-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Bogus Claims by Evols that Christians Misquote: A Test Case
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
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.
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”
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!).
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
In the actual article above BOTH the “problem quote” and the “ideal quote” are given. Obviously.
This key salient point is completely lost on UTEOTW (as are all key facts and details in almost every discussion he has engaged in here)
Here is a link that references my use of Patterson’s “continuation” showing it is the very part HE explicitly endorses that I am quoting.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=793280&postcount=16
But this “inconvenient detail” is completely lost on UTEOTW.
This key salient point is completely lost on UTEOTW (as are all key facts and details in almost every discussion he has engaged in here)
Here is a link that references my use of Patterson’s “continuation” showing it is the very part HE explicitly endorses that I am quoting.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=793280&postcount=16
But this “inconvenient detail” is completely lost on UTEOTW.
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Notice in the letter UTEOTW posts - it is Lionel Theunissen that is writing.
Notice in the link I gave above it is Lionel Theunissen that is writing and giving us the full details on the "bad quote" and its use by Sunderland - it is the "bad quote" that he is asking about and the RECOMMENDED and PREFERRED quote is what Patterson gives in response.
This is obvious from the post above - even to a child.
That means that when UTEOTW runs away from this thread and glosses over EVERY DETAIL LISTED - he is fully exposed EVEN to children!!
Notice in the link I gave above it is Lionel Theunissen that is writing and giving us the full details on the "bad quote" and its use by Sunderland - it is the "bad quote" that he is asking about and the RECOMMENDED and PREFERRED quote is what Patterson gives in response.
This is obvious from the post above - even to a child.
That means that when UTEOTW runs away from this thread and glosses over EVERY DETAIL LISTED - he is fully exposed EVEN to children!!
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Here we have UTEOTW falling back on his failed argument and repeating his totally debunked claims "again" INSTEAD of answering the devastating points raised on the last three PAGES of this thread - against his wild claims.
Since he continually RUNS AWAY from this thread where the TALK ORIGINS context IS provided BY ME for his case -- I will DRAG him back to this thread - posting HIS bogus argument "again"
This was recently posted by UTEOTW in a shallow attempt to derail another thread - so I place it here for full review.
Since he continually RUNS AWAY from this thread where the TALK ORIGINS context IS provided BY ME for his case -- I will DRAG him back to this thread - posting HIS bogus argument "again"
This was recently posted by UTEOTW in a shallow attempt to derail another thread - so I place it here for full review.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Question for the reader:
"What child can not see that the vaccuous REPEAT offered by UTEOTW does not BEGIN to address the devastating points made from Talk Origins?"
HERE -
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=819744&postcount=43
What am I missing?
UTEOTW provides NO example of me quoting and or "Misquoting" patterson. RAther UTEOTW PRETENDS not to understand the simple scenario that TALK ORIGINS presents in the LINK shown above -- 3 posts UP!!
How in the world can atheist darwinists settle for such devastating blunders??!!
"What child can not see that the vaccuous REPEAT offered by UTEOTW does not BEGIN to address the devastating points made from Talk Origins?"
HERE -
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=819744&postcount=43
What am I missing?
UTEOTW provides NO example of me quoting and or "Misquoting" patterson. RAther UTEOTW PRETENDS not to understand the simple scenario that TALK ORIGINS presents in the LINK shown above -- 3 posts UP!!
How in the world can atheist darwinists settle for such devastating blunders??!!
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Patterson gives two very exposing, very honest, very frank statements about the extreme limits of the "data" (the pausity of the data) in support of atheist darwinist doctrines.
See them -- HERE - "again" and "again"
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...4&postcount=43
Statement A -
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."
-- Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.
Statement B - which is in fact merely a "continuation of A"
The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
Both of these statements show embarrasing limist, gaffs, blunders and flaws in the classic arguments of devotees to the cult of atheist darwinism. But the snippet of statement A "alone" makes it appear that Patterson finds no data at all to support the myths and doctrines of the cult - while statement B leaves the door open while sharply criticising the intellectual dishonesty of many of the cultists involved with atheist darwinism who "tell stories" as IF those stories are "science" when "they are not"!!
UTEOTW (in his typical gloss over of all salient detail in any given illustration) simply turns a blind eye to the ENTIRE DISCUSSION and then concludes in effect - "ANY reference to Patterson that does not reflect posititvely on all members of the cult must be a bad quote".
This shallow transparently pathetic approach being used by UTEOTW merely shows how steeped he IS in the blunders, gaffs and flaws of the very devotees that Patterson is criticising in his ORIGINAL statement.
Fortunately (even for the children reading this thread) -- UTEOTW is insistent that we keep going back and looking at these details while HE glosses over them!!
See them -- HERE - "again" and "again"
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...4&postcount=43
Statement A -
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."
-- Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.
Statement B - which is in fact merely a "continuation of A"
The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
Both of these statements show embarrasing limist, gaffs, blunders and flaws in the classic arguments of devotees to the cult of atheist darwinism. But the snippet of statement A "alone" makes it appear that Patterson finds no data at all to support the myths and doctrines of the cult - while statement B leaves the door open while sharply criticising the intellectual dishonesty of many of the cultists involved with atheist darwinism who "tell stories" as IF those stories are "science" when "they are not"!!
UTEOTW (in his typical gloss over of all salient detail in any given illustration) simply turns a blind eye to the ENTIRE DISCUSSION and then concludes in effect - "ANY reference to Patterson that does not reflect posititvely on all members of the cult must be a bad quote".
This shallow transparently pathetic approach being used by UTEOTW merely shows how steeped he IS in the blunders, gaffs and flaws of the very devotees that Patterson is criticising in his ORIGINAL statement.
Fortunately (even for the children reading this thread) -- UTEOTW is insistent that we keep going back and looking at these details while HE glosses over them!!
Bob
I am at a loss to understand why you are so eager to continue to highlight your deceptions on this topic. You even made the mistake of copying my clearly laid out outline of your mistake over here.
The key issue here is what Patterson says he meant and not what Bob says he meant. You do not seem to understand that.
You cannot just keep repeating the quote and giving your own interpretation and ignoring that Patterson himself said that he meant something different.
Patterson's intended meaning is that for any particular fossil, you can never know whether it is a direct ancestor of another fossil or extant animal, or if it is merely a closely related side branch.
Patterson explicitly calls this interpretation "correct." He explicitly calls the one you are trying to give "wrong."
Now you might could make a case that he is not a good writer and that his meaning is not as clear as he seems to think that it is.
But you cannot honestly deny him when he tells you in no uncertain terms that he did not mean what you are claiming.
Surely you are not so delusional to miss this.
I am at a loss to understand why you are so eager to continue to highlight your deceptions on this topic. You even made the mistake of copying my clearly laid out outline of your mistake over here.
The key issue here is what Patterson says he meant and not what Bob says he meant. You do not seem to understand that.
You cannot just keep repeating the quote and giving your own interpretation and ignoring that Patterson himself said that he meant something different.
Patterson's intended meaning is that for any particular fossil, you can never know whether it is a direct ancestor of another fossil or extant animal, or if it is merely a closely related side branch.
Patterson explicitly calls this interpretation "correct." He explicitly calls the one you are trying to give "wrong."
Now you might could make a case that he is not a good writer and that his meaning is not as clear as he seems to think that it is.
But you cannot honestly deny him when he tells you in no uncertain terms that he did not mean what you are claiming.
Surely you are not so delusional to miss this.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Hey you're back on this thread - devoted to YOUR OWN selected example of my misquote of Patterson.
I congratulate you on being willing to come here.
If your argument is as "Solid" as you claim - then you could not have ASKED for a more perfect setup.
So go ahead - feel free to START paying attention to details - START to respond to the points raised on this page!
Begin - at any time - I am ready -- GO AHEAD!!
I congratulate you on being willing to come here.
If your argument is as "Solid" as you claim - then you could not have ASKED for a more perfect setup.
So go ahead - feel free to START paying attention to details - START to respond to the points raised on this page!
Begin - at any time - I am ready -- GO AHEAD!!
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I can keep paying attention TO the details IN the quote by QUOTING it and NOTING what IT SAYS - instead of doing your factless-pointless thing where you quote ONLY YOU and you imagine how you WISH words had read IN the quote to which YOU are NOT paying any attention!!
Get it!
Your idea above that YOUR OWN model of NOT quoting talk origins and simply glossing over all inconvenient details - is NOT serving you well - not even AT ALL!
Why not START responding to the points raised???
Why not START paying attention to the quote YOU raised??
WHy not ANSWER the post I put up RIGHT HERE -- for a change?
Why not actually DO something to rescue your failed argument other than IGNORING all points listed -- vaccuously repeating yourself without answering a single point and pretending you have not read a thing!!??
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Patterson gives two very exposing, very honest, very frank statements about the extreme limits of the "data" (the pausity of the data) in support of atheist darwinist doctrines.
See them -- HERE - "again" and "again"
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...4&postcount=43
Statement A -
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."
-- Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.
Statement B - which is in fact merely a "continuation of A"
The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
Both of these statements show embarrasing limist, gaffs, blunders and flaws in the classic arguments of devotees to the cult of atheist darwinism. But the snippet of statement A "alone" makes it appear that Patterson finds no data at all to support the myths and doctrines of the cult - while statement B leaves the door open while sharply criticising the intellectual dishonesty of many of the cultists involved with atheist darwinism who "tell stories" as IF those stories are "science" when "they are not"!!
UTEOTW (in his typical gloss over of all salient detail in any given illustration) simply turns a blind eye to the ENTIRE DISCUSSION and then concludes in effect - "ANY reference to Patterson that does not reflect posititvely on all members of the cult must be a bad quote".
This shallow transparently pathetic approach being used by UTEOTW merely shows how steeped he IS in the blunders, gaffs and flaws of the very devotees that Patterson is criticising in his ORIGINAL statement.
Fortunately (even for the children reading this thread) -- UTEOTW is insistent that we keep going back and looking at these details while HE glosses over them!!
NOTICE there is NO "I did not mean what Bob is saying" in PAtterson's words JUST in UTEOTW's
NOTICE Bob does NOT make the Claim that Patterson does not believe in atheist darwinism!
NOTICE UTEOTW - you need to pay ATTENTION to details instead of wildly making stuff up as your "solution" for your failed argument here!
See them -- HERE - "again" and "again"
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...4&postcount=43
Statement A -
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."
-- Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.
Statement B - which is in fact merely a "continuation of A"
The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
Both of these statements show embarrasing limist, gaffs, blunders and flaws in the classic arguments of devotees to the cult of atheist darwinism. But the snippet of statement A "alone" makes it appear that Patterson finds no data at all to support the myths and doctrines of the cult - while statement B leaves the door open while sharply criticising the intellectual dishonesty of many of the cultists involved with atheist darwinism who "tell stories" as IF those stories are "science" when "they are not"!!
UTEOTW (in his typical gloss over of all salient detail in any given illustration) simply turns a blind eye to the ENTIRE DISCUSSION and then concludes in effect - "ANY reference to Patterson that does not reflect posititvely on all members of the cult must be a bad quote".
This shallow transparently pathetic approach being used by UTEOTW merely shows how steeped he IS in the blunders, gaffs and flaws of the very devotees that Patterson is criticising in his ORIGINAL statement.
Fortunately (even for the children reading this thread) -- UTEOTW is insistent that we keep going back and looking at these details while HE glosses over them!!
NOTICE there is NO "I did not mean what Bob is saying" in PAtterson's words JUST in UTEOTW's
NOTICE Bob does NOT make the Claim that Patterson does not believe in atheist darwinism!
NOTICE UTEOTW - you need to pay ATTENTION to details instead of wildly making stuff up as your "solution" for your failed argument here!
And you continue with one fundemental mistake.
You keep telling us the same interpretation of the passage that Sunderland gave. But we already have Patterson on the record as saying that this interpretation is not what he meant.
It is amazing how many words you can crank out trying to distract from this key fact.
I just cannot decide if you are really so delusional that you don't notice this or if you are so dishonest that you don't care.
You keep telling us the same interpretation of the passage that Sunderland gave. But we already have Patterson on the record as saying that this interpretation is not what he meant.
It is amazing how many words you can crank out trying to distract from this key fact.
I just cannot decide if you are really so delusional that you don't notice this or if you are so dishonest that you don't care.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Still not quoting PAtterson?
Still not quoting Talk ORigins?
Still not quoting MY POINT specifically exposing your fantasy above?
Still just speaking to yourself about your OWN quotes of you????
Why not do something substantive instead UTEOTW???
Why not make a POINT instead of just claiming that you at some long point in the past were paying attention to details and actually HAD a point to make BASED on an actual quote - and then asking us to just believe that this is why you have not responded to a single point since - and have not rescued your failed argument??
Quoting yourself delusionally as you are doing above is not the way to rescue your failed arguments.
Still not quoting Talk ORigins?
Still not quoting MY POINT specifically exposing your fantasy above?
Still just speaking to yourself about your OWN quotes of you????
Why not do something substantive instead UTEOTW???
Why not make a POINT instead of just claiming that you at some long point in the past were paying attention to details and actually HAD a point to make BASED on an actual quote - and then asking us to just believe that this is why you have not responded to a single point since - and have not rescued your failed argument??
Quoting yourself delusionally as you are doing above is not the way to rescue your failed arguments.
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
UTEOTW said:
Why not make a POINT instead of just claiming that you at some long time in the past made a point as in you actually were paying attention to details and actually HAD a point to make BASED on an actual quote - and then asking us to just believe that this is why you have not responded to a single point since - and have not rescued your failed argument??
Hint: Quoting yourself delusionally as you are doing above is not the way to rescue your failed arguments.
Hint 2: To rescue your failed argument -- go HERE and answer the post!!
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=827831&postcount=53
Last edited by a moderator:
No, it is Bob who cannot understand a simple concept.
Patterson, the author of the quote, has already directly addressed the passage and your interpretation and called it "wrong."
He called the interpretation I give you "correct."
Your copious words are merely an attempt to distract from that bit of dishonesty on your part.
You have given us no reason whatsoever that we should not trust Patterson when he addresses the passage in question.
None.
Patterson, the author of the quote, has already directly addressed the passage and your interpretation and called it "wrong."
He called the interpretation I give you "correct."
Your copious words are merely an attempt to distract from that bit of dishonesty on your part.
You have given us no reason whatsoever that we should not trust Patterson when he addresses the passage in question.
None.