Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

[lasthero]

It can be proven and that is more than anything the ToE preaches.



I have no idea. It is irrelevant. If they only produce other microbes, that is not evidence of evolution.

When you learn to quote correctly, you will discover it is not in the Bible. What do they call people who only quote part of a sentence?

It's a joke. I don't assume most people are as dense as you.


Anyway, what do you define as a kind? Are all cats the same kind? Birds? Fish?

 

[lasthero]

The main problem is that most evolutionists recognize there are no transitional fossils.

"The know fossil record fails to documnt a single example of phyletic evolution accompolishing a morphologic transition...---Stephen M. Stanly, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, p39.

If evolution was true, the great majority, at least 80%, would be transitional. Even if you can prove a handful are transional, that still would not support evolution.

kermit

Also, you've got a lot of nerve. This is an example of the very thing you accused me of.

 

[OllieFranz]

What do they call people who only quote part of a sentence?

Proessional apologists for Creationism (& ID).

The practice of taking a part of a sentence out of context is called quote mining (hence the brackets around lasthero's incomplete quote). And is the only form of "research" that comes out of places like Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis. Lasthero's quote is not intended to fool anyone, but rather to point out that quote mining is practiced mainly to make someone say the opposite of what the full quote says.

 

[frogman2x]

It's a joke. I don't assume most people are as dense as you.

Have you noticed when someone can't discuss the topic intelligently, they becvome insulting? You remind me of the playground in the third grade.

Anyway, what do you define as a kind? Are all cats the same kind? Birds? Fish?

A kind is two that can mate and produce offspring.

Now give your definition of kind.

 

[lasthero]

Have you noticed when someone can't discuss the topic intelligently, they becvome insulting? You remind me of the playground in the third grade.

My quote isn't the topic.

A kind is two that can mate and produce offspring.

So if a population of animals changed to the point that some of them can't interbreed, that's a new kind?

 

[frogman2x]

Also, you've got a lot of nerve. This is an example of the very thing you accused me of.

I don't remember accusing you of anything. Tell me what iiiiit was and if I am wrong, I will apologize.

 

[frogman2x]

Proessional apologists for Creationism (& ID).

You shoul know better than that but maybe that was just a little scarcism.

The practice of taking a part of a sentence out of context is called quote mining (hence the brackets around lasthero's incomplete quote).

It is not. Quote mining is posting a statement that one hopes will reinforce what they beleive. But it is never posting a partial statement. Posting a partial statgement is deceptive and dishonest.

And is the only form of "research" that comes out of places like Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis. Lasthero's quote is not intended to fool anyone, but rather to point out that quote mining is practiced mainly to make someone say the opposite of what the full quote says.

That simply is not true. When those organizations post comments from evolutionists, they ALWAYS give the reference so it can be checked and they NEVER post a partial statement without adding ...

If he adds ... after the statement then that is legitimate. Plus he seems to think only creationists quote mine.

 

[Split Rock]

A kind is two that can mate and produce offspring.

Now give your definition of kind.

So, a "kind" is a species? Then if I show you observed speciation in nature and in the lab, will that prove that kinds can evolve?

 

[lasthero]

You shoul know better than that but maybe that was just a little scarcism.




That simply is not true. When those organizations post comments from evolutionists, they ALWAYS give the reference so it can be checked and they NEVER post a partial statement without adding ...

If he adds ... after the statement then that is legitimate. Plus he seems to think only creationists quote mine.

Why is it okay after but wrong before? What kind of smurf logic is that?

 

[JWGU]

Because their brains were systematically damaged while they were young.

Garbage in garbage out.

I have a problem with theories like this. If you believe that, why are you here at all? To feel smug?

 

[lasthero]

That simply is not true. When those organizations post comments from evolutionists, they ALWAYS give the reference so it can be checked and they NEVER post a partial statement without adding ...

Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists

By the way, here's a page where you can find may examples of the thing you said never happens. Some even make up quotes whole clothe.

But you won't actually look, will you?

 

[OllieFranz]

You shoul know better than that but maybe that was just a little scarcism.

Maybe a little. But I stand by my claim that quote mining is the only "research"that we ever see come out of professional Creationism apologist organizations.

It is not. Quote mining is posting a statementthat one hopes will reinforce what they believe. But it is never postinga partial statement.Posting a partial statement is deceptive and dishonest.

You are, of course, free to imitate Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass, and redefine a word however you like. But my description of quote mining is the accepted one

That simply is not true. When those organizations post comments from evolutionists, they ALWAYS give the reference so it can be checked....

Not always, but often enough that I'll give you that. But they know that the faithful will simply trust them not to be lying and never check it out. When the "evil atheist evolutionists" check out the source of the quote, they inevitably discover that in context the author is not doubting evolution in general, but only some minor point of someone else's proposed mechanism, or that the quote is a hypothetical objection to their own proposed mechanism that they immediately demolish. And you are correct that this practice is "deceptive and dishonest."

...and they NEVER post a partial statement without adding "..."

If he adds ... after the statement then that is legitimate. Plus he seems to think only creationists quote mine.

One adds the elipsis mark (...) at the point at which the missing material would go, whether it is at the beginning, middle or end. And lasthero does add it at the beginning, since the full verse reads "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' "

He does not claim that only creationists mine quotes. But they do it so blatently and unapologetically. There is one poster here who continues to use a mined quote in his signature tag, despite having been advised that, as he quotes it and uses it, he is lying about the original author. The full quote and context have been quoted to him several times, and he refuses to back down from the practice because he sees the apologist websites that he frequents do the same thing. That is the main reason lasthero added the mined verse to his signature.

 

[frogman2x]

So, a "kind" is a species?

Yes

Then if I show you observed speciation in nature and in the lab, will that prove that kinds can evolve?

If you can prove it, I will have to accept it. You also must prove that speciation is capable of a spcies becoming a different one and the reason they can no longer mate.

 

[frogman2x]

My quote isn't the topic.

I have just made it a part of the discussion but I can understand why you want to avoid addressing what I said.

So if a population of animals changed to the point that some of them can't interbreed, that's a new kind?

No. There are several reasons why some who could mate no longer can.

Until you give me your definition of "kind" I will not continue this disicussion.

 

[frogman2x]

I have a problem with theories like this. If you believe that, why are you here at all? To feel smug?

I have a problem with anyone who beleives such a thing. Especially when they offer not proof.

 

[OllieFranz]

Yes



If you can prove it, I will have to accept it. You also must prove that speciation is capable of a spcies becoming a different one and the reason they can no longer mate.

Now that you have equated "kind" and "species," perhaps you are now finally ready to answer my question. Are panthers all one kind, or are each of the various panthers (lion, tiger, jaguar, leopard) separate kinds?

 

[frogman2x]

Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists

By the way, here's a page where you can find may examples of the thing you said never happens. Some even make up quotes whole clothe.

Not interested. If you can point to somethmng specific, do so.

But you won't actually look, will you?

No. You made a statgement back it up.

I will give you credit, You did put ... before you quote and most know what that inicates. I think your "quote mine" is silly but if it makes you happy, maybe it is worth it.

 

[lasthero]

I have just made i a part of the discussion but I can understand why you want to avoid addressing what Isais.

Repost this in English, please. Are you typing with your tongue?

No. There are several reasons why some who could mate no longer can.

And now you've moved the goalpost.

If what you say is true - that kinds are animals that can interbreed, and we never see one kind of animal turning into another kind - it shouldn't matter the reason that certain animals can't interbreed any longer. If they're that way for any reason, they're not the same kind anymore, because they can't interbreed, by the very definition that you've set up.

Until you give me your definition of "kind" I will not continue this disicussion.

We can go with yours. I like it, because it's so easy to poke holes through.

 

[lasthero]

No. You made a statgement back it up.

Actually, no. You made a statement - a broad, sweeping statement that you didn't spend a moment researching, but a statement nonetheless.

I gave you the reference. All you have to do is click, and examples will be poking you in the face. But as expected, you won't look.

 

[frogman2x]

Maybe a little. But I stand by my claim that quote mining is the only "research"that we ever see come out of professional Creationism apologist organizations.

We can believe whatever we want. The problem is proving what we say. Can youo do that?

You are, of course, free to imitate Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass, and redefine a word however you like. But my description of quote mining is the accepted one

Congratulation, you may have one thing right.

Not always, but often enough that I'll give you that. But they know that the faithful will simply trust them not to be lying and never check it out.

That shoe fits the evolutionist also. Have you ever checked out the evidence presented for whaal evolution? Have you eve checked out the biological evidence for natural selection?

When the "evil atheist evolutionists" check out the source of the quote, they inevitably discover that in context the author is not doubting evolution in general, but only some minor point of someone else's proposed mechanism, or that the quote is a hypothetical objection to their own proposed mechanism that they immediately demolish. And you are correct that this practice is "deceptive and dishonest."

I have never said or suggested the evolutionists is doubting evolution. All I am saying is that some evolutionisit have questioned some of the conclusions of other evolutionists. What I have ound to be generally true is the the evolutionist say it happened but never produce the biology that makes it possible. IMO, that is also deceptive and dishonest. So look at your own house b efor you start throwing rocks at mine.

One adds the elipsis mark (...) at the point at which the missing material would go, whether it is at the beginning, middle or end. And lasthero does add it at the beginning, since the full verse reads "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' "<<

Yes he does and I just gave him credit for doing it right

He does not claim that only creationists mine quotes. But they do it so blatently and unapologetically.

The he should produce the evidence of accusing them of it. Also, him considering something wrong or deceptgive doe snot make it so. Leet him quit hiding behind his rhetoric and be specific.


There is one poster here who continues to use a mined quote in his signature tag, despite having been advised that, as he quotes it and uses it, he is lying about the original author. The full quote and context have been quoted to him several times, and he refuses to back down from the practice because he sees the apologist websites that he frequents do the same thing. That is the main reason lasthero added the mined verse to his signature.

If he has only done it once, like I did to him, that would be fine, but he coninues to do it.

And that's fine with me. IMO, it makes him look foolish but me thinking something is foolish does not make it foolish, but there is no excuse for being rude and insulting. That is a sign of immaturity.