Bogus Claims by Evols that Christians Misquote: A Test Case

[UTEOTW]

Bob

I told you. I do not frankly care whether you claim to have quoted him correctly or not.

If your intent was to quote him in his original intent, saying that you cannot tell the difference between a true ancestor and a closely related side branch, then fine. You are now in the camp of those who accept that transitional fossils exist.

If your intent was for the reader to take a different meaning, then you are not preserving the intent of the author and you are by definition GUILTY of quote mining.

I care not which choice you take. You are exposed either way.

 

[UTEOTW]

So, which is it?

Do you admit that you accept evolution?

Or do you admit that you were hoping the reader would take a different meaning than the author intended?

There is no false choice here, these are your only two choices.

And why do you refuse to present the full text of the petter from which the passage was lifted? What are you hiding?

 

[BobRyan]

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 "(HUGE HINT TO UTEOTW - THIS IS The quote I INCLUDED in the first letter from Patterson to Sunderland!!! GET IT??)... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

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

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

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

 

[UTEOTW]

So, Bob, which is it?

Do you agree with Patterson's intent in this passage to say that you cannot tell the difference between a direct ancestor and a closely related side branch? If so, I had my doubts, but it is good that you came around to the light and now accept evolution!

Or are you hoping the reader takes a different meaning away? In which case you are admitting that you have misquoted?

And will you ever provide the full text of the letter to Sunderland? Why not? What are you afraid of?

 

[BobRyan]

So, which is it?

Do you admit that you accept evolution?

WHY do you get so befuddled on simple obvious facts.

You do not need to BE AN ATHEIST DARWINIST to QUOTE ONE!!!

Why is this concept so difficult for you UTEOTW?

Or do you admit that you were hoping the reader would take a different meaning than the author intended?

Nope - I intend the read to see JUST what Patterson SAID!!!

Why is this concept so challenging for you UTEOTW?

Patterson IS AN ATHEIST DARWINIST UTEOTW -- get IT??

I am SHOWING where Patterson is intellectually HONEST enough to admit to facts where you are not -- get it?? Yet???

There is no false choice here,

these are simply incredibly obvious facts.

But I have to "assume" that you will claim that your atheist darwinist camp of believers are soooo befuddled that they too will not understand facts clearly stated.

How sad.

 

[BobRyan]

"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. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it . .

"[Stephen] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say that I should at least `show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record . . 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 favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science; there is no way of putting them to the test."—*Colin Patterson, Letter dated April 10, 1979, to Luther Sunderland, quoted in L.D. Sunderland Darwin's Enigma, p. 89.

 

[BobRyan]

When I state that PAtterson WOULD LIKE to have provided the requested EXAMPLE of transition - I merely ADMIT to the obvious fact in Patterson's OWN statement --

"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. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it . .

When I point out that the wild "story telling" that UTEOTW does is said by Patterson to be "STORIES EASY ENOUGH TO TELL but they are NOT SCIENCE" I am merely referring to Patterson's OWN STATEMENT --

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 favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science; there is no way of putting them to the test

 

[BobRyan]

Patterson claims he HAD NO transitional example to put in his book - I believe him.

Patterson claims HE WANTED one AND could really really USE one IF HE HAD IT - and I believe him.

Patterson claims that you CAN NOT use the fossil record to "MAKE UP STORIES" then pass it off as science -- I BELIEVE HIM.

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

By contrast to Patterson's intellectual honesty - we have UTEOTW!!!

UTEOTW claims that to ADMIT that he does not HAVE any examples to put in his book - that he is at a complete loss to provide one - is to CLAIM that PAtterson does not believe in evolutionism nor does he think a transitional will ever be found.

ON THE CONTRARY - "THERE IS NO GOD" is the FOUNDATION of atheist Darwinist FAITH - and it is EVER HOPEFUL in solving all inconvenient details and inconvenient facts by some future hopeful discovery!!

 

[BobRyan]

When I accuse UTEOTW of the wild fallacy "You must BE an atheist darwinist to QUOTE ONE" I am merely pointing to UTEOTW's extremist argument as stated here

Originally Posted by UTEOTW
So, which is it?

Do you admit that you accept evolution?

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob, this is not so difficult.

Patterson has given us commentary such that we know for sure what he meant. He meant that you cannot tell the difference between a direct ancestor and a closely related side branch.

If you want to accept this meaning, which we have him specifically calling "correct" then fine. You did not misquote him and we now know that you accept evolution.

If, however, you do not accept Patterson's own commentary and instead hope that the reader thinks that Patterson meant something other than what he intended, then you have, in reality, misquoted him because you are trying to get the reader to take something different away that what Patterson intended.

Either way, your goose is cooked.

 

[UTEOTW]

You have only two choices here.

You take Patterson's intended meaning and admit that you accept evolution.

Or you do not take his intended meaning and admit that you have misquoted him.

There is no third path no matter how many times you try and present the quote in a vacuum and ignore the commentary we have from Patterson on the quote. YOu know, the one where he calls the interpretation I give you "correct."

 

[UTEOTW]

And why do you continue to keep from us the full text of the letter to Sunderland?

What are you hiding?

 

[BobRyan]

Why do you continue a slanderous accusation WHILE HAVING NO PROOF!!??

Why ask ME to come up with MORE CONTEXT when the burden of PROOF is on the one that accuses???

Why not try and PROVE your accusation using the obvious points I have allready STRONGLY AFFIRMED in the case of PAtterson's quotes?

Why do you choose these fact-less point-less vaccous tactics in light of YOUR OWN selected test case for accusing me??

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, this is not so difficult.

Patterson has given us commentary such that we know for sure what he meant. He meant that you cannot tell the difference between a direct ancestor and a closely related side branch.

If you want to accept this meaning, which we have him specifically calling "correct" then fine. You did not misquote him and we now know that you accept evolution.

If, however, you do not accept Patterson's own commentary and instead hope that the reader thinks that Patterson meant something other

There is no "HOPING the reader THINKS Patterson MEANT something OTHER" in my post AT ALL!!

By your own confession here - Your entire line of slanderous accusation depends on YOU INSERTING words into MY POST that I DID NOT PLACE THERE!!

My argument is that the INCONVENIENT FACTS admitted to by Patterson are ALREADY demonstrates far more intellectual honesty than you have shown on this entire subject!!

My argument is that if EVEN in this CLEAR case you can not be trusted to be as intellectually honest as an ATHEIST DARWINIST then HOW IN THE WORLD could Christians here trust you to honestly debate LESS-certain topics that are centered in FAR MORE speculation!!??

My argument is that HE ALREADY HAD Archaeopteryx - to CHOOSE from as the PERFECT illustration of transition JUST AS YOU HAVE DONE!!

My argument is that this ATHEIST DARWINIST shows more intellectual honesty on this subject than many devotees to atheist darwinism - you being a good example of that on this board.

My argument is that your slanderous accusation against Christians quoting atheist darwinists - seems to INSIST one must BECOME an atheist darwinist in order to QUOTE ONE!!

My argument is that your slanderous accusation that Christians who quote atheist darwinists that expose the blunders, gaffs and flaws of atheist darwinist "story telling" -- are CLAIMING that those atheist darwinist icons are now creationists - is totally BOGUS!

 

[UTEOTW]

Why do you continue to refuse to let us see the full letter to Sunderland so we can see the context of the paragraph?

What are you hiding?

Is the context that devestating to the case you are attempting, but failing, to make?

 

[UTEOTW]

Why do you continue to avoid the salient point?

Your whole quote has one giant shortcoming. That shortcoming is that if you understand what Patterson is trying to say, you see that it is a quote IN FAVOR of evolution being true.

We even have his own commentary on what he meant.

His intended meaning in that paragraph was to say that you cannot tell the difference between a direct ancestor and a closely related side branch.

You try and spin this into some great admission but I'd bet that if asked most paleotologists would agree to this statement with regard to most fossils. There is no great admission or blunder or statement against evolution or the existance of transitional fossils.

In fact, the very statement implies that we do have intermediates, we just have a hard time telling which ones are directly ancestral.

Your ideas cannot allow for any sorts of intermediates AT ALL, directly ancestral or not.

We can see also his feelings on this by looking at other statements he has made. Do you remember this quote from Patterson I gave you many pages ago?

In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . .

It is quite clear that Patterson recognizes the existance of intermediates. But he defines a transitional as being directly ancestral. And since he does not know how to tell the difference between a directly ancestral fossil and one from a side branch, he is unable to say which fossils meat his definition of transitional without a doubt. The definition he is using is also more restrictive than that of the rest of biology where the intermediates are transitionals even if they lie on a side branch because they preserve important features of the actual lineage.

Why is this so hard for you to get?

Why can you not make a single coheerent argument to show that what I claim is false?

 

[UTEOTW]

So in the end you can decide for yourself if you have misquoted Patterson or not.

From his own commentary on the paragraph and from other statements he has made, it is quite clear that what he was claiming is that intermediates exist but that you cannot tell with certainty which are directly ancestral.

If you want to accept this meaning, great. I am glad you have come to accept that evolution happened.

If you wish to say that he meant something else, then that is your perogative, but it is untrue. In this case you are misquoting by asserting a meaning other than what the author intended.

It is really up to you. You can accept Patterson's intended meaning and thereby admit that you accept evolution.

Or you can assert a different meaning than Patterson intended and admit that you do not require the truth to be an essential part of your arguing style.

It really is up to you.

 

[UTEOTW]

In the end, one thing must be clear.

All you can give us are your own assertions about what you want the Patterson quote to mean.

On the other hand, I have his own commentary that says otherwise and I have statements from him from other times which shed light on his opinion on the matter.

You must ignore these clear statments. You have no basis at all for your opinion while my opinion is firmly rooted in fact.

Hmmm. Sounds like all of our discussions.

 

[BobRyan]

Why do you continue to refuse to let us see the full letter to Sunderland so we can see the context of the paragraph?

What are you hiding?

Is the context that devestating to the case you are attempting, but failing, to make?

You CLAIM that you can SHOW that I have misquoted Patterson - but then you demand that I GIVE YOU EVIDENCE to support your wild slanderous accusation.

how telling -- that you would 'slander first' and then seek facts "second"!!!

How "instructive" that this method is perfectly acceptable to the believers in atheist darwinism on this board!! (as you claim).

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In the end, one thing must be clear.

All you can give us are your own assertions about what you want the Patterson quote to mean.

On the other hand, I have his own commentary that says otherwise and I have statements from him from other times which shed light on his opinion on the matter.

You must ignore these clear statments. You have no basis at all for your opinion while my opinion is firmly rooted in fact.

Hmmm. Sounds like all of our discussions.

Oh good - NOW you claim to HAVE data that SHOWS "otherwise"!!

Finally you are back to your old FAILED ASSERTION again!!

Now SHOW my quote then SHOW where you HAVE actual FACTS that "SAYS OTHERWISE"...

Still floundering on that point UTEOTW????

How can that be? How can you STILL be struggling with that simple concept??

Bob