Are creationists purposely misquoting evolutionists?

[BobRyan]

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.

It is your job actually follow up all these bogus claims with "evidence" - all I need to do is provide the devastating quotes FROM your OWN atheist darwinist camp that can't help itself in exposing blunder after blunder in evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

You have already stated for us tonight that you do not find it important for you quotes to be truthful. You do not deny that the quotes that you use completely change the intention of the author by removing context.

The end result of all this is that your "devastating quotes" are no such thing if you have to change the meaning of the quote to get them.

You are like an atheist who would quote the Bible as saying "There is no God." Is that an honest quote? The words are there in that order! How would you respond?

You would rightly respond by showing the whole verse in question in context and show that the meaning as originally written was changed.

And that is what I do to your quotes. To get them, you are forced to edit until the original meaning is lost. When the original context is restored, they are no longer so "devastating" and usually, in fact, undermine the very case you are trying to make.

I just cannot understand why you continue to defend dishonesty.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob

You have already stated for us tonight that you do not find it important for you quotes to be truthful.

My my - look who is being untruthful and practicing revisionist history. hmmm "surprise surprise" it is UTEOTW "again".

Why do you keep doing that?

Do you consider it a compelling form of debate?

Why not respond substantively to points instead of using these failed evolutionist tactics over and over?

UTEOTW
You do not deny that the quotes that you use completely change the intention of the author by removing context.

What???!!

Do you really think that when you tell these little "stories" they are "believed"???

Come on UTEOTW - I know you can do better than this. Usually when you are just making stuff up you try to be a little more subtle. How in the world to you expect this form of deception to work.

Where in the world (please provide the quote) did I claim "I am changing the meaning of the quote"??

Answer: Nowhere!

Then you "make up" an argument like the one above "as if" your fairytale is going to get some traction?

What makes you think that such antics work in real life UTEOTW?

UTEOTW

The end result of all this is that your "devastating quotes" are no such thing if you have to change the meaning of the quote to get them.

Why in the world would I want to "change the meaning"??




I just cannot understand why you continue to defend dishonesty

 

[Revmitchell]

Once I was a tadpole beginning to begin,
then I was a frog with my tail tucked in.
Then I was a monkey in a banyan tree,
and now I’m a professor with a Ph.D. :thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

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".

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 confess 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.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

David Raup, Professor of Geology at the University of Chicago, ,formerly Curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago:

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. ... Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."
D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 50, pg 24, 1979.

In the quote above the intelligent observant reader will note that "with more information" has come LESS confidence in the bogus stories about supposed "examples of evolutionary transition" not MORE confidence in the examples that were being promoted. They now have LESS - and yet getting back to Patterson's quote -- one would not expect them to have LESS "stories" since those stories are not actually "science"!

Notice that the horse series "had to be discarded" - now the question is WHY? More importanly HOW did a bogus "series" get fabricated to start with?

"[b]The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—[/B]G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

Specifically HOW did a series that "never happened in nature" get put into the text books? Answer - it was ARRANGED in fossil order sequence and then published AS IF that arrangement had actually been found IN THAT SEQUENCE in the fossil record! When in fact - it had not!

How sad that in "making up stories" our evolutionist friends could not tell the difference between inconvenient fact - and fiction. How sad that they still seem to have that same problem on THIS board!

 

[BobRyan]

"[b]Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts[/b] and popularizations."—George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.

But where did that "popularization" come from? How did that series MAKE it INTO the text books? Was it "someone having a dream and then publishing it" OR did someon ARRANGE a set of fossils and then SHOW THEM to the world AS IF such a smooth orthogenic transitional sequence had actually been found IN the fossil record just as was fraudulently presented!

To understand how it got there - first you most understand the intellectual dishonesty that forms the heart of evolutionism's "story telling" passed off AS IF it was "science". Atheists sources admit to that background of deceit in this way --

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as [b]the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes[/b] of their branches; the rest is inference, however, reasonable, not the evidence of fossils[/b].” “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History 86 (May 1977): p. 14. [Emphasis added - ed.]

So with that as the background - it is easy to see how one atheist darwinist might easily have used the 'same tactics' as described above to arrange and publish a sequence of fossils in an order NOT ACTUALLY found in the fossil record.

"The [b]ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be

. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."—*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.

"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses . . As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net[/b], and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks."—*Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.
)

How sad - that this blunder got such wide acceptance so fast!

 

[BobRyan]

Notice how UTEOTW has been claiming that these quotes are going to show just how wonderful the atheist darwinian doctrines really are - and yet what the quotes actually show is that atheist darwinianism is a false religion practiced in the form of a systematic program of deceit and story telling passed off as science!

 

[UTEOTW]

My my - look who is being untruthful and practicing revisionist history. hmmm "surprise surprise" it is UTEOTW "again".

Why do you keep doing that?

Do you consider it a compelling form of debate?

....

What???!!

Do you really think that when you tell these little "stories" they are "believed"???

Come on UTEOTW - I know you can do better than this. Usually when you are just making stuff up you try to be a little more subtle. How in the world to you expect this form of deception to work.

Where in the world (please provide the quote) did I claim "I am changing the meaning of the quote"??

Answer: Nowhere!

Then you "make up" an argument like the one above "as if" your fairytale is going to get some traction?

What makes you think that such antics work in real life UTEOTW?

My, how soon you forget.

Go look at this post.

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

This is a post of yours. You quote me as having said, and this is what you quote in its entirety, "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 response is that

That is patently false UTEOTW.

So there. You said that it is "patently false" that a quote should "reflect the actual opinion of the author."

I cannot believe you actually said it and I really cannot believe that you then tried to deny it.

 

[BobRyan]

As "usual" UTEOTW does not "Show anything" to be true in his argument. All he succeeds in doing is DISPLAYING the very untruthful spin in a quote that he so likes to accuse others of doing!!

How sad that UTEOTW is reduced to such antics.

 

[BobRyan]

Notice how UTEOTW has been claiming that these quotes are going to show just how wonderful the atheist darwinian doctrines really are - and yet what the quotes actually show is that atheist darwinianism is a false religion practiced in the form of a systematic program of deceit and story telling passed off as science!

Combined with the transparent antic of his previous post - the conclusion is innescapable - -atheist darwinist gaming has not served him well.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Hmm - I wonder why UTEOTW has to keep deleting that part of the quote?

Perhaps it is his transparent attempt to mislead.

 

[BobRyan]

Summary of the blunders of our evolutionist brethren so far --

When Mercury dabbles in "some Bible" to prop up his claims I point out that merely "dabbling and telling stories" does not "pass as a good substitute for exegesis" here. To which Mercury merely "runs away".

By contrast I follow my claim that his dabbling is empty story telling (as is all atheist darwinism - so at least he comes by it honestly) - with the substantive point - of SHOWING an example of actually exegeting the text Mercuries evolutionist orthodoxy so needed to "spin" instead of exegeting. In other words I SHOW the details of the problem.

How sad that Mercury simply blunders into "story telling" when it comes to the Word of God and then when challenged to "actually exegete" the text - he simply runs away.

This empty vaccuous approach to "the details" so often seen by devotees to atheist darwinism appears to flow easily into their treatment of scripture.

Let us pray for them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob, restore however much of the quote that you wish. The point remains that you said that it was "patently false" that one should quote in a way that preserves the authors intended meaning. You advocated deliberate lying.

I hid nothing. I have at least twice linked the reader to your original post such that they can read the whole thing.

 

[BobRyan]

Summary of the blunders of our evolutionist brethren so far --

When UTEOTW rambles with wild accusations that Bible Believing Christians are dishonest and evil as they quote atheist darwinists exposing the blunders of evolutionism's doctrines -- my response to claim that no such thing has happened. That in fact the Bible believing Christian approach has been to accurately state the quotes while the shallow evolutionist tactics have been to say that "no quote of an atheist darwinist admitting to flaws should be allowed if that atheist does not also become a Christian".

I then provide numerous quote examples of atheist darwinists - given by a Bible believing Christian. This would supposedly provide UTEOTW rich ground in which to make his point "substantively" instead of just droning on in false accusation after shallow antic.

Notice his reponse? Vaccuous. He points to nothing in the posts that are in error.

How "instructive". Even more telling is the fact that he gleefully jumps off the cliff of false quotes by taking a quote from me here and spinning it by truncating the context. In that quote I deny that HE has MADE the point of quotes taken out of context and that his failure to sustain his false charge was soooo complete in the past that he even began whining about ANY QUOTE AT ALL- saying no quote should be taken into consideration if it did not bless his bias.


This empty vaccuous approach to "the details" so often seen by devotees to atheist darwinism appears to flow easily into their every argument.

Let us pray for them.

 

[UTEOTW]

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.

I notice that you did not bother to link to the quotes as you had threatened. I suppose that it would have then been too easy for the reader to go a few posts down, see the context and discover your dishonesty for themselves.

Pathetic.

So instead you drag up the same old, tired, dishonest quotes as before. Theese have all been put into context for you before, showing that the meaning was changed. How pathetic that the evils of YEism has so blinded you that you continue to post lies after the context is added.

You never learn. You never change your ways. When presented with the proper context, you always reassert the same quotes again and try and fabricate some excuse why lying about what another has said is a good debate tactic. Pathetic.

It is a waste of time to try and go through all of your quotes. You will post the same misrepresentations again. Just look at your Simpson quotes, he seems to be your favorite. Here are just a few times you have been corrected.

You posted: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=428373&postcount=22

The reply came: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=428375&postcount=24

Here is a whole thread that might be interesting. I link to Bob's first post since he repeats the same quote: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=437725&postcount=1

I encourage the reader to view the whole thread. It is about 2 years old. I think all of Bob's above quotes make an appearance as do refutations. There are also a large number of examples of out and out fiction in the current YE literature debunked. Read the whole thing if you have time.

If not, here is the post where Bob's Simpson quote is corrected: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=437777&postcount=53

Here Bob just asseerts what Simpson said witout even bothering to let the reader see the quote: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=392278&postcount=28

He is of course corrected: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=392280&postcount=30

It is interesting because after the full quote is given, he then gives his editted version: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=392296&postcount=46

Here is another place where Bob repeats most of these quotes: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=437298&postcount=164

Read the following posts and you will see each of them shown for the lies that they are. Here is the Simpson one in particular: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=437304&postcount=170

That should be enough examples. I could keep going. I strongly encourage you to follow the last link if you follow no others because most of his quotes in this thread get their own response there.

 

[UTEOTW]

So I was working on Bob's quoting of Simpson. This is easier if we do one quote and then another.

Bob quoted Simpson as having said:

Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts[/b] and popularizations.

Let's let Simpson himself continue.

The line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution.

I bolded the key words in each of the quotes. Monophyletic basically means that the evolution was gradual and in a straight line with little or no branching. Thus is Bob's quote from the previous page, all that Simpson is saying is that the fossil record reveals horse evolution to have not been straight line A to B to C. The second quote reveals that what Simpson really means is that the fossil record reveals horse evolution to be a highly branching and jerky endeavor. Simpson is not saying that he thinks that horses did not evolve as Bob would lead you to believe.

So now the seond quote.

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

From the discussion of the first quote, it is now clear that what is being said in the second quote is merely a repeating of the claim that the fossil record reveals the horse series to not be monophyletic.

Let's see the full quote.

The evolution of the horse family included, indeed, certain trends, but none of these was undeviating or orthogenetic. The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature. Increases in size, for instance, did not occur at all during the first third of the whole history of the family. Then it occurred quite irregularly, at different rates and to different degrees in a number of different lines of descent. Even after a trend toward larger size had started it was reversed in several groups of horses which became smaller instead of larger. As already briefly noted, the famous “gradual reduction of the side toes” also is something that never happened.

There was no reduction for the 15 or 20 million years of the history. There was relatively rapid reduction from four front toes to three (the hind foot already had only three toes). Many horses simply retained the new sort of foot without further change. In one group there was later another relatively rapid change of foot mechanism involving some reduction in size of the side toes, which, however, remained functional. Thereafter most horses retained this type of foot without essential change. In just one group, again, another relatively rapid change eliminated functional side toes, after which their descendants simply retained the new sort of foot.

In the history of the horse family there is no known trend that affected the whole family. Moreover, in any one of the numerous different lines of descent there is no known trend that continued uniformly in the same direction and at the same rate throughout. Trends do not really have to act that way: there are not really orthogenetic.

(The evolution of the horse family, Equidae, is now no better known than that of numerous other groups of organisms, but it is still a classic example of evolution in action, and a very instructive example when correctly presented…) (Fig. 39)

Again, I added emphasis.

Bob wants you to think that this quote is Simpson saying that the horse did not evolve. Yet in the larger context, we see Simpson talking about various aspects of the evolution of horses and calling it a "very instructive example" of evolution in action.

If you look to the links in the previous post, you will see several examples of where this mistake has been pointed out to Bob in the past. In one case, as much as four years ago. Yet he continues to spread the same mistruths. This is what adherance to YEism brings. Pathetic.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Bob I think you're attributing bad faith to UTEOTW.


When UTEOTW rambles with wild accusations that Bible Believing Christians are dishonest and evil as they quote atheist darwinists exposing the blunders of evolutionism's doctrines -- my response to claim that no such thing has happened.

The fact is that most of these so called "evolution-refuting" works by creationists do get Darwin wrong. I'm not going to defend Darwin nor will I assail the creationist stance. But I will echo UTEOTW's statements.

If a man believes a six day literal creation based on the Bible then fine. If the Bible is the highest authority then why would one need to defend or prove that position?

The fact is that most scientific observation suggests that the earth is old.

I certainly do not approve of the atheistic arrogance which dwells in the minds of many of the evolutionist biologists - most by default assume without any consideration that creationism is false and that creationists are idiots. They certainly overstate the facts at times - based on their own presumptions.

But Ute has simply been honest in his appraisal of the data. The honest creationist can quite justifiably hold to his/her stance based on the biblical narrative. But in Christian demeanor he/she must be honest in reporting the facts - even if they do not always go where we want them to.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob I think you're attributing bad faith to UTEOTW.


When UTEOTW rambles with wild accusations that Bible Believing Christians are dishonest and evil as they quote atheist darwinists exposing the blunders of evolutionism's doctrines -- my response to claim that no such thing has happened.

The fact is that most of these so called "evolution-refuting" works by creationists do get Darwin wrong. I'm not going to defend Darwin nor will I assail the creationist stance. But I will echo UTEOTW's statements.

There is no need to "imagine scenarios" where Bible believing Christians are "not quoting Darwin as an atheist would". I have given the VERY quotes here that in past times UTEOTW has derided assailed and slandered.

He has seen these quotes JUST POSTED HERE by me so many times in the past I doubt that he can count them. He has whined about them every single time.

So I am not simply "imagining" that I need to defend some theoretical scenario that UTEOTW is attacking. THEY ARE RIGHT HERE.

If you really think you see "substance" in UTEOTW's claims about THESE QUOTES then why not be objective and point out the flaw?

I have made the task EASY on this thread! I gave some of the very quotes that UTEOTW whines about.

It "should be" a piece of cake since I have handed them right over to those who favor UTEOTW's views. Just SHOW that these quotes "should not be allowed" or that they show "Christians abusing the facts".

SHOW the imagined flaw!

I mean seriously - if we can not as Christians take these simple cases and either PROVE UTEOTW's slanderous charges against them or on the other hand SHOW that UTEOTW has in fact simply been droning on and on in nothing more than classic darwinist story telling "ignoring and glossing over inconvenient facts", then where will we ever be able to hold up a claim to "objectivity"?.

As I have said - I have already made this task super easy for anyone that has an honest interest in taking UTEOTW seriously.

Time to "show the math" - show your work. SHOW that his charges "stick".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here is the classic mind numbingly baseless invention that UTEOTW uses
"as predicted"

UTEOTW
Simpson is not saying that he thinks that horses did not evolve as Bob would lead you to believe
...
Bob wants you to think that this quote is Simpson saying that the horse did not evolve.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=784796&postcount=77

As ALREADY stated in my earlier posts - UTEOTW claims that it is "dishonest" to quote an atheist darwinist IF THAT atheist darwinist DOES NOT become a Bible believing Christians that ACCEPTS the Genesis account!

And there HE DID IT AGAIN!

He does not QUOTE ME as EVER saying "Simpson does not believe in evolution any more nor does Simpson think that horses evolved" -- so he just MAKES IT UP!!

How in the world can objective "thinking" Christians be duped by such shallow transparent tactics as UTEOTW offers time after time??

I don't get it! This is EASILY SEEN right through!

In Christ,

Bob