Bogus Claims by Evols that Christians Misquote: A Test Case

[BobRyan]

Let me guess - another quoteless factless post from UTEOTW showing no "evidence" at all for your wild claims!!

 

[BobRyan]

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

Hey! What a great IDEA!!

I am after all the only one posting here who actually HAS AN INTEREST in what the text YOU PICKED OUT - actually says!!

You just have an interest in talking to yourself and slandering without actual data to support your wild claims.

So on this thread dedicted TO YOUR selected test case - it is only right THAT I BE THE ONE that is intellectually honest about actually GOING TO THE TEXT and pointing out the facts -- not you!!

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]

All the needed quotes are already in play.

I am not going to hold your hand and lead you through it again.

You simply need to tell us why we should not believe Patterson's own commentary on his own quote.

 

[UTEOTW]

I guess you think that if you spew enough words that no one will notice that you are merely hand waving.

Well, you are not going to distract me.

You are not being honest with the Patterson quote and you know it.

He has told us that the interpretation I gave you was "correct" and the one from Sunderland, your source, was "wrong."

You cannot get around that most inconvenient fact and so you hope that enough words will distract from the truth.

It will not.

You are exposed lying about what someone meant in the face of his own commentary on the quote.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Wrong!

You are the one making the accusation.

YOU are the one that has to COME UP WITH EVIDENCE to support your wild claims that I misquoted Patterson!!

It does not matter that we BOTH agree that Patterson REMAINS an evolutionist - and in fact remained an atheist darwinist.

The point is that you made a false accusation - outright slander and you picked THIS as the test case to SHOW your point!

Having failed to show it - you are left with the confession that you are doing nothing but slandering.

The grounds/conditions/context of this thread are incredibly easy to see, read, understand.

It has GOT to be embarrassing for you to have to keep pretending not to get the point.

 

[BobRyan]

You are exposed lying about what someone meant in the face of his own commentary on the quote.

This is NOT an atheist darwinist argument where you can just "make stuff up" and tell yourself you must have data some place if only you could find it.

This is a VERY SIMPLE and obvious test case SELECTED BY YOU where all you have to do with your points is SHOW IN THE TEXT that you HAVE ONE!!

WHy do you fear these "full light of day" methods so much?

Why do you continually go back to quoteless, factless, pointless slander?

 

[UTEOTW]

Nothingmade up.

YOu have given us the text.

I have given us the text.

I have also given you where Pattterson says that the interpretation that I give you is "correct" and the one from your source, Sunderland, is "wrong."

Why do you keep falsely insisting that you can better interpret Patterson than Patterson?

 

[BobRyan]

You have an interesting way of running out of steam when you are at a loss to make a point.

So -- for the unnanswered post (one of many)

Quote:UTEOTW
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.

Wrong!

You are the one making the accusation.

YOU are the one that has to COME UP WITH EVIDENCE to support your wild claims that I misquoted Patterson!!

It does not matter that we BOTH agree that Patterson REMAINS an evolutionist - and in fact remained an atheist darwinist.

The point is that you made a false accusation - outright slander and you picked THIS as the test case to SHOW your point!

Having failed to show it - you are left with the confession that you are doing nothing but slandering.

The grounds/conditions/context of this thread are incredibly easy to see, read, understand.

It has GOT to be embarrassing for you to have to keep pretending not to get the point.

 

[UTEOTW]

I have shown it.

I have shown you the interpretation presented to Patterson.

I have shown you where he calls it "correct."

I have shown you where he calls the interpretation of your source, Sunderland, "wrong."

How much more clear could it be?

Is it delusion or dishonesty that prevents you from accepting this?

 

[BobRyan]

Meanwhile - while UTEOTW is still casting about him trying to find a FACT based argument to make from HIS OWN SELECTED source -- I will repeat the actdual POINT 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!

---------------------------------------

And of course UTEOTW will come back with a

"I did it at one time - I am sure I did something substantive some place I just won't post anything substantive now" post.

oh well!

 

[BobRyan]

Question - WHY do I get to keep making the unanswered post "repeats"?

Because UTEOTW keeps CLAIMING he is NOT answering - just claiming that at some unknown point in the past he did something significant!!

How "hepful" - how "inviting".

---------------------------------

You have an interesting way of running out of steam when you are at a loss to make a point.

So -- for the unnanswered post (one of many)

Quote:UTEOTW
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.

Wrong!

You are the one making the accusation.

YOU are the one that has to COME UP WITH EVIDENCE to support your wild claims that I misquoted Patterson!!

It does not matter that we BOTH agree that Patterson REMAINS an evolutionist - and in fact remained an atheist darwinist.

The point is that you made a false accusation - outright slander and you picked THIS as the test case to SHOW your point!

Having failed to show it - you are left with the confession that you are doing nothing but slandering.

The grounds/conditions/context of this thread are incredibly easy to see, read, understand.

It has GOT to be embarrassing for you to have to keep pretending not to get the point.

---------------------------------------

And of course UTEOTW will come back with a factless, pointless, quoteless post of the form

"I did it at one time - I am sure I did something substantive some place I just won't post anything substantive now" post.

oh well!

 

[UTEOTW]

You are too lazy to look back a page to what I posted yesterday.

Fine.

Here we go again.

Theunissen was the one who asked Patterson about the quote.

Patterson called Theunissen's interpretation "correct."

Patterson called the creationists' interpretation "wrong."

This was Theunissen's interpretation.

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.

 

[UTEOTW]

Since you are asking for quotes...

Could you please direct us to where we can read the full text of the letter to Sunderland that you are quoting?

Context might be expected to shed light.

Where is the full text?

-------------------------

Let me make a prediction.

The full text does not exist publically?

Why? Perhaps the full text would shed too much light on the dishonesty of the quote as presented.

 

[BobRyan]

Hey no fair UTEOTW - you READ something!! (Your own post in this case)

So here is MY post given shortly after YOURs -- you know the one you are STILL not answering (among the many you default on)
-------------------------------------------------
UTEOTW actually stumbles onto a quote - just NOT a quote of PATTERSON!!

UTEOTW

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]

Since you are asking for quotes...

Could you please direct us to where we can read the full text of the letter to Sunderland that you are quoting?

Context might be expected to shed light.

Where is the full text?

Hint start READING the post I put on here and responding to them.

Hint start CLICKING ON the LINKS I give you to your OWN material!!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=819744&postcount=43

That quote starts with this intro --

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. ​

That one (repeated maybe a zillion times) would be a good start.

Because IN THAT ONE you will find the Talk Origin SOURCE that is written by your own selected Christian-basher.

Why be affraid of YOUR OWN guys!!???

Your fact-challenged gloss over seems to have no limit EVEN when it comes to YOUR OWN sources!!

 

[BobRyan]

Since we are on the topic of actually "going to these links".

Meanwhile - while UTEOTW is still casting about him trying to find a FACT based argument to make from HIS OWN SELECTED source -- I will repeat the actdual POINT 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!

---------------------------------------

And of course UTEOTW will come back with a

"I did it at one time - I am sure I did something substantive some place I just won't post anything substantive now" post.

oh well!

 

[UTEOTW]

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!!

Oh Bob. You are so evasive.

I showed in my last post the opinion which Patterson called "correct." Do you remember?

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.

This is the interpretation to which Patterson agrees.

Now I also asked you to set down for us in a sentence or two what it is you claim this quote to mean. Remember?

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."

If your interpretation is the same as that Patterson called "correct" then you have nothing to go on.

If you are giving some other meaning, then it is not what Patterson called "correct."

Why don't you set out what you think it means in a sentence or two and we will compare that to the interpretation to which Patterson agreed.

 

[BobRyan]

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."
​

This point is incredibly simple and easy to get UTEOTW - why do you pretend not to understand for month after month after month??

You have NO QUOTE OF ME - making ANY claims about Patterson's OWN BELIEFS that are NOT true!!

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!!

Obviously.

So lacking that - you are stuck "making stuff up".

Obviously.

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!!

In the quote above we SEE PATTERSON's statement and we see HIS views being "used" by the author of the quote.

What we DO NOT see is ME claiming that Patterson IS NOT an Evolutionist or does not believe that evolutionism is correct!!

We ALSO do not see a quote of ME misquoting Patterson even REMOTELY!!

And yet - this simple concept of "fact" and "truth" is so far beyond UTEOTW's comfort zone that he refuses to address it!!

Given this glaring fact -- WHY IN THE WORLD would ANYONE be engaging UTEOTW on farrrrrr more speculative grounds when even this simple, direct EASY fact-filled context is not to be dealt with honestly and directly by UTEOTW?

In Christ,

Bob
​

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
This is the interpretation to which Patterson agrees.

Now I also asked you to set down for us in a sentence or two what it is you claim this quote to mean. Remember?

..

If your interpretation is the same as that Patterson called "correct" then you have nothing to go on.

If you are giving some other meaning, then it is not what Patterson called "correct."

Why don't you set out what you think it means in a sentence or two and we will compare that to the interpretation to which Patterson agreed.

Let me just say that in your method above you propose a good format for testing my views and my use of PAtterson in the future.

But the PROBLEM is that on THIS thread you ALREADY claimed my PAST USE as documented ON THE THREAD is already SHOWN to misquote Patterson!!

Get it???

The WHOLE POINT is that your OWN slanderous claim was BASED on having NO EXAMPLE of a failing on my part at all!!

AND NOW -- this LATE in the exchange you ask for some evidence that you might base your accusations on after having insisted time after time ALREADY that MY STATEMENTS were being explicitly denounced by PAtterson!! NOW after all this you ADMIT you actually have NO such examples to base our accusations on?!!

This speaks volumes.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since UTEOTW seems to need some help -- HERE is a good example - (going back to UTEOTW's first pont of accusation against me- where I DO quote Patterson and SHOW my view of his text)

------------------------------------------

Here is my first quote of Patterson in the SAME thread where UTEOTW attempts to claim I have misquoted Patterson.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=784211&postcount=65
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 confesses 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.