Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Now Who's Making Stuff Up?

===
I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered . . . more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.
===

Why the "..." over the phrase "by natural selection"? Why edit that out?

Why can't you see that this was a theoretical example of the change, and not something Darwin literally believed? (perhaps because you're taking it out of context again?)

...and this was in every edition up until at least the third. Wasn't removed in the first.

Now who's making stuff up?

Must I Explain Everything to You?

"Why the "..." over the phrase "by natural selection"? Why edit that out?"

Did you happen to notice that it was presented as a quiz? The object was to try and tell the difference between Kipling and Darwin. If the phrase "by natural selection" was left in Darwin's version, don't you think that might be a tipoff as to where it came from?

Really, can you read? And all you can come up with is another lame accusation of "taking out of context." But I know why you always say that, because you have no intellectual substance in you.

And I never said it was taken out of the first.

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

Replying to:

===
I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered . . . more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.
===

Why the "..." over the phrase "by natural selection"? Why edit that out?

Why can't you see that this was a theoretical example of the change, and not something Darwin literally believed? (perhaps because you're taking it out of context again?)

...and this was in every edition up until at least the third. Wasn't removed in the first.

Now who's making stuff up?

Re: Must I Explain Everything to You?

Again with the personal attacks, John. Gee whiz, I wonder why you're so angry. "Can you read"... "have no intellectual substance"... wow. How about just answering the question without trying to paint my face? The drama!

OK, I can understand the "quiz" context, but it's still an out-of-context quote. It makes the reader believe that Darwin actually thought that happened, when in fact it was a postulate of something that could be possible, and in fact it COULD BE possible. (fallacy #1)

By comparing it to a Kipling story you are begging the question that this story is as intellectually fallacious. In fact, the first story was quite easy to pick out as Darwin, because it had validity, but made to look worse (even silly) without the "natural selection" line. (fallacy #2)

Again, an example of "out of context" on many levels...which I'm sure you'll deny.

----

You said it was taken out *after* the first edition. You are correct in my misquoting you, but you are still wrong in that it was not taken out AFTER the first edition - an attempt at dramatic effect which can be caught by a simple Google search.

-----

John, i have to say that debating with you is tiringly bothersome. You seem to have 2 points with respect to everything I've responded with:
1. I don't know what I'm talking about (along with ad hominem attacks)
2. There is no scientific evidence of any of Darwin's theory at all.

The ad hominem is rather shameful in the extreme, as it's just wasting words. If most of your argument is simply "you don't know what you're talking about" along with personal insults, it doesn't look good in a debate. Let's be gentlemanly about this, shall we?

In terms of the scientific evidence, well, thousands upon thousands of scientists (WAY more qualified than myself) would disagree with you strongly. Why do you think that is?

Your conclusions are based on incorrect interpretations of quotes, yet you defiantly deny "quote mining" - and that seems just dishonest, because the original contexts and their interpretations have been pointed out to you. At least Arneson and myself either quote the entire passage, or better yet, link to the source online. Why can't you do that? (reason: in order to take the quote to the context you're aiming for, you need to put it in YOUR context and take it away from the original).

There's no changing your mind, certainly, but I think between myself and Arneson we've done (and will probably continue to do) enough *proper* referencing of your sources to show any reasonable reader what you're trying to do. This isn't about you, this is about innocent and curious minds coming across this forum and assuming you (and WIYC) are correct, which disturbs me deeply. Even if we've put a BUG in someone's mind that you're being dishonest or perhaps delusional, that's good enough for me - let them follow our links and find the real sources and read for themselves. As far as I'm concerned, we've done more than that.

"Scientificated" Just So Stories

The point here is that Darwin and his followers are not providing scientific evidence for any of their many assumptions. All Darwinism is is a collection of "Scientificated" Just So stories, except the storyteller is Darwin or some other "scientist," instead of Rudyard Kipling. It is useless to real science. Yet you somehow managed to miss the entire point.

That is why I say you seem to have no intellectual substance. If I am wrong on that issue, I will gladly yield, and you do have some redeeming qualities, but you continually harp on the "out of context" issue, when it has no bearing on anything.

But thank you for your kind reply.

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

Replying to:

Again with the personal attacks, John. Gee whiz, I wonder why you're so angry. "Can you read"... "have no intellectual substance"... wow. How about just answering the question without trying to paint my face? The drama!

OK, I can understand the "quiz" context, but it's still an out-of-context quote. It makes the reader believe that Darwin actually thought that happened, when in fact it was a postulate of something that could be possible, and in fact it COULD BE possible. (fallacy #1)

By comparing it to a Kipling story you are begging the question that this story is as intellectually fallacious. In fact, the first story was quite easy to pick out as Darwin, because it had validity, but made to look worse (even silly) without the "natural selection" line. (fallacy #2)

Again, an example of "out of context" on many levels...which I'm sure you'll deny.

----

You said it was taken out *after* the first edition. You are correct in my misquoting you, but you are still wrong in that it was not taken out AFTER the first edition - an attempt at dramatic effect which can be caught by a simple Google search.

-----

John, i have to say that debating with you is tiringly bothersome. You seem to have 2 points with respect to everything I've responded with:
1. I don't know what I'm talking about (along with ad hominem attacks)
2. There is no scientific evidence of any of Darwin's theory at all.

The ad hominem is rather shameful in the extreme, as it's just wasting words. If most of your argument is simply "you don't know what you're talking about" along with personal insults, it doesn't look good in a debate. Let's be gentlemanly about this, shall we?

In terms of the scientific evidence, well, thousands upon thousands of scientists (WAY more qualified than myself) would disagree with you strongly. Why do you think that is?

Your conclusions are based on incorrect interpretations of quotes, yet you defiantly deny "quote mining" - and that seems just dishonest, because the original contexts and their interpretations have been pointed out to you. At least Arneson and myself either quote the entire passage, or better yet, link to the source online. Why can't you do that? (reason: in order to take the quote to the context you're aiming for, you need to put it in YOUR context and take it away from the original).

There's no changing your mind, certainly, but I think between myself and Arneson we've done (and will probably continue to do) enough *proper* referencing of your sources to show any reasonable reader what you're trying to do. This isn't about you, this is about innocent and curious minds coming across this forum and assuming you (and WIYC) are correct, which disturbs me deeply. Even if we've put a BUG in someone's mind that you're being dishonest or perhaps delusional, that's good enough for me - let them follow our links and find the real sources and read for themselves. As far as I'm concerned, we've done more than that.

Re: "Scientificated" Just So Stories

===
The point here is that Darwin and his followers are not providing scientific evidence for any of their many assumptions.
===

Well gee whiz, John - I'm pretty darn sure there's a heck of a lot of evidence that supports evolution. Since you seem to not be aware of any of it, let me point you to some:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=62
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Now, if you're saying there's no evidence at all, then I'm afraid you've got a lot of explaining to do, becuase those links above carry a LOT of material - well researched, peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific community.

I assume this is more to your liking rather than me pointing at out-of-context quotes?

Re: "Scientificated" Just So Stories

John said:
"The point here is that Darwin and his followers are not providing scientific evidence for any of their many assumptions. All Darwinism is is a collection of "Scientificated" Just So stories, except the storyteller is Darwin or some other "scientist," instead of Rudyard Kipling. It is useless to real science. Yet you somehow managed to miss the entire point."

There are aspects of evolution that are testable. Predictions have been made in the past based on observations. If you took the time to read some of the material I recommended, you would note that WH Flower predicted that whales descended from ungulates.

"Later, Flower (1883) recognized that the whales have persistent rudimentary and vestigial features characteristic of terrestrial mammals, thus confirming that the direction of descent was from terrestrial to marine species. On the basis of morphology, Flower also linked whales with the ungulates; he seems to have been the first person to do so."
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

Flower did analysis of the morphology of whales and that of other mammals. He knew that whales had to have been land mammals at one time and his prediction has been proven right. These predictions have been proven right by multiple lines of evidence that converge on the same truth. You may choose to ignore the evidence, but it won't make it go away. You may deny it, but it is still science.

John continued:
"That is why I say you seem to have no intellectual substance. If I am wrong on that issue, I will gladly yield, and you do have some redeeming qualities, but you continually harp on the 'out of context' issue, when it has no bearing on anything.

But thank you for your kind reply."

You need to respond to scientific evidence with something other than out of date and out of context quotes that do not apply to the subject being discussed. It is just these quotes that have no bearing on anything. You need to find a way to better explain the scientific evidence. This is something that creationists never do. The reason is simple. They don't do research and the facts don't fit what they believe.

The Problem: Your Bizarre & Ridiculous Standard

Your definition of "quote mining" is so narrow and so bizarre, that to you if entire pages are not provided when a quote is given, then that qualifies as "quote mining." No one anywhere writes like that. Partial quotes, one sentence quotes, abbreviated quotes, and joined quotes are used everywhere, in articles, in research papers, and in blogs literally all the time. You either are too much of a dim bulb to glean the essence of what a person is saying in a short quote, or you are so bereft of any intellectual substance that you cannot respond with an intelligent comment of your own, so you must resort to some sort of slander.

But in point of fact, you don't even understand what "quote mining" is. You add reams of uncommented-on material, and imagine that you have added context, when all you have added is filler, because most of what you add does not even relate to what is actually being commented on.

No one can show anywhere where I took anything out of context. I quoted accurately, yet you accused me of misquoting, when I was quoting Gould and Darwin exactly. In fact Gould was quoting Darwin, and when I used the exact same quote with proper attribution, instead of commenting on what I said you accused me of quote mining. It is just ridiculous.

You say that debating me has been tiresome for you, well, it has been much more than that for me. Most of what you say is just plain silly, confused, and simply juvenile. But that is what I would expect from someone who did not even know that Darwin was clearly wrong about gradualism, and that he obviated his own theory.

Let the record show that you called me "dishonest and perhaps delusional." Look who's talking. You are the one who believes that this complex and intricate world is somehow self-created, when there is no evidence of that occurring anywhere, at any time. Yet you believe it without evidence, and you call that science when it is religion. You are the one who cannot even read a simple sentence and glean the clear meaning of the words. And you are the one who cannot go more than a few sentences without making a personal attack on the veracity of your opponent, to cover up the sad fact that you don't know what you are even talking about.

I call that bizarre and seriously muddled. And I feel sorry for you, because you are the one who has cheated yourself out of reality.

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

Replying to:

Again with the personal attacks, John. Gee whiz, I wonder why you're so angry. "Can you read"... "have no intellectual substance"... wow. How about just answering the question without trying to paint my face? The drama!

OK, I can understand the "quiz" context, but it's still an out-of-context quote. It makes the reader believe that Darwin actually thought that happened, when in fact it was a postulate of something that could be possible, and in fact it COULD BE possible. (fallacy #1)

By comparing it to a Kipling story you are begging the question that this story is as intellectually fallacious. In fact, the first story was quite easy to pick out as Darwin, because it had validity, but made to look worse (even silly) without the "natural selection" line. (fallacy #2)

Again, an example of "out of context" on many levels...which I'm sure you'll deny.

----

You said it was taken out *after* the first edition. You are correct in my misquoting you, but you are still wrong in that it was not taken out AFTER the first edition - an attempt at dramatic effect which can be caught by a simple Google search.

-----

John, i have to say that debating with you is tiringly bothersome. You seem to have 2 points with respect to everything I've responded with:
1. I don't know what I'm talking about (along with ad hominem attacks)
2. There is no scientific evidence of any of Darwin's theory at all.

The ad hominem is rather shameful in the extreme, as it's just wasting words. If most of your argument is simply "you don't know what you're talking about" along with personal insults, it doesn't look good in a debate. Let's be gentlemanly about this, shall we?

In terms of the scientific evidence, well, thousands upon thousands of scientists (WAY more qualified than myself) would disagree with you strongly. Why do you think that is?

Your conclusions are based on incorrect interpretations of quotes, yet you defiantly deny "quote mining" - and that seems just dishonest, because the original contexts and their interpretations have been pointed out to you. At least Arneson and myself either quote the entire passage, or better yet, link to the source online. Why can't you do that? (reason: in order to take the quote to the context you're aiming for, you need to put it in YOUR context and take it away from the original).

There's no changing your mind, certainly, but I think between myself and Arneson we've done (and will probably continue to do) enough *proper* referencing of your sources to show any reasonable reader what you're trying to do. This isn't about you, this is about innocent and curious minds coming across this forum and assuming you (and WIYC) are correct, which disturbs me deeply. Even if we've put a BUG in someone's mind that you're being dishonest or perhaps delusional, that's good enough for me - let them follow our links and find the real sources and read for themselves. As far as I'm concerned, we've done more than that.

What I Would Do

If I were in charge of this board, I would kick people like you and Arneson off for resorting to the cheap debate trick of smearing your opponent with your endless nonsensical "quote-mining" accusations. You add nothing to the debate, and all you do is gunk everything up with utter nonsense that means nothing and detracts from focusing on the issues at hand. You people have no facts to present, so you cleverly smear your opponents with your asinine charges, thereby wasting everyone's time and energy. Let everyone use any quotes they want, and if you can't respond to the substance of said quotes, then let that stand. The only standard should be that quotes are accurate for the purpose for which they are being used. Context should be a part of the debate. No more impugning a person's motives, it is slander, pure and simple.

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

Replying to:

Your definition of "quote mining" is so narrow and so bizarre, that to you if entire pages are not provided when a quote is given, then that qualifies as "quote mining." No one anywhere writes like that. Partial quotes, one sentence quotes, abbreviated quotes, and joined quotes are used everywhere, in articles, in research papers, and in blogs literally all the time. You either are too much of a dim bulb to glean the essence of what a person is saying in a short quote, or you are so bereft of any intellectual substance that you cannot respond with an intelligent comment of your own, so you must resort to some sort of slander.

But in point of fact, you don't even understand what "quote mining" is. You add reams of uncommented-on material, and imagine that you have added context, when all you have added is filler, because most of what you add does not even relate to what is actually being commented on.

No one can show anywhere where I took anything out of context. I quoted accurately, yet you accused me of misquoting, when I was quoting Gould and Darwin exactly. In fact Gould was quoting Darwin, and when I used the exact same quote with proper attribution, instead of commenting on what I said you accused me of quote mining. It is just ridiculous.

You say that debating me has been tiresome for you, well, it has been much more than that for me. Most of what you say is just plain silly, confused, and simply juvenile. But that is what I would expect from someone who did not even know that Darwin was clearly wrong about gradualism, and that he obviated his own theory.

Let the record show that you called me "dishonest and perhaps delusional." Look who's talking. You are the one who believes that this complex and intricate world is somehow self-created, when there is no evidence of that occurring anywhere, at any time. Yet you believe it without evidence, and you call that science when it is religion. You are the one who cannot even read a simple sentence and glean the clear meaning of the words. And you are the one who cannot go more than a few sentences without making a personal attack on the veracity of your opponent, to cover up the sad fact that you don't know what you are even talking about.

I call that bizarre and seriously muddled. And I feel sorry for you, because you are the one who has cheated yourself out of reality.

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

Replying to:

Again with the personal attacks, John. Gee whiz, I wonder why you're so angry. "Can you read"... "have no intellectual substance"... wow. How about just answering the question without trying to paint my face? The drama!

OK, I can understand the "quiz" context, but it's still an out-of-context quote. It makes the reader believe that Darwin actually thought that happened, when in fact it was a postulate of something that could be possible, and in fact it COULD BE possible. (fallacy #1)

By comparing it to a Kipling story you are begging the question that this story is as intellectually fallacious. In fact, the first story was quite easy to pick out as Darwin, because it had validity, but made to look worse (even silly) without the "natural selection" line. (fallacy #2)

Again, an example of "out of context" on many levels...which I'm sure you'll deny.

----

You said it was taken out *after* the first edition. You are correct in my misquoting you, but you are still wrong in that it was not taken out AFTER the first edition - an attempt at dramatic effect which can be caught by a simple Google search.

-----

John, i have to say that debating with you is tiringly bothersome. You seem to have 2 points with respect to everything I've responded with:
1. I don't know what I'm talking about (along with ad hominem attacks)
2. There is no scientific evidence of any of Darwin's theory at all.

The ad hominem is rather shameful in the extreme, as it's just wasting words. If most of your argument is simply "you don't know what you're talking about" along with personal insults, it doesn't look good in a debate. Let's be gentlemanly about this, shall we?

In terms of the scientific evidence, well, thousands upon thousands of scientists (WAY more qualified than myself) would disagree with you strongly. Why do you think that is?

Your conclusions are based on incorrect interpretations of quotes, yet you defiantly deny "quote mining" - and that seems just dishonest, because the original contexts and their interpretations have been pointed out to you. At least Arneson and myself either quote the entire passage, or better yet, link to the source online. Why can't you do that? (reason: in order to take the quote to the context you're aiming for, you need to put it in YOUR context and take it away from the original).

There's no changing your mind, certainly, but I think between myself and Arneson we've done (and will probably continue to do) enough *proper* referencing of your sources to show any reasonable reader what you're trying to do. This isn't about you, this is about innocent and curious minds coming across this forum and assuming you (and WIYC) are correct, which disturbs me deeply. Even if we've put a BUG in someone's mind that you're being dishonest or perhaps delusional, that's good enough for me - let them follow our links and find the real sources and read for themselves. As far as I'm concerned, we've done more than that.

Thanks for your efforts to improve the standard of debate.

John, if you have not taken the time to understand the source that you are using, how can you possibly know if the quote is valid?

Re: What I Would Do

====
If I were in charge of this board, I would kick people like you and Arneson off
====

Gee, that sure is a way to prove your point convincingly. Just get rid of the opponents altogether.

(or did i take that quote out of context?)

Have you read the essay by Gould and the book by Darwin?

This is one of the most common quotemines of Gould that there is. I read that essay when it was published, and have had to open my well-worn copy of "The Panda's Thumb" more than a few times. Gould's essay was for popular consumption with the purpose of educating the general public. It is more than a stretch to try to claim Gould's text disproves evolution. One should probably read the essay and at least the chapter from "The Origin of Species" before commenting on them. If you have read both and still think it supports your position, I would suggest a more careful second reading.

Re: The Problem: Your Bizarre & Ridiculous Standard

====
Your definition of "quote mining" is so narrow and so bizarre, that to you if entire pages are not provided when a quote is given, then that qualifies as "quote mining." No one anywhere writes like that.
====

I'm afraid that my definition of "quote mining" lines right up with what a lot of people think. In fact:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

...all of your quotes are easily found (and explained) in something called the "Quote Mine Project". Why do you think that is?

====
You add reams of uncommented-on material, and imagine that you have added context, when all you have added is filler, because most of what you add does not even relate to what is actually being commented on.
====

I have not added on "new material" to quotes you have given. If I have not pointed to the original source material, I have simply given surrounding material from the same source.

====
No one can show anywhere where I took anything out of context. I quoted accurately, yet you accused me of misquoting, when I was quoting Gould and Darwin exactly.
====

OK, with respect John, but you are really showing your ignorance to your own actions here. You may have quoted accurately, but you have quoted without the proper frame of reference to which that quote was made. This distorts the meaning of the quote.

I don't know why you are thinking I don't know what "out of context" means or what a "quote mine" is. What do YOU think it means?

====
Most of what you say is just plain silly, confused, and simply juvenile. But that is what I would expect from someone who did not even know that Darwin was clearly wrong about gradualism, and that he obviated his own theory.
====

Are you sure he was *clearly wrong*? Where does this information come from (and do NOT say Gould, we've already demonstrated that that is not the case)?

====
Let the record show that you called me "dishonest and perhaps delusional." Look who's talking. You are the one who believes that this complex and intricate world is somehow self-created, when there is no evidence of that occurring anywhere, at any time. Yet you believe it without evidence, and you call that science when it is religion. You are the one who cannot even read a simple sentence and glean the clear meaning of the words. And you are the one who cannot go more than a few sentences without making a personal attack on the veracity of your opponent, to cover up the sad fact that you don't know what you are even talking about.
====

I'm beginning to wonder if you're a professional at this whole thing. You certainly don't seem to be new at this. Do you work at the Discovery Institute? Were you hired/asked by WIYC for some help? Your attacks are pretty glaringly either self-referential or simply ad hominem and baseless.

Let's quit with the personal attacks (this is the third time I've asked this) and let's start talking about the actual evidence, shall we? I've got a load of questions I've asked in previous posts that went unanswered...

Re: Now Who's Making Stuff Up?

Darwin's bear supposition was just that. He was wrong about a number of things. The ancestor of whales was not a carnivore it was an even-toed ungulate. Darwin was right about a several important things. First, whales did come from some form of land mammal. Second, somehow these ancestors gained an advantage from moving out into the water. Finally, this process took a very long time. All three of these deductions of Darwin have been proven correct. Laugh if you want to, but Darwin understood whale evolution alot better than you do. He did not have the advantage of the science of the last few decades that you choose to ridicule and ignore.