Bogus Claims by Evols that Christians Misquote: A Test Case

[BobRyan]

Why keep posting the vaccuous "I win I win because I always say I win" posts? Why not ACTUALLY say something Substantive as in QUOTE the points that have been raised and SHOWN to debunk your failed arguments here -- then ANSWER the points!!??

Why is this such a difficult concept for you UTEOTW?? Are you REALLY that married to "fiction, storytelling, and just quoting YOU"???

The fact that you say that so many believers in atheist darwinism are satisified with that level of exchange speaks VOLUMES!!

 

[BobRyan]

Why not make a POINT instead of just claiming that you at some long time in the past made a point as in you actually were paying attention to details and actually HAD a point to make BASED on an actual quote - and then asking us to just believe that this is why you have not responded to a single point since - and have not rescued your failed argument??

Hint: Quoting yourself delusionally as you are doing above is not the way to rescue your failed arguments.

Hint 2: To rescue your failed argument -- go HERE and answer the post!!
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...1&postcount=53

 

[BobRyan]

Patterson, the author of the quote, has already directly addressed the passage and your interpretation and called it "wrong."

Obviously that is a lie - so you don't provide any evidence to support it - because you have NONE.

So my question for you is - why are you so fact-challenged that you would not even care to support your own wild accusations with facts?

Why don't you actually RESPOND to the questions raised?

Why do you keep posting to yourself saying "I win I win because I always say I win"??

What kind of nonsense are they teaching you at those atheist darwinist club meetings anyway?

 

[UTEOTW]

That is rich. You criticizing me for claiming victory in the debate. You are too funny.

Anyhow, you have never addressed the salient point. Let me make it as short as possible since you have demonstrated a lack of actually reading posts.

Sunderland quoted the first half of a paragraph and you quoted the second half.

You and SUnderland give the same interpretation of each half.

Patterson uses the second half to support his statement that what he meant in the first half is the opposite of what Sunderland claimed.

Patterson calls Sunderland's interpretation "wrong" and the one I have given you "correct."

Since you and Sunderland use the same passage and since you and SUnderland use the same interpretation and since Patterson has said both halves mean the opposite of what you said, according to Patterson, you are "wrong."

You cannot get out of this so instead you weave a fallacy of distraction. Hand waving cannot save you from this even though that seems to be your only answer.

How sad.

The bankruptcy to which YEism leads on dsiplay.

A longer version.

Again.

Let's review.

Patterson wrote a paragraph.

Sunderland quoted part of that paragraph and made some interpretive claims.

Patterson was asked about the claims in a letter.

Patterson responds by giving the rest of the paragraph to complete the quote. He then says that the second part complements what he was saying in the first part and proves that the whole passage meant the opposite of what Sunderland was claiming it meant. Patterson also says that an alternate interpretation presented by the letter writer is the correct one.

Bob comes along and quotes the second part of the paragraph, complete with "as quoted by Sunderland," and gives us the same interpretation as Sunderland did for the first half. I correct Bob by giving him the correct interpretation, one which happens to be the same as the letter writer.

Bob denies such. So I produce the letter.

Now Patterson says that the second half confirms and complements the first half. In other words, they mean the same thing.

But Bob continuously tries to tell us that Patterson is unable to correctly interpret Patterson and that Bob can do it better. Bob then tries to tell us that the second half of the paragraph really means the opposite of what Patterson says that first half means.

Do you now see why I tire of beating my head against the wall with you?

There could not be a clearer cut case of out of context quote mining. We have the author himself using the exact same quote as Bob and telling us that the interpretation Bob gives is "wrong" and the one I give is "correct."

 

[BobRyan]

huh!!!???

You are "quoting YOU again"???

Say it aint so!!

You are doing the "I win I win because I always say I win" post --- AGAIN - instead of responding to the points raised in this discussion???!!!

How shocking!!

How surprising UTEOTW!!

With such blinding logic and reason as that -- we may have to promote this level of discussion up a notch. Any preschoolers reading this? Sounds like it is your turn next.

 

[BobRyan]

By "contrast" -- let's show a post that actually RELIES on the content of the Talk Orign and Patterson Letter --

=================================

Patterson gives two very exposing, very honest, very frank statements about the extreme limits of the "data" (the pausity of the data) in support of atheist darwinist doctrines.

See them -- HERE - "again" and "again"
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...4&postcount=43

Statement A -
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."
-- Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.

Statement B - which is in fact merely a "continuation of A"

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."

Both of these statements show embarrasing limist, gaffs, blunders and flaws in the classic arguments of devotees to the cult of atheist darwinism. But the snippet of statement A "alone" makes it appear that Patterson finds no data at all to support the myths and doctrines of the cult - while statement B leaves the door open while sharply criticising the intellectual dishonesty of many of the cultists involved with atheist darwinism who "tell stories" as IF those stories are "science" when "they are not"!!

UTEOTW (in his typical gloss over of all salient detail in any given illustration) simply turns a blind eye to the ENTIRE DISCUSSION and then concludes in effect - "ANY reference to Patterson that does not reflect posititvely on all members of the cult must be a bad quote".

This shallow transparently pathetic approach being used by UTEOTW merely shows how steeped he IS in the blunders, gaffs and flaws of the very devotees that Patterson is criticising in his ORIGINAL statement.

Fortunately (even for the children reading this thread) -- UTEOTW is insistent that we keep going back and looking at these details while HE glosses over them!!


NOTICE there is NO "I did not mean what Bob is saying" in PAtterson's words JUST in UTEOTW's

NOTICE Bob does NOT make the Claim that Patterson does not believe in atheist darwinism!

NOTICE UTEOTW - you need to pay ATTENTION to details instead of wildly making stuff up as your "solution" for your failed argument here!
==============================================

 

[UTEOTW]

Oh, Bob.

Here you are, too, showing your true colors.

The salient point is that Patterson takes the very part you quote to show that you are "wrong" in your interpretation.

You spin all these words but you never address that little bitty, most important part.

 

[BobRyan]

Notice in my post above - I was not content to have "ME quoting ME" as UTEOTW does time after time after time...

That is because I actually HAVE a point to make from the text!

 

[UTEOTW]

Still waving your hands and hoping that no one notices that you are not ever addressing the salient point.

Patterson uses the part you quote to bolster his assertion that the part Sunderland quotes means the opposite of what you both claim.

In his own words, you are "wrong."

You cannot escape that.

 

[BobRyan]

Still waving your hands and hoping that no one notices that you are not ever addressing the salient point.

Patterson uses the part you quote to bolster his assertion that the part Sunderland quotes means the opposite of what you both claim.

In his own words, you are "wrong."

You cannot escape that.

I hope you don't mind if I actualy QUOTE the text and SHOW my point IN the text - as you drone on and on the form "I am winning, I am right, because I always tell myself I am right" vaccuous posts.

 

[UTEOTW]

You are still not addressing the salient point, Bob.

But why should that be surprising?

Patterson used the half of the paragraph you quote to show that the whole thing means the opposite of what you claim.

That, you cannot avoid and therefore cannot address.

 

[BobRyan]

Notice what happens when we get to the core comparison of the first half AND The second half of the Quote that Patterson is PROMOTING??

UTEOTW RUNS!!

For everyone "esle" -- here they are "again"
---------------------------

By "contrast" -- let's show a post that actually RELIES on the content of the Talk Orign and Patterson Letter --

=================================

Patterson gives two very exposing, very honest, very frank statements about the extreme limits of the "data" (the pausity of the data) in support of atheist darwinist doctrines.

See them -- HERE - "again" and "again"
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...4&postcount=43

Statement A -
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."
-- Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.

Statement B - which is in fact merely a "continuation of A"

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."

Both of these statements show embarrasing limist, gaffs, blunders and flaws in the classic arguments of devotees to the cult of atheist darwinism. But the snippet of statement A "alone" makes it appear that Patterson finds no data at all to support the myths and doctrines of the cult - while statement B leaves the door open while sharply criticising the intellectual dishonesty of many of the cultists involved with atheist darwinism who "tell stories" as IF those stories are "science" when "they are not"!!

UTEOTW (in his typical gloss over of all salient detail in any given illustration) simply turns a blind eye to the ENTIRE DISCUSSION and then concludes in effect - "ANY reference to Patterson that does not reflect posititvely on all members of the cult must be a bad quote".

This shallow transparently pathetic approach being used by UTEOTW merely shows how steeped he IS in the blunders, gaffs and flaws of the very devotees that Patterson is criticising in his ORIGINAL statement.

Fortunately (even for the children reading this thread) -- UTEOTW is insistent that we keep going back and looking at these details while HE glosses over them!!


NOTICE there is NO "I did not mean what Bob is saying" in PAtterson's words JUST in UTEOTW's

NOTICE Bob does NOT make the Claim that Patterson does not believe in atheist darwinism!

NOTICE UTEOTW - you need to pay ATTENTION to details instead of wildly making stuff up as your "solution" for your failed argument here!
==============================================

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

You don't get it.

It does not matter how many times you repeat the quote and give your spin, we have Patterson's commentary on what he actually meant. And it is not what you are presenting!

He meant that you cannot tell whether a given fossil is directly ancestral to another or if it is on a closely related side branch. He meant nothing about gaffs or blunders and we have his commentary on the quote as proof.

Why do you continue to violate the commandment against bearing false witness on this matter?

Anything to try and make a point, I guess? Even if you point, like all your points, has no root in the truth.

The moral bankruptcy of YEism on display, folks!

 

[BobRyan]

I SHOW what he actually said.

You SHOW nothing but your own quotes of YOU!!

I hope to never stoop to that level because you RELY on glossing-over-details, ignoring inconvenient facts and telling yourself "I am right because I always say I am right" instead of ACTUALLY making a point.

Why is my approach here so confusing for you?

I should think it would be obvious to ALL that paying ATTENTION to what the text ACTUALLY SAYS is better than "talking to yourself" the way you do.

And then that gets us to the BIG question. If you can not be trusted to deal faithfully with YOUR OWN initiative in a glaring case like this where THE TEXT fully debunks your bogus slander of others -- why in the world would you be trusted to be intellectually honest on more speculative topics?

 

[UTEOTW]

You still ignore and cannot address the salient fact.

Patterson tells us that what he meant is the opposite of what you try and spin it to mean.

Why do you continue in this deception and lie?

 

[BobRyan]

Let me explain something very very simple to UTEOTW. All you will have to do is be willing to 'read' the text you "say" you want us all to look at!!

=================================

Patterson gives two very exposing, very honest, very frank statements about the extreme limits of the "data" (the pausity of the data) in support of atheist darwinist doctrines.

See them -- HERE - "again" and "again"
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...4&postcount=43

Statement A -
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."
-- Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.

Statement B - which is in fact merely a "continuation of A"

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."

Both of these statements show embarrasing limist, gaffs, blunders and flaws in the classic arguments of devotees to the cult of atheist darwinism. But the snippet of statement A "alone" makes it appear that Patterson finds no data at all to support the myths and doctrines of the cult - while statement B leaves the door open while sharply criticising the intellectual dishonesty of many of the cultists involved with atheist darwinism who "tell stories" as IF those stories are "science" when "they are not"!!

UTEOTW (in his typical gloss over of all salient detail in any given illustration) simply turns a blind eye to the ENTIRE DISCUSSION and then concludes in effect - "ANY reference to Patterson that does not reflect posititvely on all members of the cult must be a bad quote".

This shallow transparently pathetic approach being used by UTEOTW merely shows how steeped he IS in the blunders, gaffs and flaws of the very devotees that Patterson is criticising in his ORIGINAL statement.

Fortunately (even for the children reading this thread) -- UTEOTW is insistent that we keep going back and looking at these details while HE glosses over them!!


NOTICE there is NO "I did not mean what Bob is saying" in PAtterson's words JUST in UTEOTW's

NOTICE Bob does NOT make the Claim that Patterson does not believe in atheist darwinism!

NOTICE UTEOTW - you need to pay ATTENTION to details instead of wildly making stuff up as your "solution" for your failed argument here!

 

[UTEOTW]

Quote it as many times as you like.

I have still put into evidence a letter written by Patterson himself where he quotes the very words of his you quote and he tells us himself that his intended meaning was the opposite of what you are telling us.

That you ignore the man's own words gives us a great lesson in your level of honesty in your quotations.

It shows us that you do not feel that it is necessary to follow the commandment against bearing false witness if you think you can make a point.

The moral bankruptcy of YEism on display.

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks once again UTEOTW for quoting nothing - and providing no evidence at all for your bogus claims of the vaccous form "I am right because I always tell myself I am right while ignoring the facts in the data".

You are truly dedicated to your empty form of non-response.

However I would like to contrast your vaccuous approach to facts and inconvenient data IN the Talk-Origins document WITH MY paying attention TO the details you find so offensive.

=================================

Patterson gives two very exposing, very honest, very frank statements about the extreme limits of the "data" (the pausity of the data) in support of atheist darwinist doctrines.

See them -- HERE - "again" and "again"
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...4&postcount=43

Statement A -
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."
-- Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.

Statement B - which is in fact merely a "continuation of A"

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."

Both of these statements show embarrasing limist, gaffs, blunders and flaws in the classic arguments of devotees to the cult of atheist darwinism. But the snippet of statement A "alone" makes it appear that Patterson finds no data at all to support the myths and doctrines of the cult - while statement B leaves the door open while sharply criticising the intellectual dishonesty of many of the cultists involved with atheist darwinism who "tell stories" as IF those stories are "science" when "they are not"!!

UTEOTW (in his typical gloss over of all salient detail in any given illustration) simply turns a blind eye to the ENTIRE DISCUSSION and then concludes in effect - "ANY reference to Patterson that does not reflect posititvely on all members of the cult must be a bad quote".

This shallow transparently pathetic approach being used by UTEOTW merely shows how steeped he IS in the blunders, gaffs and flaws of the very devotees that Patterson is criticising in his ORIGINAL statement.

Fortunately (even for the children reading this thread) -- UTEOTW is insistent that we keep going back and looking at these details while HE glosses over them!!


NOTICE there is NO "I did not mean what Bob is saying" in PAtterson's words JUST in UTEOTW's

NOTICE Bob does NOT make the Claim that Patterson does not believe in atheist darwinism!

NOTICE UTEOTW - you need to pay ATTENTION to details instead of wildly making stuff up as your "solution" for your failed argument here!

 

[UTEOTW]

Still maintaining the same deceit?

Why?

Why do you think that bearing fallse witness is a good debating tactic?

I guess when it is the only thing you have going...

YOu cannot get around the fact that Patterson uses the very words you quote to proclaim that "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." There is just no way around that for you.

You instead are reduced to hand waving as you fail to ever convince us of why we should believe your interpretation of what Patterson said over what HE says that he meant.

You are a perfect example of the moral bankruptcy to which defending YEism can lead.

 

[BobRyan]

Patterson gives two very exposing, very honest, very frank statements about the extreme limits of the "data" (the pausity of the data) in support of atheist darwinist doctrines.

See them -- HERE - "again" and "again"
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...4&postcount=43

Odd that UTEOTW seeks to flee the complete and full review of HIS OWN test case!!

See that link - SEE the link to Talk-Origins that IT directs you to??

Why in the world is UTEOTW having an allergic reaction to HIS OWN SOURCE??!!!

(BTW if UTEOTW's vaccuous claim that this link was MAKING his case -- were true - I would not have to keep DRAGGING him back there!!)

Notice that in the ACTUAL data it IS the quote that I USE that Patterson PROMOTES!! He says THAT quote (quote of Patterson) SHOWS his view better then the other "100% accurate quote of Patterson".

Odd that he is denouncing his own words - but bet that as it may - the devastating case against UTEOTW is that the obvious meaning in the quote I USE is the one that PATTERSON is ENDORSING!!

Still - we know UTEOTW will "keep running"