Are creationists purposely misquoting evolutionists?

[BobRyan]

In the early part of this thread - I start by completely discrediting the "pure fiction" that believers in atheist evolutionism like UTEOTW try to INSERT into the quotes and posts of Bible believing (i.e. Genesis - etc accepting) Christians.

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

I show the utter insanity of their "insert" that is of the form "you can't quote an atheist darwinist EXPOSING the blunders gaffs gaps and flaws of evolutionism WITHOUT ALSO claiming that the Atheist Darwinists IS NO LONGER an Atheist Darwinist - and yet still be a Bible Believing Genesis accepting Christian".

If we let UTEOTW get by with INSERTING that bogus strawman into each Christian believer's post and PRETEND that "what is INSERTED by UTEOTW INFERENCE is actual DATA found" -- THEN and only then do we get to some of UTEOTW's wild, slanderous vaccuous empty accusations.

But that is the ONLY way to get there!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Patterson says that the interpretation of the quote you give is "wrong."

Wrong. (So dead wrong that even you in your confused befuddled state do not dare to quote ME and Patterson back to back because the quote of ME will SHOW the VERY part of the CONTEXT that Patterson so explicitly POINTS TO as revealing his true position")

This has only been pointed out repeatedly to you - page after page. But in your typical fact-denying illogical pattern - you simply gloss over what totaly debunks your wild accusations.

UTEOTW
How can the words of the man who made the quote speaking about the quote not settle the question?

Can you SHOW that to be a fact! Try some actual quotes.

All you will find on this thread is ME quoting the VERY PART of Patterson's comments that HE insists we are NOT quoting!!

Your failure on this part is totally transparent.

Your lack of accurate objective and honest portrayal of my quotes is equally apparent.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[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...&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]

This is getting silly, Bob.

I gave you the entire text of a letter that Patterson wrote in response to being asked about the quote. He specifically states that the interpretation of the quote that you are peddling is "wrong." If you have forgotten, then read the thread.

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.

 

[BobRyan]

I just love quoting this -- sorry can't help it!

Quote:

Dear Mr Theunissen,
Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues

"... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. 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."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before.

I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But [b]I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule. [/b]

Yours Sincerely,

[signed]

Colin Patterson

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=787688&postcount=120

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.”

 

[BobRyan]

Here is Bob "repeatedly using" the SAME part of the QUOTE that PAtterson INSISTS is NOT being USED!!

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]

Quote:

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.

 

[BobRyan]

Now the objective thinking reader must ask WHY is UTEOTW only giving the part of the Patterson quote that Patterson WANTS ADDED to the original quote? Why does he not give BOTH the PARTIAL example Patterson complains about AND the full quote?

It is because UTEOTW wants us to BELIEVE that the FIRST part the "unnamed unquoted undisclosed partial segment" is the part of what Patterson SAYS that MUST NEVER BE QUOTED!

How sad.

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW -- I gave you the entire text of a letter that Patterson wrote in response to being asked about the quote.

For the zillionth time UTEOTW SHOW the partial quote that Patterson is objecting too.

You keep showing the part that HE APPROVES OF - and that I ALSO quote!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I do not think that you have to give a "HISTORY" of every quote because most of us (as it turns out) CAN and DO get the accurate meaning without a complete history wrapped around each quote.

BUT I DO think that if you can SHOW that in the HISTORY of the quote the meaning is changed THEN you have some actual SUBSTANCE to your claims UTEOTW.

So far - you have been UNNABLE to do so!

Your TRIED the fallacy of equivocation between the Bible saying that the FOOL says "there is no god" and some things that Patterson said AS IF PATTERSON EVER SAID "The FOOL says that evolution conveys antiknowledge" or "The FOOL says that evolutionists tell stories that are NOT science".

No such disclaimer is found in Pattersons notes, books, quotes etc.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

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?

 

[BobRyan]

I do not think that you have to give a "HISTORY" of every quote because most of us (as it turns out) CAN and DO get the accurate meaning without a complete history wrapped around each quote.

BUT I DO think that if you can SHOW that in the HISTORY of the quote the meaning is changed THEN you have some actual SUBSTANCE to your claims UTEOTW.

So far - you have been UNNABLE to do so!

Your TRIED the fallacy of equivocation between the Bible saying that the FOOL says "there is no god" and some things that Patterson said AS IF PATTERSON EVER SAID "The FOOL says that evolution conveys antiknowledge" or "The FOOL says that evolutionists tell stories that are NOT science".

No such disclaimer is found in Pattersons notes, books, quotes etc.

Wow that seems to have shut down UTEOTW into silent mode.

What is up?

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
even if by changing the context you change the meaning from what is intended, is sufficient?

That would be like YOU infering data INTO my posts thereby bogus content that simply pleases you to INSERT and does not reflect what I have stated.


One more thing UTEOTW I have been showing your approach to be a dishonest approach the entire time - why do you keep asking me if doing things the way you do is right? Obviously it is not.

<BTW - please keep asking me to repeat this point over and over again -->


In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

I have presented quote after quote to you for years showing the meaning changes when placed in context.

You still will not answer whether you think a valid quote should keep it original meaning when quoted.

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?

 

[BobRyan]

You have NOT ONCE presented me with a quote THAT I am using and shown it to have CHANGED meaning by adding text.

It should be very simple for you to SHOW what you claim to have already done on this thread - why not simply SHOW it?

Why keep using your transparent tactics instead?

 

[UTEOTW]

It really is a very simple question. YOu can even ignore for the moment our disagreement as to whether I have shown quotes to mean something different when placed in context. Just answer.

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?

We can decide later whether a particular quote has had its meaning changed.

Just put in writing for all to see whether or not you think that valid quote should preserve the original intent and opinion of the author.

 

[BobRyan]

It really is a very simple question. YOu can even ignore for the moment our disagreement as to whether I have shown quotes to mean something different when placed in context. Just answer.

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?

We can decide later whether a particular quote has had its meaning changed.

Just put in writing for all to see whether or not you think that valid quote should preserve the original intent and opinion of the author.

Answer was already given - but thanks for asking it to be repeated "again"

Quote:
UTEOTW
Or do you think that merely quoting "exactly, even if by changing the context you change the meaning from what is intended, is sufficient?

That would be like YOU infering data INTO my posts thereby bogus content that simply pleases you to INSERT and does not reflect what I have stated.


One more thing UTEOTW I have been showing your approach to be a dishonest approach the entire time - why do you keep asking me if doing things the way you do is right? Obviously it is not.

<BTW - please keep asking me to repeat this point over and over again -->


In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

I fail to see an answer in that quote either in the affirmative or the negative.

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?

What is so difficult about that to answer? We are nearing the end of 18 pages. The first post of the first page asked about misquoting.

All I am asking is for you to tell us what requirments are there for a quote to be valid.

Does the text need to be accurate?

Does the original meaning need to be kept obvious?

Does the author's opinion need to be preserved?

Does there need to be a proper citation?

Other requirements that you might suggest?

What qualities must a quote possess to be valid? Must it maintatin the original intent and opinion of the author?

 

[Charles Meadows]

Perhaps these "misquotations" can be qualified somewhat.

I have books by Ankerberg, Faid, Hunt and others on my shelf (yes they are actually on my shelf).

I don't know that I would say there are any outright fabrications. But there are several (at least) instances in those books where a biologist is quoted as saying something on the order of "we really have no proof at all that this occurred". A point is then made to show that even evolutionists admit their case is bogus. In reality that quote was part of a sentence like, "We have no proof that it occurred but then we have no proof that plants can photosynthesize - we do have significant evidence suggesting that evolution has occurred."

This is not a misquote in the sense of using the wrong words but it is an example of how "quotes" taken out of context does occur and how that can change the point of the statement being made.

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW said
I fail to see an answer in that quote either in the affirmative or the negative.

Hey UTEOTW don't feel bad about your failure - no problem - I will be glad to "post the answer again"!

Bob said

Bob quotes UTEOTW using and EXACT quote
Quote:
UTEOTW
Or do you think that merely quoting "exactly, even if by changing the context you change the meaning from what is intended, is sufficient?

That would be like YOU infering data INTO my posts thereby bogus content that simply pleases you to INSERT and does not reflect what I have stated.


One more thing UTEOTW I have been showing your approach to be a dishonest approach the entire time - why do you keep asking me if doing things the way you do is right? Obviously it is not.

<BTW - please keep asking me to repeat this point over and over again -->

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW -

Do you think it is morally right for someone to INSERT INEFERENCE into other people's quotes in an effort to slander them as you have done with me?

Yes or no will do.