Bogus Claims by Evols that Christians Misquote: A Test Case

[BobRyan]

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 have confused ME -- with YOU!

I am the one ACTUALLY SHOWING what is in the text of the letter AND the context as shown by Talk-Origins - YOU are the one RUNNING away from it - post after vaccuous post -- then demonstrating the way you "talk to yourself" never quoting anything "but you".

Why is this concept so difficult for you UTEOTW?

Surely you have at least one second to be honest in your posting.

UTEOTW
YOu cannot get around the fact that Patterson uses the very words you quote to proclaim

In fact I KEEP INSISTING that Patterson IS using the VERY quote I give as the one HE PROMOTES!!

How can your constant gloss-over of all details in all your failed examples continually keep you from seeing that?

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.

Please wake up for half a second and be prepared to deal with the truth.

Patterson is not making your bogus and vaccuous claim that "all Bible believing Christians are wrong in every argument they make" as your fantacy seems to want the reader to imagine.

INSTEAD - as the LINK SHOWS - it is a SPECIFIC claim that is being addressed and a SPECIFIC point that Patterson is making.

You wild misquote of PAtterson trying to get him to "attack any words a Bible believing Chrsitian says" DID NOT PAN out in the ACTUAL quote!!

Why are these simple concepts SOOOO difficult for you to comprehend?

Why do you not GO to the DETAILS IN the talk-Origins post ALREADY SHOWN to fully debunk your empty Christian-bashing views?

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I keep posting the LINK to this post ON THIS THREAD - and UTEOTW keeps running from it.

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

Let us go to the loyal devotees of atheist Darwinism at Talk origins and see what the vassal Theunissen himself has to say as HE IDENTIFIES the snippet quote problem that Patterson is known to complain about. ​

During the lecture a quotation of Dr. Colin Patterson was used to justify the standard creationist argument that 'there are no transitional forms.' Numerous other creationists I have encountered have used the quote, and an extended version (which fills in the text between the ellipsis) appears in the CSF "Revised Quote Book", published in 1990. ​

So the quote is in wide usage, at least in Australia: ​

"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. ​

I decided to get to the bottom of the matter. The quote is from a personal letter dated 10th April 1979 from Dr. Patterson to creationist Luther D. Sunderland and is referring to Dr. Patterson's book "Evolution" (1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.). My first step was to read the book. (I believe it is now out of print, but most university libraries should have a copy.) ​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

Notice how Theunissen is giving us the “dirty rotten stinking exact quote” above from Patterson that the hated Bible believing Christians must have used?? ​

Let us hope that UTEOTW can read it as well.

Theunissen “continues” ​

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

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html​

It is immediately obvious that the vassal of Atheist Darwinism - Mr Theunissen, thinks someone has quoted Patterson as saying "Patterson does not believe in atheist darwinism" or Patterson does not BELIEVE IN "transitional forms" any more.

It is equally “obvious” to the reader that Patterson CONTINUES the snippet quote (of himself) and insists that his CONTINUATION is what would show his real view. (though BOTH quotes are actually from Patterson himself!).

It is also obvious to ALL readers - even the most BASIC readers - that I have been quoting that CONTINUATION - that PREFERRED quote to SHOW what Patterson really thought!! UTEOTW can only respond with the vaccuous fact-challenged myth that Patterson is in this quote denying any words ever spoken by any Bible believing Christian who quotes Patterson!!

​

 

[UTEOTW]

It is equally “obvious” to the reader that Patterson CONTINUES the snippet quote (of himself) and insists that his CONTINUATION is what would show his real view. (though BOTH quotes are actually from Patterson himself!).

And that "continuation" is what Patterson says should make it obvious that he means the opposite of what you say.

How did he phrase it?

Oh, yeah! He said you were "wrong."

Now why do you not believe Patterson's commentary on his own quote and instead insist that you can better interpret Patterson than Patterson can?

Is it because you cannot approach evolution honestly?

Because you sure can not approach it with facts as evidenced by your inability to support your banded iron and reptile genetics assertions and your repeated responses to my fact based posts with strawman responses.

 

[BobRyan]

Why can't you be honest with your own Patterson Quote UTEOTW - is the case SO BAD for you that you have to avoid it at ALL TIMEs when making your wild assertions??!!

How pitiful!

You IMAGINE that you have substance in the fallacy "Patterson proves that ANY Bible believing Christian that ever quotes anything he ever said must be doing it wrong"

How do these vaccuous tactics these empty lapses in logic get so much air time with you UTEOTW??!!

The "inconvenient facts" are quite DIFFERENT than your empty argument above!!

So I will "post the facts again" by contrast to your empty assertions.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[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

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 limits, 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]

You are still stuck in your tired old rut where you cannot tell us why we should believe your interpretation of Patterson over his own commentary on what he meant.

Why can you not deal honestly on this issue?

 

[BobRyan]

Why can't you be honest with your own Patterson Quote UTEOTW - is the case SO BAD for you that you have to avoid it at ALL TIMEs when making your wild assertions??!!

How pitiful!

You IMAGINE that you have substance in the fallacy "Patterson proves that ANY Bible believing Christian that ever quotes anything he ever said must be doing it wrong"

How do these vaccuous tactics (these empty lapses in logic) get so much air time with you UTEOTW??!!

The "inconvenient facts" are quite DIFFERENT than your empty argument above!!

So I will "post the facts again" by contrast to your empty assertions.

 

[UTEOTW]

You are a parody, right? A good parody is often hard to tell from the real thing. Surely you don't mean what you post.

Well, in case you actually believe your own posts...

You IMAGINE that you have substance in the fallacy "Patterson proves that ANY Bible believing Christian that ever quotes anything he ever said must be doing it wrong"

How can you in good conscience twist my words that way!

I have said nothing of the sort. The Patterson letter is talking about a specific quote. (Though, if you wish, I have another Patterson quote where be does say that most quotes are out of context.)

Patterson quotes himself, the very same passage that you quote. The second half of the paragraph that you got from Sunderland.

Patterson says that the second half shows that the first half, and therefore the whole paragraph, means the opposite of what you claim.

In short, he says you are "wrong."

Why do you not believe Patterson's own commentary on what he meant?

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

I see that you are now asserting this on other threads.

Should you not first tell us why it is OK for you to ignore Patterson's own commentary on his passage that you quote.

You know, the one where he uses the very part that you quote to show that the whole passage means the opposite of what you assert.

How did he put it? Oh yeah, he says that your position is "wrong."

 

[BobRyan]

Here is Pattersons OWN words that YOU are ignoring "again".

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 limits, 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!

 

[BobRyan]

While UTEOTW is dreaming and talking to himself - he often says "Patterson quotes something Bob said about Patterson and says - Bob was wrong".

How entertaining!!

 

[BobRyan]

Patterson quotes himself, the very same passage that you quote. The second half of the paragraph that you got from Sunderland.

Patterson says that the second half shows that the first half, and therefore the whole paragraph, means the opposite of what you claim.

That is your wild claim - factless and quoteless. Why not SHOW a quote from me WHERE I make a claim about that SECOND HALF (or first half) Quote of Patterson and USE IT to produce a MEANING that Patterson then IDENTIFIES and says "that MEANING taken from MY QUOTE is not what I intended"???

Why not DO SOMETHING instead of continually dwelling soley in the realm of your own IMAGINATION??

You have been confronted on this point about as many times as there are pages on this THREAD!!

Why is it that simply dealing honestly with the facts is so difficult for you UTETOW?

 

[UTEOTW]

Let's see.

Patterson was asked about the paragraph.

He quoted the second half of the paragraph, the part you quote, and used that to show where he meant the opposite of what Sunderland said he meant.

So, are you trying to tell me that you did not interpret the quote to have the same meaning as Sunderland, but instead you agree with what Patterson says he meant?

If you agree with Patterson, then you have no quote.

If you disagree with Patterson, then you are telling us that you can better interpret his quote than Patterson can.

So, which is it?

 

[UTEOTW]

Just for the record, let's put Patterson's view of the quote in the record.

He was asked by Theunissen what he meant. This is how Theunissen phrases it.

Patterson goes on to acknowledge that there are gaps in the fossil record, but points out that this is possibly due to the limitations of what fossils can tell us. He finishes the paragraph with:

". . .Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else."​

It is actually this statement which is the key to interpreting the Sunderland quote correctly; it is not possible to say for certain whether a fossil is in the direct ancestral line of a species group. Archaeopteryx, for example, is not necessarily directly ancestral to birds. It may have been a species on a side-branch. However, that in no way disqualifies it as a transitional form, or as evidence for evolution. Evolution predicts that such fossils will exist, and if there was no link between reptiles and birds then Archaeopteryx would not exist, whether it is directly ancestral or not. What Patterson was saying to Sunderland was that, of the transitional forms that are known, he could not make a watertight argument for any being directly ancestral to living species groups.

To this interpretation, Patterson responds

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.

(Emphasis added.)


How do you continue to argue with that?



Not honestly!

 

[BobRyan]

Let's see.

Patterson was asked about the paragraph.

He quoted the second half of the paragraph, the part you quote, and used that to show where he meant the opposite of what Sunderland said he meant.

So, are you trying to tell me that you did not interpret the quote to have the same meaning as Sunderland, but instead you agree with what Patterson says he meant?

Why be soooo afraid of the text??? It is YOUR OWN test case!!

QUOTE IT!!

SHOW your point instead of talking to yourself about what you WISH it had said!

Seems like a pretty simple concept - but you keep struggling with this!

Why is that?

IT IS your own selected test case - why fear it so much - feel free to USE ACTUAL FACTS to try and support your wild assertions.

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW actually stumbles onto a quote - just NOT a quote of PATTERSON!!

Patterson goes on to acknowledge that there are gaps in the fossil record, but points out that this is possibly due to the limitations of what fossils can tell us. He finishes the paragraph with:

". . .Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else."​

It is actually this statement which is the key to interpreting the Sunderland quote correctly; it is not possible to say for certain whether a fossil is in the direct ancestral line of a species group. Archaeopteryx, for example, is not necessarily directly ancestral to birds. It may have been a species on a side-branch. However, that in no way disqualifies it as a transitional form, or as evidence for evolution. Evolution predicts that such fossils will exist, and if there was no link between reptiles and birds then Archaeopteryx would not exist, whether it is directly ancestral or not. What Patterson was saying to Sunderland was that, of the transitional forms that are known, he could not make a watertight argument for any being directly ancestral to living species groups.

What UTEOTW STILL REFUSES TO DO - is to show a quote of ME quoting PAtterson and claiming that Patterson believed ANYTHING other than what HE STATED!!

Why is this simple concept so difficult for the believers in atheist darwinism?

 

[BobRyan]

Meanwhile - while UTEOTW is still casting about him trying to find a FACT based argument to make from HIW OWN SELECTED source -- I will repeat the one ALREADY made here!!

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 limits, 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]

Can't address the salient point, can you?

Patterson was asked about the interpretation of his passage.

I gave you the interpretation that he called "correct."

Unless that is the interpretation with which you agree, then in Patterson's own words, you are "wrong."

Why do you continue to dishonestly insist that we should ignore Patterson's own commentary on what he meant?

Too inconvenient for you?

 

[BobRyan]

Can't address the salient point, can you?

Until you ACTUALLY quote something that SHOWS your wild claim "in actual TEXT" you leave me with nothing to respond to because all you keep posting is you talking to yourself and showing NO QUOTE AT ALL in support of your claim!!

Why do you KEEP doing that???

Patterson was asked about the interpretation of his passage.

Show the question AND the context for the question FROM the TEXT -- LIKE I DID!!

THen SHOW that I ever used that quote WITH that wrong interpretation -- you know ACTUAL QUOTES!!

 

[UTEOTW]

The quotes are already in play. Find them yourself if you are so interested.

In the end, we have a passage. You have quoted the whole paragraph at one time or another. Recently you have been quoting both halves together.

Patterson was asked about the first half and was given a specific interpretation which I have reproduced for you here.

Patterson responded by saying that he thought that the second half makes the meaning clear.

He then went on to specificially state that the interpretation presented to him was "correct" and the one from Sunderland was "wrong."

Now if you accept Patterson's own words that he meant only that you can not tell if a given fossil is directly ancestral to a living species or if it is from a closely related side branch, then we are done and we agree.

If you disgree with Patterson's own commentary on his own quote, then you need to tell us why Patterson cannot be believed to correctly tell us what he meant but that you can.

For that matter, why don't you give us a sentence or two summary of what you are telling us he meant that we can compare to the interpretation he called "correct."