Bogus Claims by Evols that Christians Misquote: A Test Case

[BobRyan]

typical "revisionist UTEOTW" !! How predictable!

UTEOTW
Although I am not sure what more I need that Patterson saying that the creationist interpretation of his comments are "wrong."

Hint: Try SHOWING what the quote IS that Patterson is objecting too - before accusing ME of having posted it!

Hint: Try some other "tactic" than the pathetic argument where you claim that if Patterson complains about ANYTHING then EVERY quote of him must be in error!

It is UTEOTW that CHOSE to select the Patterson letter and CHOSE to issue a hollow accusation that it was a reference to quotes I used for Patterson.

It is UTEOTW that CHOSE that empty hollow - vaccuous unsupported "claim".

Now it is UTEOTW that is running away from HIS OWN initiative to rant and rail in the form of bogus accusations specific to Patterson!

How surprising.

However as UTEOTW seems to indicate - the REASON he flees HIS OWN test case using Patterson as a base to slander - is that HE HAS NO IDEA about the quote that Patterson was ACTUALLY complaining about - he only has the "fix" that Patterson suggested for the UNKNOWN (to UTEOTW) quote!

Why doesn't UTEOTW just ADMIT that he does not HAVE the offending "quote" that Patterson was complaining about IN the Patterson letter?

Why doesn't UTEOTW just admit that while NOT HAVING IT - he simply chose to ACCUSE and slander "anyway"??

This is so obvious -

Come on UTEOTW - time to start working your way OUT of one of the holes you have been digging for yourself.

(Oh yeah - and you should probably do some work on that other Simpson thread regarding misquotes where you were shown to contradict Simpson IN DETAIL), Still waiting for you actually "address the point" over there JUST like we wait for you to address YOUR OWN initiative using Patterson HERE!.

Watching the imaginative ways you find to gloss over details and avoid a direct reponse is also entertaining though - so please don't see this as all bad.

 

[UTEOTW]

Hint: Try SHOWING what the quote IS that Patterson is objecting too - before accusing ME of having posted it!

Already done. How soon you forget.

Now on the other thread, you one day decided to start posting a bunch of quotes. Your first batch of quotes included a couple from Patterson. Let's refresh your memory.

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

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 no way of answering the question.

and immediately following

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 a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (as quoted in Sunderland, 1988, p. 102).

I find it strange that you take one passage and break it into two different quotes. I, as well, find it strange that for the first quote you actually quote someone quoting Patterson instead of just quoting Patterson yourself. It seems a bit sloppy, but I suppose you can make your case your own way.

Now a gentleman named Lionel Theunissen actually wrote to Patterson to ask if he had been quoted correctly.

Patterson's answer gets to the heart of our debate. He says that he has been quoted "exactly," to use your favorite turn of phrase, but that the context and the interpretation presented by Sunderland are incorrect. Here is how Patterson phrased it himself.

Dear Mr Theunissen,

Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."


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


[snip discussion of another run in with YEers since last time you seemed to get the two incidents confused]


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

You will see that both of your quotes are part of the passage to which Patterson refers. You will in addition see that he says directly that the interpretation that you are trying to give is "wrong."

I do not know how much more clear a case can be than to have the author you are quoting recite your quote and then declare you to be "wrong." If you will not believe the man himself when he says you have quoted him incorrectly then you have a problem.

And just what was the interpretation of Theunissen that Patterson calls "correct?" I'll let him give it himself.

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 interpretation of Patterson, which I have given you in the past in my own words, Patterson calls "correct."

So we have Patterson reciting your exact quote, calling it "wrong," and calling the interpretation I have always given you "correct."

Do you think that you can make an alternate case that you really are the one preserving the intent and opinion of Patterson?

Only if you can find him somewhere directly rejecting his own words here.

 

[UTEOTW]

Let's look at some other things that Patterson has said to ensure everyone that I am the one correctly representing his opinion here.

I came across another place where Patterson refers to being taken out of context and makes his opinion clear. Both of the following quotes are from Patterson's book Evolution, 2nd edition. Emphasis is added.

Because creationists lack scientific research or evidence to support such theories as a young earth (10,000 years old), a world-wide flood (Noah's), and separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. When I published the first edition of this book I was hardly aware of creationism but, during the 1980s, like many other biologists I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context.

from page 122. And from the next page.

I see the general historical theory, common descent, as being as firmly established as just about anything else in history. We have compelling reasons to believe that Napoleon and the Roman empire existed, although we don't know every detail of what went on in Napoleon's life or in Rome and its colonies; it is much the same with evolution. There is abundant documentary evidence for Napoleon and the Roman empire; there is abundant evidence for common descent in the hierarchy of homologies at both the structural and morphological level, though those documents may not be so easy to read.

And from page 120.

...today's theory of evolution is unlikely to be the whole truth. It is essential to keep in mind the distinction between the general theory -- evolution has occurred and species are related by descent -- and theories of mechanism -- natural selection, neutralism, etc. Today's theory, accepting that evolution has occurred and explaining it by neo-Darwinism plus neutralism, is the best that we have. It is a fruitful theory, a stimulus to thought and research, and we should accept it until nature prompts someone to think of one that is better or more complete.

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. . .

that was from Dr. Patterson's book "Evolution" (1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.).

There should now be no doubt of Patterson's original intent as we have his own words on what he thinks of the various interpretations and we can see from these quotes from other locations what his general opinion is in the matter.

 

[BobRyan]

Glad to see that UTEOTW has finally decided to give some attention to the bogus claims he has made about Patterson.

Since this was HIS idea - HE should at least show some interest -- and finally on page 3 "he does".

Bravo!!

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
Hint: Try SHOWING what the quote IS that Patterson is objecting too - before accusing ME of having posted it!

UTEOTW
Already done. How soon you forget.

If "only" that were TRUE!

(Now that I think of it - you have been having a problem with that consistently when it comes to your belief in evolutionism 'anyway' )

Accurate quotes from Bob
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...1&postcount=65

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 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 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).

UTEOTW
I find it strange that you take one passage and break it into two different quotes. I, as well, find it strange that for the first quote you actually quote someone quoting Patterson instead of just quoting Patterson yourself.

In my post it is ONE quote - but this new website frequently takes a single quote and splits it into two or three quotes.

I have not found a way around it so far.

Now a gentleman named Lionel Theunissen actually wrote to Patterson to ask if he had been quoted correctly.

Patterson's answer is "yes" that it is his own words in exact detail but not in exhuastive content. THEN Patterson ADDS the part that is NOT included in the quote that he is being asked about. The part that he WOULD have wished had beein included ALONG WITH the accurate quote ALREADY given.

But in your presentation you DO NOT SHOW the original segment quote that Patterson is complaining about - you only show that ADDITION that HE insists had been ADDED.

Kind of curious that you are not quoting the BAD quote that he complains about - and only quoting the ADDITION he is insisting should have been ALSO INCLUDED in that quote!

Get it?

Yet?

Patterson's answer gets to the heart of our debate. He says that he has been quoted "exactly," to use your favorite turn of phrase, but that the context and the interpretation presented by Sunderland are incorrect.

Hmm "He says the CONTEXT" is wrong??? Where does he claim that the CONTEXT (in terms of MEANING in his quote) is wrong?

Rather he claims that the CONCLUSION that the author draws is not one that Patterson would make - but where is the "text CONTEXT" challenged?

When I expose your bogus contradiction of your own atheist darwinist icons showing that was they claim is "ALL WRONG" you claim has "Nothing fundamentally wrong with it" - I SHOW your meaning and I SHOW theirs - but I DO NOT come to the same conclusion as you do because "Nothing fundamentally wrong with" IS your conclusion.j

Your attempts to make the bogus argument that one must ALSO CONCLUDE as do atheist darwinists to ever QUOTE them - dies in its infancy - - who do you expect to believe you in such a bogus fallacy?

Patterson
Dear Mr Theunissen,

Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes.

The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
..
I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct,
...
Yours Sincerely,
[signed]
Colin Patterson

You will see that the CONTINUATION of the quote is what Patterson DEFENDS!

You will see that the INITIAL quote that is BEING CONTINUED is NOT included in what you posted.

You will see that the CONTINUATION that Patterson is arguing FOR is the text that that I POST as coming from Patterson!!

So how is it that you can then innexplicably and without any appeal to reason or logic at all -- you would post THIS!???

UTEOTW

You will see that both of your quotes are part of the passage to which Patterson refers. You will in addition see that he says directly that the interpretation that you are trying to give is "wrong."

What possess you to be so fact intolerant??

 

[BobRyan]

Your fallacious statements of the form "If PAtterson is ever quoted by Creationists then it MUST be wrong" is totally without merit -- and this has been shown in the failing that you give even in this simple case above where Patterson is ARGUING FOR The continued text HE gives - and you argue AGAINST my use of it!!

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

I don't know how much more clear it can be.

Patterson recites the very words that you quoted and then in the next breath proclaims the interpretation you have given of those words as "wrong" and the interpretation I have given you as "correct."

I do not know what your problem is here. I don't know if you you are simply so far deluded that you cannot see or if you are pathological or if you just have the blinders on so tightly that the blood flow is cut off.

I quote you and provide a link to where you made the quote.

I then quote the author himself. Recites the exact words you quoted. He says that your interpretation is wrong.

I give you the text of the interpretation of the person asking about the quote. The interpretation is the same as I have been giving you for years. The author says that this interpretation is "correct."

It is an open and shut case.

That you would argue against the author's statement about the quote leaves me with a profound sense of disappointment in humanity. You claim to be a Christian, and I am not going to doubt you. We are supposed to be changed people. And yet... And yet you are so blinded or deluded or perhaps even dishonest that you would tell someone that he is unable to provide the correct meaning behind his own statement.

I just don't know how this happens. It is disturbing to me. We are supposed to be better and this is what I see. This is very sad.

But it is obvious that you are too deep to be reasoned with. If the words of the man himself doesn't persuade you, then nothing I can say will.

I am through with this thread. Spread the lies that you wish. Do the harm to the credibility of Christianity that you feel that you must. You are beyond reason. I pity you that you could come to such a state of delusion ... or worse.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob

I don't know how much more clear it can be.

Patterson recites the very words that you quoted and then in the next breath proclaims the interpretation you have given of those words as "wrong" and the interpretation I have given you as "correct."

I don't know how many more ways I can expose your blunder so obviously made here.


I have HIGHLIGHTED that TEXT IN BLUE SHOWING that PAtterson LIKES his own quote and HAVE SHOWN IN RED where HE says that emphasis on the CONTINUED text - TEXT THAT HE PROVIDES in the letter is where he makes his case FOR his own view.

I SHOW that it is the CONTINUED text that he favors and the PREVIOUS quote that he opposes EVEN though he admits that BOTH are HIS OWN!

I then SHOW that it is the CONTINUED text - that HE favors - that I QUOTE!!

How much more obvious can this BE!!!???

If you were not so adverse to actually quoting the "Details" in what you object to -- even YOU could see this obvious point!

But of course I KNOW why your faile so catestrophically in what Patterson has said - it is because YOU OBJECT to the text HE PROMOTES!!

You look at HIS CONTINUED quote that HE is promoting and you say "Hey wait a minute I don't like that text EITHER"!!

And in your mind you can not IMAGINE in your wildest dreams what quote came BEFORE that continued text that Patterson seeks to HIGHLIGHT - that could possibly be WORSE for the cult of evolutionism than the CONTINUED TEXT Patterson asks us to look at "instead".

I know this is your problem -- and I truly can not blame you since BOTH QUOTEs are in fact pretty devastating to the cult of evolutionism.

That is why I have been so happy to focus on the one that Patterson admits to being his OWN PREFERENCE!!

And that is why you have been so befuddled and fact-intolerant when it comes to Patterson's own letter!

How sad for you UTEOTW!

How transparent and obvious to all.

UTEOTW

I then quote the author himself. Recites the exact words you quoted. He says that your interpretation is wrong.

If only THAT were true.

YOU do show that the "CONTINUED QUOTE" that Patterson points to IS the one I am using but then you pretend to fail to comprehend the text of his letter WHERE HE says that it is that CONTINUED TEXT that he claims DOES SHOW his view accurately!

How can you keep ignoring the key salient details in every example given??!!

It is an open and shut case.

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW why can you not read this simple text with comprehension???!!

The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
..
I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct,

How can you possibly FAIL to see Patterson's ENDORSEMENT of what HE calls the "Continuation of the passage"???!!!

 

[BobRyan]

This thread is also begging for a "lessons learned" post.

#1. You will notice that UTEOTW is more than happy to make the same empty vaccuous accusation time after time -- that Patterson has actually SELECTED an exact quote (his OWN words) as "bad" - and that Patterson condemns anyone that would DARE quote him if that someone is a Bible believing Christian!

#2. In fact I SHOW that the only QUOTE that UTEOTW is SHOWING Patterson to "REFERENCE" is a short segment of text (from a much larger quote that UTEOTW is not providing AT ALL). That short segment of text is what Patterson SUPPORTS and PROMOTES and wants everyone to focus on INSTEAD of that much LARGER quote of Patterson that Patterson would like us to "ignore".

The problem with using this tactic -- is that I HAVE BEEN ignoring that LARGE quote and I have been primarily confining my use of Patterson to that SHORT text that EVEN UTEOTW's snippet of PAtterson's letter shows Patterson to be ENDORSING.

 

[BobRyan]

Let the objective thinking reader take note!

UTEOTW posts this for us all to read -
Quote:

Dear Mr Theunissen,
Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues

"... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

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

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst 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 [b]I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule. [/b]

Yours Sincerely,

[signed]

Colin Patterson

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=787688&postcount=120

#1. It is obvious that Patterson FAVORS the "continuation of the quote" that HE gives in the text above!

#2. It is obvious that while we do have a snippet in the letter that shows "the continuation" we do not see "the initial quote" that Patterson is nervous about which is sooooo disturbing that "the continuation" is viewed by Patterson as a great "improvement" on his argument.

#2. But it is also SURPRISING when you look at the "content" of that "continuation" - because IT is admitting to STORY TELLING that is "not science" among evolutionists!!

How in the world could that confession of yet another blunder so central to evolutionist cults be "A good thing" one has to ask!!

The answer is -- you should have SEEN THE QUOTE (the EXACT QUOTE that is "CORRECT as far as it goes" that Patterson is complaingint about!!)

That is THE POINT in my responses. The UNNAMED quote that Patterson complains about in the letter and compared to which the "continuation" is so much "to be preferred" IS THE WHOLE POINT!!

Where is that dreaded quote in all of this??!!

Hint: UTEOTW does not ever provide !!

 

[BobRyan]

Patterson clearly favors the "continuation of the passage" -- but -- "What is THE PASSAGE"???

Patterson
The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
..
I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct,

I think I have it.

 

[BobRyan]

Here we see true believers in atheist darwinism climbing wayyyy out on a limb -- they totally get confused on one of Colin Patterson's quotes to the point that they have no CLUE as to what part of the Quote that Patterson likes and what part he is complaining about. (Though Patterson ADMITS that BOTH quotes are EXACTLY accurate!).

But in this sad case the Evolutionist UTEOTW becomes so confused he can not tell the part of the Patterson's OWN quote that PAtterson is ENDORSING vs the part he is complaining about??!!

How sad that in their endless rants against Bible believing Christians the "believers" in atheist darwinism seem to consitently fumble when it comes to "facts"!

 

[BobRyan]

Dear reader -- on the ID vs TE evolutionist thread UTEOTW appears to claim that he not read with comprehension the details highlighted on this page IN RED for him.

how sad that he must flee HIS OWN test case!!

 

[BobRyan]

Since UTE has offerred to think about his own initiative HERE in making this case about Patterson - (on the thread about TE vs ID) I am posting his point here --

UTEOTW on the TE vs ID thread

I am not afraid of anything on that thread.

Let's examine the facts, again. Maybe you can tell me which one of these steps you find to be false and why.

Patterson wrote a paragraph.

Sunderland quoted a couple of sentences from that paragraph.

Bob sometimes quotes the exact same sentences and Sunderland, including adding "as quoted by Sunderland" to the end. Some times Bob quotes the next couple of sentences of the paragraph.

Sunderland gave an interpretation of the quote. Bob gives the same interpretation of the quote.

Someone wrote to Patterson and asked him about the Sunderland quote and gave what he thought Patterson meant which happens to be the same interpretation that I give you for the passage.

Patterson wrote back saying that he had said that and gave the rest of the paragraph to complete the passage. So now Patterson is addressing both halves of the paragraph which you quote.

Patterson said that the the creationists interpretation is "wrong."

Patterson said that the interpretation which I have given you is "correct."

Now, how hard is that to see? Patterson himself has addressed your quote and declared the spin you try to give as "wrong."

Would you have us believe that you are better at interpreting Patterson than Patterson himself? YOu have completely deluded yourself and provide us an excellent example of the moral dangers of YEism.

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
Patterson wrote a paragraph.

Sunderland quoted a couple of sentences from that paragraph.

Bob sometimes quotes the exact same sentences and Sunderland, including adding "as quoted by Sunderland" to the end. Some times Bob quotes the next couple of sentences of the paragraph.

You did well.

Now lets actualy LOOK at what was said so that we SEE the part that Patterson ENDORSED as "representing HIS VIEWS".

(BTW it IS strange that Patterson would say that HIS OWN words DID NOT represent HIS views - but that is another story)

Are willing "yet" to actually LOOK at the text??

Come on this should not that intimidating for you UTEOTW - it is your OWN selected example!!

You should be HAPPY to review it!

 

[BobRyan]

Patterson wrote back saying that he had said that and gave the rest of the paragraph to complete the passage. So now Patterson is addressing both halves of the paragraph which you quote.

#1. Patterson provides a few more sentences of a VERY LARGE quote and says that it is THAT part of HIS OWN WORDS that he claims most CLEARLY convey HIS OWN idea!!

What part of that is so difficult for you UTEOTW.

#2. THAT is the part I keep quoting!!

How is this MISQUOTING when I take Patterson's OWN PREFERRED section of HIS OWN words (how he DOES NOT prefer other sections of HIS OWN words is another story that will be added here).

#3. Then your "bend and twist" and "Gloss over" of the details to the absurd point of "PAtterson says he is talking about Bob's quote of him" is totally without merit.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Patterson clearly favors the "continuation of the passage" -- but -- "What is THE PASSAGE"???

Patterson
The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
..
I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct,

BTW - UTEOTW since Patterson is ONLY quoting the PREFERRED section - would you care to post the "must be avoided" words of Patterson that he is hoping to avoid?

Would you care to explain what Patterson means by "I think the CONTINUATION of the PASSAGE SHOWS" -- what CONTINUATION and WHAT does IT (those ACTUAL words of Patterson IN the continuation) SHOW?

 

[BobRyan]

In other words - can you still make your baseless accusation AND pay attention to the DETAILS in that quote?

 

[BobRyan]

After I point out IN BOLD and colored highight that Patterson is ENDORSING HIS OWN WORDS in the very area that I Quote him -- I ALSO add here on this thread

Quote:
You completely ignored the text of YOUR OWN quote. I highlighted in the MANY colors of the rainbow the text where Patterson HIMSELF endorsed HIS OWN WORDS and then showed that the VERY part he was PROMOTING was the part I quoted.

UTEOTW
And I am still at a loss as to why you would wish to highlight those sections.

If you were not so married to vaccuous arguments and glossing over "inconvenient details" you would have seen this long ago.

The only reason you are "in the dark STILL" on your OWN selected illustration is your die-hard aversion to facts when those facts destroy your own transparently flimsy arguments.

Your own Patterson quote is a perfect illustration of your blunder in this area - which is why you keep running from that thread.

Patterson ENDORSES the very part of HIS OWN QUOTE that I am quoting in the thread!!

Get it??

Yet??!!