the "creationists'" interpretation is "wrong."

Patterson himself directly addresses the quote in question and says that he has been misquoted by removing context and that the interpretation presented by adherents YEism of that shortened version is "wrong."

And Gould says of the type of quoting which you are doing that it is "infuriating" to be misquoted "again and again - whether through design or stupidity."

How hard is that to understand? And are you misquoting by design or because you do not know better?

 

I know that getting you to answer a question is less likely than me winning the lottery, but here goes.

Do you think that for quotes to be valid that they should clearly portray the original intent of the author and that they should unambiguiously reflect the opinions of the person being quoted in the manner in which the quote is presented?

 

I think quotes should be "exact" - word for word quotes.

I think that anyone who says "This guy is QUOTING Simpson exactly BUT in fact LYING because he thinks Simpson is no longer an evolutionist and we all know Simpson IS still an evolutionist" - is not only being deceitful but is outright lying.

Don't you?

Hopefully we can agree there.

So "yes" quotes should be "exact".

When PAtterson SAYS we should INCLUDE HIS quote about "Story telling" evolutionists -- we can BELIEVE him!

So I OFTEN include that Patterson quote.

Did you count the number of times I INCLUDED PAtterson's "Story" telling quote that HE insists MUST BE added to get his full intent?

Now a question for you.

Will you respond to even ONE question - what about your confession that you INSERT by INFERENCE into my quotes? What about your confession that your "Evolutionists STOP being evolutionists when I quote them" idea was INSERTED into my posts by PURE INFERENCE with no fact at all to support it?

What about the fact that I have been charging "explicitly" that this is the antic you have been demonstrating on this same topic for years?

What about the fact that the VERY quote you show Patterson INSISTING that we use is the VERY QUOTE I have BEEN using from Patterson to show "story telling"??

What about the fact that PATTERSON INSISTS that he is being very hard nosed and very skeptical WITH EVOLUTIONISTS in his comments about "Story telling" and insists that EVEN though this provides data for Bible Believing Christians he is committed to be honest in this regard - which is EXACTLY what honest Christians want him to do?

In Christ,

Bob

 

At least we agree on something. I thought that would never happen.

BTW - instead of referencing a nebulous quote why not actually PRESENT the "exact words" that Patterson ADMITS that he said? Why "leave OUT" the EXACT quote that Patterson is AGREEING too as his EXACT WORDS?

Why be so cagey in your post?

Indeed after WHAT was quoted? Please provide that WHAT.

And then please note that the NEXT QUOTE he gives - the one he INSISTS on is the one I KEEP POSTING!

In other words - deal with a 'detail' for a change.

Wonderful then you would THINK that my continually quoting "THE REST OF THE QUOTE" would have been greeted by you with great joy instead o the "how pathetic what a lie" response that is so "predictably you" these days??

#1. HE is speaking of a quote YOU DID NOT provide in your post. "How instructive it will be when you DO provide it".

#2. He is not speaking in general - he is speaking of a specific quote that is "made BETTER" in HIS OWN words by the CONTINUED quote where HE shows evolutionists to be "telling stories easy enough to TELL" and not engaged in SCIENCE as they do that!

Indeed - he addresses a quote of HIMSELF an EXACT quote of HIMSELF that you do not provide here...

Hmmm wonder if it uses the word " antiknowledge" - I wonder if it asks the question "CAN ANYONE name ONE fact" -- we will know when you provide the QUOTE here.

Did you SEE the term "MISQUOTE" in HIS statement or did you INFERE IT INTO his statement and then use your own INFERENCE as "if it were actual DATA IN the quote" -- "again"??

MY quoting of PAtterson was to INCLUDE the VERY content you SAY that wicked Bible believing Christians must always omit. THEN you respond to ME saying that MY practice (which I assume is the one I AM doing here by INCLUDING the at section of Patterson's quote that DOES confess to evolutionist STORY TELLING) is "design or stupidity".

Your slander seems to be as illogical as it is transparent UTEOTW.

OR IS IT your claim that Gould is READING ME and responding to MY INCLUSION of PAtterson's "Story telling" quote -- done so often it is almost a tradition with me??

You know - the VERY quote from PAtterson you innexplicably claim that Bible believing Christians WOULD NOT be quoting and thus must be slammed by Gould in your mind?

You have yet to identify a single detail where I misquoted. You have not even shown that Gould quotes me and the whines. The only one doing that is YOU and when you do it you can't help but ADMIT you are INSERTING your own INFERENCE into my posts WHILE you slander me over the result of your OWN insert!!

How transparent UTEOTW!

Why not "deal" with one of these details and respond with a compelling substantive idea.

Your attempt to smear all Bible believing Christians with the quote from Goudl (as IF anything a Bible believing Christians says MUST BE a lie since Gould does not like someone's quote or use of his quotes) - is truly without merit. Try MAKING the case instead. SHOW that I am using the very quote Gould is referencing!!

SHOW that Gould is doing something MORE Than whining that someone does not draw Gould's SAME pro-atheist-darwinist CONCLUSION while EXACTLY quoting Gould!

 

So we see here - UTEOTW admitting that his charges have no more "SUBSTANCE" than his OWN "inference".

UTEOTW you can't help but ADMIT you are INSERTING your own INFERENCE into my posts WHILE you slander me over the result of your OWN insert!

How transparent UTEOTW.

Here we have UTEOTW being courteous honest and respectful according to CM.

How telling that these insults are UTEOTW's response to HIS OWN insert of his OWN inference into my quote of Simpson!!

How transparent. But I am thankful that UTEOTW has finally shown us all that he knows he is doing it!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob

My question was not if the part of the test that you quote should be "exact." No where did I ask that. Perhaps I should repeat the question since you missed the intent the first time.

I find it very telling that you chose to answer a different question than the one that was asked. It might lead one to believe that you know that you are changing the intended meanings of the quotes you present.

Sounds like bearing false witness to me.

 

I realize you are not really interested in "exact" quotes you just want to "agree with the atheist darwinist being quoted".

That part is Obvious UTEOTW --

Now how about actually answering the question put to you?

In fact - answer any of them.

 

YES UTEOTW I DO say that quote SHOULD be EXACT - !!

Now having said that UTEOTW I can NOT seem to get YOU to answer these questions - or even ONE question...

Please NOTE: You find nothing "about INFERENCE BEING INSERTED into the quote" and then slandering the one you are quoting based on the RESULT of your own INSERT -- non of that is being ENDORSED by me UTEOTW.

How about you UTEOTW? Can you step up to that plate UTEOTW??

Now another question for you.

Will you respond to even ONE question - what about your confession that you INSERT by INFERENCE into my quotes? What about your confession that your "Evolutionists STOP being evolutionists when I quote them" idea was INSERTED into my posts by PURE INFERENCE with no fact at all to support it?

What about the fact that I have been charging "explicitly" that this is the antic you have been demonstrating on this same topic for years?

What about the fact that the VERY quote you show Patterson INSISTING that we use is the VERY QUOTE I have BEEN using from Patterson to show "story telling"??

What about the fact that PATTERSON INSISTS that he is being very hard nosed and very skeptical WITH EVOLUTIONISTS in his comments about "Story telling" and insists that EVEN though this provides data for Bible Believing Christians he is committed to be honest in this regard - which is EXACTLY what honest Christians want him to do?