• 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

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
I have given no meaning to the quote in anyway attributing to the author my own views - rather a APPROVE the author's ability to be frank and honest (as an atheist) IN THE VERY AREAS where you show yourself to be intellectually dishonest.

That is an established fact beyond dispute.

You continue to provide pointless, factless quoteless posts that "slander and accuse" but are "content vaccuous" in your ceaseless efforts to FIND some proof for your wild accusations.

Nice going evolutionist. How can you "imagine" that the readers "don't notice" that you are not actually providing EXAMPLES of me misquoting anyone???????

As long as you refuse to actually SHOW a violation on my part as a MISQUOTE - you REMAIN guilty of slander.

Surely we can agree to that much!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Oh wait! let me guess...

It is back to your "I am right I am right because I always tell myself I am right" form of proof again!!

You know - the one that worked so well on your darwinist readership last time. (OR at least you SAID it did).

Meanwhile it remains TRUE that your accusation NEEDS evidence and all you are providing is more empty accusation!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

UTEOTW

New Member
It is very simple.

Do you agree to the interpretation to which the author says he agrees?

Do you have a link where we can read the full letter to Sunderland so we can see the paragraph in context?

Why do you avoid simple yes or no questions?

I think that it is obvious why you do: a lack of honesty regarding your motives for giving the quote and how that relates to what the author says he meant.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
I agree that Patterson agrees with himself -- ALL of what he said is what HE agrees to --

But then YOU CLAIM that you FIND a post of mine claiming that Patterson does NOT agree with his own views -- you claim I MISQUOTE him and claimd HE believes something OTHER than what HE stated -- but you SHOW NOTHING to support your wild slander.

Still waiting for you to come up with something --- 15 pages and still waiting.

(And lest we forget Patterson was YOUR CHOICE of the perfect example of my misquoting some atheist darwinist)

Sorry to have to continually bring you back to the point and intellectual honesty time after time - but as long as we still have to wait for you to come up with actual proof -- that is just the way it is -
 

UTEOTW

New Member
So you do not have the entire letter we can read in context?

Hmph.

And, I am reading you correctly that you DO agree with the interpretation to which Patterson agreed on previous pages?

If so, then why give the quote?

If not, then how do you justify a meaning that the author calls "incorrect?" And just what meaning do you wish for us to take from the quote?
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
But then YOU CLAIM that you FIND a post of mine claiming that Patterson does NOT agree with his own views -- you claim I MISQUOTE him and claimd HE believes something OTHER than what HE stated -- but you SHOW NOTHING to support your wild slander.

Still waiting for you to come up with something --- 15 pages and still waiting.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
UTEOTW said:
If not, then how do you justify a meaning that the author calls "incorrect?" And just what meaning do you wish for us to take from the quote?

In your ceaseless efforts to avoid any fact that can be proven - you now speak jibberish?????

You CLAIM that I GAVE A MEANING for Patterson claiming something FOR PATTERSON that PATTERSON denies as HIS meaning --- THEN you ASK me to GIVE the meaning for Patterson's words?????????


How in the world can you be trying to have it BOTH WAYS in ONE sentence??

How in the world are your fellow atheist darwinist "believers" swallowing that line of reasoning - as you claim they are???

What kind of Koolaide do you guys drink at night???
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Here "AGAIN" is Patterson's Letter to Sunderland.

I have always claimed that HE MEANS exactly what HE SAYS!!

"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

Well-Known Member
Here is Patterson's letter to Mr Theunissen

I have always CLAIMED that he means JUST what HE SAYS!!

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 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

New Member
What do you mean "again?"

I am asking for the FULL TEXT of the letter. Not an except. Can you produce that? If not, then how do we know the context in which the statement was made.

Next. Patterson has stated that what he meant was that you cannot tell the difference between a given fossil being a direct ancestor of a living species or if that fossil is from a closely related side branch.

If you agree with this, then there was no misquote, but there is also no reason for you as a YEer to want to make that assertion.

If you are trying to assert that he meant something else, then you are misquoting Patterson by not preserving his original intent.


It really is that simple.

Without the whole letter being produced, we can never have the statement put into context.

But, even without that, we do have his statement in the later letter that the interpretation I have given you is "correct."

Why can you not simply state whether or not you agree with Patterson's own commentary on the quote and why can you not give us the full text of the letter.

I think everyone knows why. You lose if you do either.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Next. Patterson has stated that what he meant was that you cannot tell the difference between a given fossil being a direct ancestor of a living species or if that fossil is from a closely related side branch.

If you agree with this, then there was no misquote, but there is also no reason for you as a YEer to want to make that assertion.

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.

The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record . . It is easy enough to make up stories

But AGREEING with Patterson is NOT THE POINT. The point is simply QUOTING him and not attributing to HIM anything HE is not saying. AGREEING WITH HIM is NOT required to QUOTE him.

How hard can this be for you UTEOTW??

Make your case!!
 

UTEOTW

New Member
So you cannot provide the letter such that we may see the paragraph in context? Why do you refuse to do so?

Second, I have no doubt that you do not agree with Patterson. And that is the problem here.

Patterson himself has agreed that what he meant was a very strict definition of transitional where it means directly ancestral and that he cannot make a watertight case for any specific fossil being directly ancestral as opposed to being on a very closely related side branch of the species through which the lineage actually passed.

I think that every paleotologist would agree and this meaning does nothing for your case.

And if this is the meaning you want the readers to take, then you might as well admit that you think that evolution happened, since that is what is implied.

If, however, you wish for the reader to take a different meaning, then you are misrepresenting what Patterson has said that he intended and you are therefore guilty by definition.

So, was your intended purpose for the quote to convey Patterson's originally intended meaning or where you perhaps hoping that the reader would take something different?

We all know. You hoped the reader would think that Patterson meant there are no transitionals. You admitted as much in your last post.

You are therefore GUILTY of the charges. YOu have purposely and dishonestly tried to make Patterson seem like he meant something which he himself has said that he did not mean.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
So you can not provide ANY source to SHOW that I have miquoted Patterson AND YET you slanderously accuse me of it anyway???

The really amazing part of that -- is that this is so blatantly obvious and YET you "claim" that your atheist darwinist devoted readership - are as befuddled by the simple concept of "PROVING an accusation MADE" by showing FACTS -- as you are!!

That is INCREDIBLE!!

Instructive beyond words!!
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
"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

Well-Known Member
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!!

Obviously.

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Notice that INSTEAD of DEALING WITH the quotes of Patterson highlighted FOR YOU UTEOTW - you simply AVOID THEM ALL!!!

How telling that the devotee to atheist darwinism must be so fact-intollerant when facts are ALL KNOWN and clearly seen as they are here!

And so I ask the honest Bible believing Christian reader to think about what that means when the context of the debate is much more speculative and much less certain than we see on this thread!!
 

UTEOTW

New Member
No, I simply point out the obvious.

If you intended the reader to understand the quotes as Patterson originally intended them, then you do damage to the case you were trying to build by using the quote.

If you intend the reader to take a meaning different than what Patterson intended, then you are misquoting.

Frankly I don't care which option to which you wish to cling. The first option shows a clear lack of comprehension on your part. The second option shows downright dishonesty.

You can admit either, I don't care. The fact remains that you have been exposed on this.
 

UTEOTW

New Member
By the way, are you ever going to provide the full text of the letter so we can see the paragraph in context?

If not, why not?

(I think that the reason is obvious.)
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
By the way are you ever going to DEFEND your claim that I have misquoted Patterson - OR ARE you simply going to CONTINUE the slander WITH NO DATA???

I believe the answer is obvious.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
UTEOTW said:
No, I simply point out the obvious.

If you intended the reader to understand the quotes as Patterson originally intended them, then you do damage to the case you were trying to build by using the quote.

Are you making the wild claim that simply to QUOTE Patterson is to MISQUOTE him???!!!!

Are you really willing to admit to such a fallacy???

I have given the quote from his first letter HE AFFIRMS that quote AND HE highlights A SECTION in that FIRST quote that SHOWS the full meaning and intent that HE GAVE IT.

How far out on your limb do you intend to climb??

If you intend the reader to take a meaning different than what Patterson intended, then you are misquoting.

I do not "intend" that the reader see Patterson to mean anything other than what he means as HE SPEAKS HIS OWN WORDS!!

You can admit either, I don't care. The fact remains that you have been exposed on this.

Inventing "facts" that you don't have does not help your case.

(Except possibly with devotees to atheist darwinism who are not particularly inclined to facts anyway).
 
Top