Are creationists purposely misquoting evolutionists?

[UTEOTW]

I cannot get you to answer the question. It is a very simple question and it goes back to the OP. The question is this.

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?

You seem to be indicating that your only standard is that the quote be "exact." You seem to be admitting that it is not important to you for the quote to relfect the intent and opinion of the author.

But I cannot know for sure because you will not address that question. This is making it easy for me to assume that you do not find it important to maintain the intent and opinion of the one being quoted. This makes it easy for me to assume that you realize that you are bearing false witness.

Remember, an atheist could quote the Bible as saying "There is no god." Those words are in there "EXACTLY." Does that make it an accurate quote?

Well, that is the standard to which you seem to adhere.

 

[BobRyan]

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?

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW -
You seem to be indicating that your only standard is that the quote be "exact."

You seem to be INSERTING your own INFERENCE into my quotes - NON STOP!

I have insisted on these TWO points.

#1. ACCURACY - in the EXACT quote.
#2. NOT inserting YOUR INFERENCE into the quote AS IF that is the statement the author is making. You know - the way you do non-stop!

IF you are going to pretend to report or quote what I have said - at least include BOTH parts before INSERTING your own inference "again".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

I did not ask if they should be "exact." It is an "exact" quote of the Bible for an unscrupulous atheist to says that it says "There is no god." That is an "exact" quote. But it is also inaccurate.

Now, 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?

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[BobRyan]

Having said "that" again -

I do believe MY OWN quotes (of Patterson) for example SHOW that HE IS speaking TO The story telling "inferences" of evolutionists. My quotes are ACCURATE in EVERY regard INCLUDING the fact that they are EXACT when it comes to Patterson!

I see UTEOTW confessing that same blunder on his own part when he admits to INSERTING via INFERENCE his own bogus claims INTO what he reports me to be saying!!

How transparent the tactics used by evolutionists.

 

[UTEOTW]

Let me show you how easy this is.

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?

Let's see what I said in that post.

Then tell us just what you were getting at when you quoted Simpson as saying

The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature.

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.

So in reality, what I did was to tell you what I took from you statement and ask you what you were actually trying to say. I don't see where I admitted anything about "infering" motive.

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"??

Bob, Patterson himself says that your interpretation of the quote is "wrong." There really is not much else to say.

 

[UTEOTW]

I did not ask if they should be "exact." It is an "exact" quote of the Bible for an unscrupulous atheist to says that it says "There is no god." That is an "exact" quote. But it is also inaccurate.

Now, 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?

Did I already post that?

Did you already ignore it?

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob
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"??

UTEOTW
Bob, Patterson himself says that your interpretation of the quote is "wrong." There really is not much else to say.

If only that were true UTEOTW you would actually HAVE a point in your favor! As it is you post empty accusation after empty slander.

Why not try to actually prove a point??

Why simply be so shallow and transparent on this point.

I have to believe you are fully capable of making a point WITH supporting fact - please try.

 

[UTEOTW]

Yes or no. Does an accurate quote require anything more than being "exact?"

If nothing else is required, then do you accept a quote of the Bible as saying "There is no god" to be a good quote?

All you have to do is tell us that you do not think that a quote must preserve the original intent and opinion of the author. YOu have been dancing around this for years. We can all see what you think. Just put it in writing for us.

THe fact that you cannot tells me that you know that you are doing wrong. If you thought that the original intent and opinion should be preserved then you would answer in the affirmative and you would stop using many of your quotes.

If you thought that there was nothing wrong with changing the meaning, so long as the quote were "exact," then you would simply state that for us.

But, since you dance around the question, it implies to me that you know that changing the meaning is bearing false witness but that you know you would lose immediately to admit as much.

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
Originally Posted by me
Then tell us just what you were getting at when you quoted Simpson as saying

Quote:
The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature.


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.


So in reality, what I did was to tell you what I took from you statement and ask you what you were actually trying to say. I don't see where I admitted anything about "infering" motive.

First of all I can't believe you felt confident enough to actually respond to a point made against your view!

I applaud your new confidence! Bravo!

Secondly - your own quote comes AFTER you slander with your "despicable, lie etc" post that ASSUMES what you admit above you INFER in what you read from me.

I START by explicitly condeming the bogus illogical idea that Bible believing christians only quote atheist darwinists WHEN they see them BECOME Christians - or when they see them give up on evolutionism or when they see them GIVE up on horse evolution entirely!

I have been hammering you specifically for touting that bogus idea for years now. It is odd that you would "try it out here again" AS IF you think I am the one making that bogus argument instead of you simply INSERTING it into my posts "again".

The "NEW" Thing on this thread is that the quote from you above - SHOWS what you are doing to even the most devoted true believer in atheist darwinist tactics.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Yes or no. Does an accurate quote require anything more than being "exact?"

If nothing else is required, then do you accept a quote of the Bible as saying "There is no god" to be a good quote?

I would never argue that it is "Misquote" or a "bad quote" of the Bible. I would argue that it is "incomplete". I would not say of the one who quotes it "that is a lie the Bible does not say that".

I would not go on a wild tirade over it - I would be precise and "detailed" in showing that the Bible arguing in favor of God.

Many an atheist darwinist may be found saying something like "many Creationists believe all Evolutionists have GIVEN UP on Evolution". IF Gould had said that AND the result is that BobRyan goes around saying "Gould says all evolutionists have given up on evolutionism" then I would argue AGAINST that kind of quote.

But in your case - while you want to CLAIM that scenario - you in fact give NO FACTS AT ALL to support your wild claim!

So failing to support your wild slander you merely "repeat it" as IF that is some kind of proof. And indeed it is to true devotees like CM - but I dont thing the objective thinking reader would go for that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Charles Meadows]

Bob,

"true devotees like CM"

Now Bob I have said in multiple threads that I am not an "evolutionist", and certainly not a Darwinist. But yet you (? choose to) ignore these things.

I would almost say that you have fulfilled the title of this post, wilfully misrepresenting my statements in order to win an argument (except it doesn't quite fit since I am not the evolutionist)!!

As I have said (and said and said) I do not support Darwinism - but I reject the use of misrepresentation in trying to defend creationism.

 

[BobRyan]

Though you can not bring yourself to respond to the points raised - try again.

Do you support the antic of INSERTING ideas by INFERENCE into what others say and then slandering others for the "result" of your own insert into their posts?

You seem to be saying you fully support it in your oh-how-true comments about what UTEOTW is doing.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Bob,

Do you support the antic of INSERTING ideas by INFERENCE into what others say and then slandering others for the "result" of your own insert into their posts?

I really have no idea what you mean here.

But I do believe that creationists habitually misrepresent things that various "atheist Darwinists" say (the original topic of the post) in order to win debates.

And I do believe that creationists should be honest.

 

[BobRyan]

CM you 'say' that in reading the discussion you objectively and honestly must agree with UTEOTW - then you "say" you have no idea what I am referencing when I speak to UTEOTW's methods here.

It is my experience that evolutionists typically only see what they want to see.

Since I have only posted this a zillion times here on this thread I can see how you may have missed it - so here it is again -- for the zillion-and-oneth time.

:
UTEOTW said --

UTEOTW said

Then tell us just what you were getting at when you quoted Simpson as saying


Quote:
The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature.


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.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...3&postcount=83

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.

Quote:
As far as your quotes go, they are pathetic.

They are despicable.

You have been shown most of these quotes in context so many times that the only reasonable conclusion is that you do not care about the truth. You do not care that you must destroy the original meaning to get your "devastating" quotes.

If you really thought that you could destroy evolution by quoting its supporters, you would not need to excise so much of each and every quote that the original meaning is lost.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=784698&postcount=76

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!

Basically UTEOTW has shown no ability to distinguish between empty accuasation - and "actual data" -- actual fact -- actual proof.

I am taking specific instances of slander and looking for "specific data" that supports it in some substantive way in UTEOTW's defense.

Since you have committed yourself to UTEOTW's defense in this case - perhaps you could help him out -- find the data. Find that actual proof.

This is a fairly simple concept but it does require some interest in the facts.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

How quickly we forget.

My first (and second and third and fourth and fifth and sixth and...) response to you was to point out that the quotes were incomplete, to give the full quotes, to show how the full quotes changed the meaning by changing the context and to show what the intended meaning of the author was. I tried that with you for years.

But you have continued to not learn anything from such. I am convinced that you do not want to learn.

SO now I rant against you. Why? Well it is simple. I hope to use public shame to get you to change your ways. Failing that, I at least hope that by being unflinching that I can keep anyone else from believing your distortions and to make others more circumspect when dealing with anyone who tries to argue through quotes.

Now, tell us, does a quote require anything more than to be "exact?"

If a quote does not preserve the original intent and opinion of the author, is it a good quote?

Why won't you answer?

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
to show how the full quotes changed the meaning

Wouldn't it be fantastic if that was even HALF true?!!

But of course merely "claiming to have done something" just as you merely CLAIM THAT I said evolutionists stop believing in evolutionism seems to be the system of half-truths that you settle for INSTEAD of fact.

Why not try some fact instead?!

Case in point - notice that in PAtterson's quote the part of his quote HE INSISTS has been left out is the VERY PART I keep QUOTING!!

What is even worse - it was UTEOTW's OWN CHOICE to bring out THAT particular case as "proof"!!!

How sad that the "Details" are so opposed to UTEOTW's imaginative claims!!

 

[BobRyan]

So why do I keep showing "you ADMIT" to your own failed INSERTION as you seek to CHANGE meaning in my own quote by "INFERENCE ALONE"?? (as in the post given a zillion and 1 times -- and also here
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=788587&postcount=156)
I suppose you are right - it is to shame you into coming around and being truthful on this.

To help the confused reader that may be thinking of following your same model of "half-truths" in place of data and fact - see how transparent and easily debunked such methods really are.

 

[UTEOTW]

Patterson says that the interpretation of the quote you give is "wrong." How can the words of the man who made the quote speaking about the quote not settle the question?

And it is a very simple question that I ask you. Do you think that a proper quote should preserve the original intent and opinion of the author of the quote? Or do you think that merely quoting "exactly," even if by changing the context you change the meaning from what is intended, is sufficient?

Please answer. In my opinion, you silence on this question speaks volumes, informing us that even you know that it is a mistake to change the meaning and yet you do it anyway.