Why Evolution is True (2)

[Subduction Zone]

again, see my last post it's updated, in order to make this claim you have to accept that even talk origins and other websites are invalid that submit online quotations with simple citation and not proof of non quotemining.

now in order to be intellectually honest I want you to contact those site webmasters and tell them the same thing you told me, and get back to me. Then I will know you are serious. The hoops that are good enough for me to jump through are also good enough for you.

Wrong, Talkorigins has articles with links to their sources. You can easily see if they quoted accurately or not. Your source had no links. Creationists have been shown to be quote miners so often that they should all wear headlamps.

Your source was improper, they may have been "accurate" quotes, but as both loudmouth and I showed David was an atheist by your standards.

 

[createdtoworship]

again if you want to be intellectually consistent, contact those atheist webmasters and tell them what you told me.



Great quotes

http://www.askatheists.com/atheist-quotes

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/atheism

even talk origins has not "quote mine proofed" their quotations of thomas paine on this page:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-debates.html

and tell them "to find better sources"
thank you for the comments

 

[createdtoworship]

Wrong, Talkorigins has articles with links to their sources. You can easily see if they quoted accurately or not. Your source had no links. Creationists have been shown to be quote miners so often that they should all wear headlamps.

Your source was improper, they may have been "accurate" quotes, but as both loudmouth and I showed David was an atheist by your standards.

I had the same type of link that talk origins had:

here is the link....again
Evolution Handbook 3

this hypocrisy to tell me to do one thing yet allow other atheist sites to do is phenomenal.

please be consistent and tell those sites to update their pages with proof of context and proof of actual said quote.

secondly, I provided the direct link earlier, yet for some reason it was good enough for atheist sites but not good enough for me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

again if you want to be intellectually consistent, contact those atheist webmasters and tell them what you told me.



Great quotes

Atheist Quotes - www.askatheists.com

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/atheism

even talk origins has not "quote mine proofed" their quotations of thomas paine on this page:

The Talk.Origins Archive: Debates, Gatherings & Court Decisions

and tell them "to find better sources"
thank you for the comments

Those articles would not be appropriate to use in a debate either.

The important fact is that we have not used those sort of quotes. They are fine as articles if you want to read something. If you doubt them you can check out their sources yourself. But they are of little use in a debate.

Do you see us using that sort of source in a debate? It is extremely foolish to look for the kind of evidence that we do not use and then claim "atheists do it too".

You still need to work on your logic skills.

 

[createdtoworship]

Do you understand the concept of trust?

Of all the quotes that I have checked on talkorigins, they check out. They are accurate representations of the material they come from. To my knowledge, no one has found a single quote at talkorigins that is taken seriously out of context.

Can the same be said for the quotes you have given us? Absolutely not. The quotes you post are taken way out of context. They are lies. You and the sites you copy and paste from have given us zero reasons to trust them, and every reason to distrust them.

Do you understand this concept of trust? Do you understand why your behavior in the past gives us zero incentive to trust you?

Also, given your ability to lie about things that can be easily checked, what trust do you think people should have in your ability to truthfully describe God, or anything for that matter?

this is considered poisoning the well, even if I lied about 99.9% of everything I said, still there could be one tenth of one percent truth. So you can't say with absolute truth that any of the quotes are in error, based on past events. Secondly, you have no evidence of anything I quote being a quote mine. Please give post number, no, this is dodge as usual.

thirdly, check your quote mine project at talk origins and see if they check out. I dare you, and btw tell them to make sure their quotes are in context. Which I haven't seen any evidence they are in fact speaking on creation evolution controversy:

the following quote:
"
"It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we defeat the enemy in one battle, or by degrees, the consequences will be the same."

- Thomas Paine,
The American Crisis [1777]

"

above quote from:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-debates.html

is taken to mean that the cause being defended is evolution, however Thomas Paine does not state this. So how are we to know it's not a quote mine. Please email them and find out, since you are so biased that they can do it, and I can't, and because they are so trustworthy (in your eyes).

that was just the first quote I found, and it's out of context, I would bet if I took time to look a good portion of them are in fact out of context.

 

[lasthero]

Secondly, you have no evidence of anything I quote being a quote mine. Please give post number, no, this is dodge as usual.

How about every post you've ever made, because you have a quote mine in your signature?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I had the same type of link that talk origins had:

here is the link....again
Evolution Handbook 3

this hypocrisy to tell me to do one thing yet allow other atheist sites to do is phenomenal.

please be consistent and tell those sites to update their pages with proof of context and proof of actual said quote.

secondly, I provided the direct link earlier, yet for some reason it was good enough for atheist sites but not good enough for me.

No, you didn't. TalkOrigins articles have links to their sources so people can see that they are being honest. Your source did not have links to its source and one of the main reasons is because your source was not being honest.

CD011.5: C14 date of Triassic wood

As you can see if you follow the link that article has links to both the creationist claim and to the article used to debunk it.

If you are going to quote your foe you must provide a source that shows you are being honest, especially if you are a member of a group that has lied many times by quote mining. I don't think that you could find a group that is more guilty of quote mining than creationist, that makes it an absolute must that they include links to make up for their past wrongs.

 

[createdtoworship]

Those articles would not be appropriate to use in a debate either.

The important fact is that we have not used those sort of quotes. They are fine as articles if you want to read something. If you doubt them you can check out their sources yourself. But they are of little use in a debate.

Do you see us using that sort of source in a debate? It is extremely foolish to look for the kind of evidence that we do not use and then claim "atheists do it too".

You still need to work on your logic skills.

so it's the duty of the reader of the quotes to find the error?

yet when I quoted this source:
Evolution Handbook 3

you as a reader should find the error right?

then why did you state this:

It is YOUR job to make sure the quotes YOU use are in context

yet they did not do so on four atheist sites I found:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960/#post66200563,
and here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960/#post66200071
and that was the first four that came up on the search. 100 percent of the links I clicked all did the same thing.
so, apparently if your an atheist reader, you don't have to check citations, but if you are a christian you do.

nice

 

[Loudmouth]

this is considered poisoning the well, even if I lied about 99.9% of everything I said, still there could be one tenth of one percent truth.

Then show it is true. Show the quotes in context.

I refuse to slush my way through feet of bull excrement just to find one thing you were accidently right about.

So you can't say with absolute truth that any of the quotes are in error, based on past events.

I can say that I found example after example of lies in your posts, so they aren't worth my time unless you take the time to show how your copy and paste jobs are actually true.

Secondly, you have no evidence of anything I quote being a quote mine.

The sad part is that you wouldn't know the truth if it smaked you in the forehead.

 

[createdtoworship]

I can say that I found example after example of lies in your posts, so they aren't worth my time unless you take the time to show how your copy and paste jobs are actually true.

so then it is your job to document said errors, correct?

and use them at a time like now, when it matters.

But most likely they didn't in fact happen, and this is why you can't document said alleged errors in my citations.

this is all a dodge tactic, I have seen it many times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so it's the duty of the reader of the quotes to find the error?

yet when I quoted this source:
Evolution Handbook 3

you as a reader should find the error right?

then why did you state this:



yet they did not do so on four atheist sites I found:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960/#post66200563,
and here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960/#post66200071
and that was the first four that came up on the search. 100 percent of the links I clicked all did the same thing.
so, apparently if your an atheist reader, you don't have to check citations, but if you are a christian you do.

nice

It is the duty of the person that is providing the quotes to provide sources that can be checked relatively easily. I should not have to do long Google searches to check on the veracity of your posts.

If I cite a Bible verse there is hardly any need to link it since the Bible is extremely well sourced on the internet. Your quotes from many different authors from many different sources is another matter.

If I cannot check the accuracy of your source, and since creationists have a terribly history of lying, then your source is not valid.

How hard is that to understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And gradyll referring to an index page and complaining about the quotes there is hardly honest on your part. Why didn't you link an actual article? Or can't you tell the difference?

It is the articles of TalkOrigins that tend to be very well sourced. The ones that are not well sourced should not be used in a debate either.

 

[createdtoworship]

It is the duty of the person that is providing the quotes to provide sources that can be checked relatively easily. I should not have to do long Google searches to check on the veracity of your posts.

If I cite a Bible verse there is hardly any need to link it since the Bible is extremely well sourced on the internet. Your quotes from many different authors from many different sources is another matter.

If I cannot check the accuracy of your source, and since creationists have a terribly history of lying, then your source is not valid.

How hard is that to understand?

again, it appears that you are removing yourself from study. The athiest sites I quoted do the same exact thing, every one. 100% of all that I saw. Even talk origins shows a quote out of context. So if you are serious about this point then you need to tell them. And prove that you told them. I have talked about this

here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960/#post66200563,
and here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960/#post66200071

 

[createdtoworship]

subduction zone states this in regard to creationist or not atheist quotations: (the poster provided the research)

It is the duty of the person that is providing the quotes to provide sources that can be checked relatively easily.

then states the exact opposite in regards to atheist supporting quotes: (the reader provides the research)

They are fine as articles if you want to read something. If you doubt them you can check out their sources yourself.

you can easily see his double standard

 

[Subduction Zone]

again, it appears that you are removing yourself from study. The athiest sites I quoted do the same exact thing, every one. 100% of all that I saw. Even talk origins shows a quote out of context. So if you are serious about this point then you need to tell them. And prove that you told them. I have talked about this

here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960/#post66200563,
and here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960/#post66200071

gradyl your first post linked this page:

The Talk.Origins Archive: Debates, Gatherings & Court Decisions

It is not an article. It is an index page. Try again.

In your second one you used the index page again and articles that are not used as evidence by atheists here. They are fine articles on their own, but the lack of references makes them bad sources to use here.

If you found an atheist actually using those sources for quotes you would be correct if you pointed out how they are not valid. I am betting that you can't find an example of an atheist using those sources incorrectly.


Another fine logic fail brought to you by gradyll.

 

[Subduction Zone]

subduction zone states this in regard to creationist or not atheist quotations:


then states the exact opposite in regards to atheist supporting quotes:


you can easily see his double standard

What double standard?

Yet another logic fail.

I said that they are not valid sources for atheists either. I said they are fine articles in their own right. And if you, as an exercise, want to check on the quotes that is fine. You might learn something. But it would be wrong for an atheist to use those sources too.

Perhaps this is not a logic fail on your part so much as it is a reading comprehension fail.

 

[createdtoworship]

gradyl your first post linked this page:

The Talk.Origins Archive: Debates, Gatherings & Court Decisions

It is not an article. It is an index page. Try again.

In your second one you used the index page again and articles that are not used as evidence by atheists here. They are fine articles on their own, but the lack of references makes them bad sources to use here.

If you found an atheist actually using those sources for quotes you would be correct if you pointed out how they are not valid. I am betting that you can't find an example of an atheist using those sources incorrectly.


Another fine logic fail brought to you by gradyll.

the point is that it is a quotation on a webpage that does not do what you are asking me to do, secondly I proved that it was most likely out of context. Now if you were intellectually honest, you need to contact them and get the error corrected. But for the most part it appears you are just lazy and don't want to do anything outside of posting a few lines.

 

[Subduction Zone]

the point is that it is a quotation on a webpage that does not do what you are asking me to do, secondly I proved that it was most likely out of context. Now if you were intellectually honest, you need to contact them and get the error corrected. But for the most part it appears you are just lazy and don't want to do anything outside of posting a few lines.

Yet another logic fail.

gradyll are (educate and do not dis, educate and do not did)? Your logic is failing you left and right.

You proved nothing about the quote from Paine. No one even implied that quote was about creationism, though it could be said to be a quote against evil, which creationism clearly is.

I don't know how to explain this to you. Go back and read the posts another ten times. If you still don't understand me please PM me.

 

[Loudmouth]

so then it is your job to document said errors, correct?

It is your job to not post errors.

But most likely they didn't in fact happen, and this is why you can't document said alleged errors in my citations.

We could start with your list of pertinent scientists who you claim "Dissent from Darwinism". That wasn't the case. First, they agreed to a statement that did not require them to reject the theory of evolution. Second, the list had electrical engineers and computer scientists on it.

That is just one example out of many. In this thread you once again try to link the the theory of biological evolution and social Darwinism, WHICH AREN'T THE SAME THING.

Should I point out more?

 

[createdtoworship]

It is your job to not post errors.



We could start with your list of pertinent scientists who you claim "Dissent from Darwinism". That wasn't the case. First, they agreed to a statement that did not require them to reject the theory of evolution. Second, the list had electrical engineers and computer scientists on it.

That is just one example out of many. In this thread you once again try to link the the theory of biological evolution and social Darwinism, WHICH AREN'T THE SAME THING.

Should I point out more?

I think you mistook my dissent list with your project steve. because I can say the same thing. secondly that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

thirdly are you saying that a research paper doesnt have to do what you are asking me to do?

see how a citation is typically all that is required (no weblinks needed)

Citing Quotes in a Paper | eHow