Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[46AND2]

In cases like this, must the poster include the entire text in his or her post? Is in not sufficient to present these portions?

It is totally fine to quote a portion of someone's statement, as long as the usage of that statement is true to the overall context of the passage, and/or the position of the person being quoted. In this case, the author of the quotes SPECIFICALLY stated that his words were taken out of context.

Seriously, how strong do you think your argument is when you quote a guy who says you are using his quote wrong? What strength could there possibly be in such a tactic? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[The Cadet]

Seriously, how strong do you think your argument is when you quote a guy who says you are using his quote wrong? What strength could there possibly be in such a tactic? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Or even if the author later turns around and says, "I was wrong" - if all the quote is going off of is the author's pedigree, and the author later rejects the quote, then the quote has nothing to go on. It's a whole step further if the author claims that you misunderstood or misinterpreted the quote - as Patterson has clearly stated.

 

[Jimmy D]

I hear a lot on here about "quote mining". Many times however the complete thought, paragraph or statement is given in whole. A quote mine would be to take the small part of a statement that you need to get your point across while leaving off another portion that would give clear light on what the quote was actually communicating.

The quotes that are shown by BobRyan are complete quotes that stand alone. No preface or follow up statement is going to change the statement made from communicating a strong point.

Your example is a true quote mine as the whole passage is shown below...

Psalm 14

1 The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.

I appreciate that you might be late to this thread but pretty much each of Bobryan's quote mines have been discussed at length, if you read back or investigate them for yourself in their original context you can see for yourself.

 

[Jimmy D]

It is totally fine to quote a portion of someone's statement, as long as the usage of that statement is true to the overall context of the passage, and/or the position of the person being quoted. In this case, the author of the quotes SPECIFICALLY stated that his words were taken out of context.

Seriously, how strong do you think your argument is when you quote a guy who says you are using his quote wrong? What strength could there possibly be in such a tactic? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

I don't know why people can't understand this.

I keep asking Bob but he refuses to respond:

a) Aren't the people you enjoy quoting professional scientists and fully accept evolution?

b) Why are you prepared to accept one or two sentences they say which you think support your point,yet reject the other 99.999% of their work which disagrees with your 'opinion'?

c) Does one comment (even if it were shown to be in context) negate actual evidence? Opinions are not facts.

I don't expect a response from Bob, it seems he is completely unwilling to engage in any form of discussion apart from spamming his quote mines and making sarcastic remarks.

 

[JacksBratt]

Or even if the author later turns around and says, "I was wrong" - if all the quote is going off of is the author's pedigree, and the author later rejects the quote, then the quote has nothing to go on. It's a whole step further if the author claims that you misunderstood or misinterpreted the quote - as Patterson has clearly stated.

Cadet, 46and2, and jonfromminnesot, I am not stating whether or not this guy was a creationist or evolutionist, said other things that dismiss creation or, later, went on to recant what he said. What I am saying is that these quotes are complete statements and can be taken as such.

I asked Sarah if she could tell me anything that the man could have said, previous to or after he made these quotes at the time, that would change the dynamics of what he is actually saying in the quotes.

If he did, later change his mind on these points, is he a credible source for evolution or creation? If he can flip flop around, how solid is his view?

If someone of influence in the world media was a staunch supporter of the belief that the moon landings were a hoax (don't get all freaked out here its just an example for my point) but this person, at a national symposium, was to stand up and emphatically state "Given all I have said, I truly believe that the Apollo missions did, in fact, actually go to the moon several times and return with much usable data", and then this person was to continue their life denying the landings were true.....

The questions could be asked.....

1/ Would people and should people use their quote as a reference to something this person actually said? Of course they could and should.
2/ How credible is this persons statements after this flip flop? Not very, they just moved the goalposts and even switched ends and back.

If you cannot see this and how different it is from reading Psalms 14 verse 1 and then telling someone that the Bible itself states that "There is no God"

When in fact the verse fully reads:

Psalm 14:1King James Version (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Then I have no understanding of what you consider a "quote mine". It would seem to me, then, that anything anyone has said, that contradicts, brings question to, doubts, debunks, or speaks negatively of the TOE would be taken as a quote mine. When they could, in all actuality, be taken as they are presented, as solid statements and truthful statements by the speaker.

In the end, it appears that Dr. Patterson did make these statements and should be held to them.

 

[Loudmouth]

Indeed there is much "evolutionist devotee" motivated fiction/myth/hope that one sentence away the author says "I don't mean a word of what I am saying - I am just saying this to give BobRyan some material against evolution that looks good on the surface".

These "happy fictions" that evolutionists tell themselves - not unlike the "long list of improbable just-so stories"

These fossils are myths?

 

[Loudmouth]

With blind faith evolutionism - you have to go back to 'basics'

Explain why objective thinkers reject the mythology that - "a pile of dirt is sure-enough going to turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt over a sufficiently talented and long period of time - filled with improbable just-so-stories”

Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say that a pile of dirt turns into a rabbit.

 

[Loudmouth]

I asked Sarah if she could tell me anything that the man could have said, previous to or after he made these quotes at the time, that would change the dynamics of what he is actually saying in the quotes.

That's a really easy one.

What Patterson could have said, and exactly what he was saying in context, is that we shouldn't assume that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of any living species. Transitional and ancestral are two different things. As described by Darwin:

"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

Therefore, transitional fossils inform us of what was happening at the actual split between lineages, but are not to be used as the actual ancestors.

When in fact the verse fully reads:
. . . There is no God.

There you go. It says right in the Bible that God does not exist. Even you are saying it.

 

[46AND2]

Cadet, 46and2, and jonfromminnesot, I am not stating whether or not this guy was a creationist or evolutionist, said other things that dismiss creation or, later, went on to recant what he said. What I am saying is that these quotes are complete statements and can be taken as such.

How many times do we have to tell you that he specifically stated that creationists quoted him out of context?

He didn't recant, or change his mind, and therefore those quotes are NOT complete statements, nor can they be taken as such, because they were taken out of context.

 

[Hieronymus]

How many times do we have to tell you that he specifically stated that creationists quoted him out of context?

Apparently he disagrees.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Apparently he disagrees.

A person caught in a lie will often disagree with whoever calls him out on it.

 

[46AND2]

Apparently he disagrees.

He can disagree all he wants. It doesn't change the fact that he is ignoring our argument in that we have specifically said that Patterson responded to the claim and stated he was quoted out of context. Jacks then goes on to say some stuff about not caring if the guy recanted, as if that ever had anything to do with our response. None of us ever said anything about recantation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Apparently he disagrees.

The Bible says that God does not exist, and I disagree with anyone who says otherwise.

"There is no God"--Psalm 14:1

 

[JacksBratt]

The Bible says that God does not exist, and I disagree with anyone who says otherwise.

"There is no God"--Psalm 14:1

Yep, exactly. This is why you will never understand it.

 

[JacksBratt]

How many times do we have to tell you that he specifically stated that creationists quoted him out of context?

He didn't recant, or change his mind, and therefore those quotes are NOT complete statements, nor can they be taken as such, because they were taken out of context.

Then I will put the question to you.... what did he say before, or after, these statements that can change their content or their meaning? They are complete thoughts. Complete statements and can mean nothing other than what is presented.

Unlike loudmouth who chops a sentence and states the middle portion as a fact and stands alone.

 

[Hieronymus]

The Bible says that God does not exist, and I disagree with anyone who says otherwise.

"There is no God"--Psalm 14:1

(edit)
i should have said, you quote the fool in Psalms 14:1
sorry..

 

[Loudmouth]

Yep, exactly. This is why you will never understand it.

I disagree.

See? I just refuted your argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

a troll...

Funny how you call people trolls for using the same arguments you use.

 

[Hieronymus]

I disagree.

See? I just refuted your argument.

Only for yourself, as usual...

 

[46AND2]

Then I will put the question to you.... what did he say before, or after, these statements that can change their content or their meaning? They are complete thoughts. Complete statements and can mean nothing other than what is presented.

Unlike loudmouth who chops a sentence and states the middle portion as a fact and stands alone.

You have been given the explanation as to why it is out of context, in the author's own words. What's more, nearly every evolution supporter one would use this quote against, has read, or will read the author's explanation, rendering the usage of the quote utterly meaningless.

What if I were to show you a quote by a leading Biblical scholar, who says that the creationist interpretation of the Bible is wrong? Would that have any meaning for you? I suspect not. So why on earth would you think that a quote (EVEN IF IT WAS IN CONTEXT) from one or a couple scientists would be a significant argument against us?