Are creationists purposely misquoting evolutionists?

[BobRyan]

As for the other "atheist evolutionists" - the point of the Horse series "fraud" that even they reject and debunk is that the "methods it used" to create the fraud are STILL in use!

They use the same methods UTEOTW used to fabricate accusations against me in my quotes of atheist darwinists. They apply INFERENCE and substitute it IN PLACE OF actual data without telling the viewer, the reader, the cult-member "We are just making this part up out of inference so that it fits our current model. We did not actually FIND this to be TRUE IN Nature as if it ACTUALLY happened this way IN Nature".

Patterson exposed this less-than-objective method of "story telling" as "non science".

 

[BobRyan]

In this quote
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=780472&postcount=22

We see Mercury making the bogus claim "(in the last sentence there) that he is an evolutionist BECAUSE he read the Bible and IT made him do it!

Atheists like Richard Dawkins are far more objective in observing the gross contradiction of such flawed positions.

So "again" we see that Atheist Darwinists are often MORE objective and honest when it comes to honest representations of evolutionism where it has failed in the past and where it contradicts Christianity.

But christians in compromise who seek marry all or simply a small part of evolutionism to the Word of God - appear to embrace almost any contradiction by contrast to the more stable Atheist Darwinists.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Now that the thread has played out - I am rating it since all sides have agreed that it "shows" the actual strengths and flaws (such as they are) in the arguments made.

This is very helpful for anyone in the future who is confronted with some blunder in the evolutionist's bag of tricks. Note what works and what does not work.

Note when it is that the evolutionist avoids "detail" like the plague and seeks to divert the topic away from the pointed test cases offered and INTO the more GENERAL them of "stories told in favor of Evolutionism" so that they have many many rabbit trails to pick from - and hide behind.

Every time Bible believing Christians indulge them in that "divertion" the subject becomes frayed, pointless and rambling. But if you STAY on focus - stay on topic, stay with the subject - you win because Evols can not stand to be brougnt back time after time to the "details" they need to obfuscate and spin.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Well the thread has spun on during my vacation...

Bob you are such a prolific poster - I'll never be able to read ALL of the posts in these threads.

And I'm still not sure to what you say I "agreed" - thus causing you offense.

But I have been around the board several years and have always found UTEOTW to be honest and patient, arguably more patient than I on some occasions. I have never found him to misrepresent others intentionally. You on the other hand have not always been so careful, calling UTEOTW a woman despite his assertion that he was not, labelling me as a religious devotee of evolution despite my assertions to the contrary. I will not go as far as to say that you intentionally misquoted me - but I would say it comes close. You may if you wish start a thread about me "slandering" you here - but I stand by my assertion.

But my biggest gripe remains that you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to science. Again - accuse me of slandering you if you wish - but I stand by my remarks. I assert that you woefully misrepresent the state of things in the current debate of evolutionism versus creationism.

Why the fuss about this? Let me say it again for all to hear. The Bible bookstore "apologetics" books are, for the most part, pathetic. That the earth is over 6000 years old is well attested (notice I did not say proven, but rather attested - one cannot prove such a thing). Ask any scientist - about 99% will tell you that there is no debate in terms of the age of the earth. In their minds it has been sufficiently proven. Now I am not saying that everyone must accept this as gospel. In fact the believer is on very solid ground believing the Bible over men any day!! But he/she is not on solid ground when he/she is willing to muster up any theory, no matter how absurd, as long as it disagrees with evolution. And that is wnat many of today's "apologists" do. Again why the fuss?? Students who are encountering science teachers who challenge them in these areas may have serious questions. If they are fed the standard apologetic diet some will have a crisis of faith, thinking that one cannot simultaneously believe the Bible and what science seems to have made quite clear. If they think that the pinnacle of Christian scholarship is Josh McDowell then they may just throw in the towel - thinking that all of our belief is based on lies. If science makes the earth look old so what? Believe it or don't believe it. But just don't misrepresent it to make it look bad - and this is what (in my view) most apologists have done.

 

[Jim1999]

I have been a Theistic evolutionist for over 50 years. It is my firm belief that the Bible IS the word of God, without question. Where the Bible speaks on science; it is accurate. Where the Bible speaks on history; it is accurate. The Bible, however, is NOT a text on either science or history, and this is where so many go down the wrong path toward truth, in my opinion.

We ought not to be afraid of truth.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Jim,

When you say that you are a theistic evolutionist, what do you mean? I only ask because I think it could mean different things to different people.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Jim1999]

Hi Joseph, I believe that God created everything, inlcuding humankind, in the beginning, and this included nature, the elements and natural progression. Man evolved within his own realm, and did not cross-over between species. I believe the animal kingdom evolved within its own range and thus accounts for the pre-historic beasts. I guess that's it in a nutshell, without going into great detail.

I have no difficulty fellowshipping with creationists. It is not a big deal to me. One of those gray areas that does not affect the persons of God, the veracity of scripture, or the great doctrines preached down through history.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

I agree with you.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Jim1999]

Should I try the five points next?:laugh:

Cheers, and thanks,

Jim

 

[BobRyan]

Charles Meadows said --


Bob you are such a prolific poster - I'll never be able to read ALL of the posts in these threads.

And I'm still not sure to what you say I "agreed" - thus causing you offense.

But I have been around the board several years and have always found UTEOTW to be honest and patient,

During the course of this debate I have received PM's from those who have been victimized by UTEOTW's vitriol in the past and who claim this is the reason they are not responding to his wild bogus accusations posted on this thread.

Interestingly - you claim not to see that his kind words of the form "dispicable and pathetic" would be taken by more objective and open minded readers as "pure vitriol".

Well I can see why you would take that position given your close following of UTEOTW's wild claims.

But I gave you the case (several times without comprehensive response from you) showing that UTEOTW ADMITS to using INFERENCE to INSERT his own ideas INTO my posts - then turning around and wildly accusing me of saying what he admits to INSERTING by inference "alone".

Oddly enough - you "pretend" that this is "perfectly reasonable" and of course "kind".

Odd indeed.

I suggest that you use another tactic.

 

[BobRyan]

Charles Meadows said
You on the other hand have not always been so careful, calling UTEOTW a woman despite his assertion that he was not

Do your wild accusations never cease? UTEOTW is careful not to publish his first name AND his Profile gives NO indication that she is a "he". Either one "was a GUESS" to start with! Once I read that UTEOTW was identifing himself as HE - I began using that pronoun.

The "Ballroom dancing" comment he makes on his profile - while giving no other information at all - caused me to change my GUESS as to gender.

But this is all it really takes to provide "substance" for another one of your wild accusations.

How "consistent" of you Charles.

I am impressed.

CM said
I will not go as far as to say that you intentionally misquoted me - but I would say it comes close. You may if you wish start a thread about me "slandering" you here - but I stand by my assertion.

you have consistently "stood by your wild accusations" without ever actually showing PROOF that any of them had substance.

That too is consistent.

In the mean time UTEOTW was totally discredited in his wild slanderous claims here -- I merely point to your "agreement with him" as your part in the error.

But I find it "humerous" that you would jump in with enthusiastic agreement right at the moment UTEOTW ADMITS he is using nothing more than INFERENCE as the "substance" of his wild accusations

And "no" I would NEVER allocate a thread to discussing the methods you are using here.

 

[BobRyan]

CM said -

But my biggest gripe remains that you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to science. Again - accuse me of slandering you if you wish - but I stand by my remarks.

Let me guess "wild accusation AGAIN" followed by "NO DATA AT ALL?"!!!

Hmm "how surprising" to THEN find that you "stand by that claim" in such a hollow transparent fact-devoid manner.

I think I could have guessed as much.

CM
I assert that you woefully misrepresent the state of things in the current debate of evolutionism versus creationism.

You claim you have "no time to read" but here is a case where it would have paid you to read the last two pages of this thread as you attempt to "divert the focus" AWAY from the OP "subject" which is the wild claims from evolutionst devotees that dirty rotten Bible Beliving Christians are "misquoting" atheist darwinists.

CM

The Bible bookstore "apologetics" books are, for the most part, pathetic. That the earth is over 6000 years old is well attested (notice I did not say proven, but rather attested - one cannot prove such a thing). Ask any scientist - about 99% will tell you that there is no debate in terms of the age of the earth. In their minds it has been sufficiently proven. Now I am not saying that everyone must accept this as gospel.

Why "SURRRRREEE" you are - remember if they don't then they are "pathetic" and recall that UTEOTW calls them "Dispicable AND pathetic"!

How "NICE" that you and UTEOTW are fond of the same KIND and NICE forms of slander and wild accusation!

I appreaciate your candor here CM!

CM

Students who are encountering science teachers who challenge them in these areas may have serious questions. If they are fed the standard apologetic diet some will have a crisis of faith, thinking that one cannot simultaneously believe the Bible and what science seems to have made quite clear.

This is EXACTLY the bogus failed argument used on the BB by Evolutionists claiming they are promoting evolutionism here "For the good of the Gospel".

I love it - CM - you unmask yourself with your every post!

But as much as you would like to insert your own wild views of the Bible and atheist darwinist "gradualism" into this thread - that is not the topic.

Maybe you want to start your own thread on "why CM can not believe the Bible on the age of the earth" -- I have no problem with that.

But this thread is about the failed accusations of evolutionist devottees "and otherwise followers" claiming that Bible believing Christians are misquoting atheist darwinists -- just as YOU have claimed on this thread!

Time to "Defend" that wild claim CM -- we are on page 27 and when I give you a test example to show your point "has substance" you flee -- every time.

Why?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Should I try the five points next?:laugh:

Cheers, and thanks,

Jim

Speaking of which, what do you think of John Piper's claim to be a seven point Calvinist?:laugh:

PM me so we don't hijack the thread.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[BobRyan]

from post 257 - (page 26)

Bob said --
#4. His classic escape tactic was to try numerous times to derail this discussion and get it onto the subject where Atheist Darwinists WOULD support him - namely the subject of evolutionism in general - vs Christianity and Creation. (And some of you fell for that dodge for a little while allowing UTEOTW to return to his element).

IF you let him go there - then he GAINS his old allies back (The well-known atheist darwinist icons of evolutionism) - and in that environment UTEOTW has many more excuses to "deny the obvious".

For that reason I never engage in that rabbit trail on this thread.

The moderators are likely to terminate a thread that is well past 20 pages soon so if some here (Like CM and maybe Jim) are really interested in contrasting the failed pseudoscience of evolutionism against real science -- then why not start a thread on it?

Why "faithfully" ignore the OP and the topic of this thread? Why join in trying to derail it with rabbit trail after rabbit trail just as the believers in atheist darwinist evolutionism have done?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since CM "asked" to be shown "again" his own quotes and his own posts as they relate to his own endorsement of UTEOTW's wild claims...

Here I point to where Charles Meadows flames out in his wild accusations against Christians misquoting – where he simply “makes stuff up” about unknown unspecified examples!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=789485&postcount=182

here is a two post summary I give to Charles showing how far he has gone in endorsing the wild slanderous tactics of evolutionists “anyway”.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=789530&postcount=185

Here I point Charles to the blunder of UTEOTW where he ADMITS to inserting bogus ideas into my posts by “pure inference” alone. Then I challenge Charles to show why he is endorsing such tactics!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=788587&postcount=156

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=788042&postcount=131

(Of course I realize that CM may not actually want to link to the past and his post content -- so I will include that later by simply cliking on those links to posts on this thread "for him")

 

[BobRyan]

As you can see from the links in the post above - the major blunder that the believers in Atheist darwinism made here was "admitting that they insert via inference" into Christian quotes.

Then when they are caught doing it - they want to change the topic to "why do I believe in evolutionism anyway".

And of course the totally silly "insert" they were adding to the Christian quotes was the bogus idea that "if an atheist darwinist ever exposes a blunder in evolutionism's history THEN they must also have become a Bible believing Christian"!!

What a silly "insert" for those evolutionists!

 

[BobRyan]

Some more "context" for the thining, well reasoned reader --

I phoned the British Museum of Natural History and to my delight discovered that Dr. Patterson was still working there. I faxed him the text of the quote and asked him whether my interpretation, the creationist interpretation, or some other interpretation of his words was correct. Here is his reply dated 16 August 1993:

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 Mayrpublished 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 I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.
Yours Sincerely,
[signed]

Colin Patterson ​

​

​

​

​