Misquoted creationist misquotes

Hosea 3:1-2 "Then said the LORD unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress.... So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley."

prostitution is bible endorsed, thats what this quote (whose meaning has not changed) says to me.

Well, you are doing a poor job of it. I don't have a problem with any of the quotes you mentioned, but take note anyway of my point about scientific data and theological text.

In the quotes we were discussing, the creationist is rightly pointing out the actual data and uses evolutionists to confirm that Isaak is overstating his case. There is nothing wrong with the way he uses the quotes. It is clear that the evolutionist he quotes doesn't agree with the creationist in how to interpret the data. It is also clear that there is a basic honesty about the creationist position here, and that the evolutionists are evading the issue with a bogus claim of distortion which isn't the case.

The creationist is accurately bringing to light some facts glossed over by Isaak and other evolutionists, but admitted to by the people quoted.

are you getting the picture here, I can take these selected quotes and tell someone that the bible endorses canibalism, prostitution and that god is at once warlike and peaceful and that god punishes the sons of sinners but also doesn't punish them. Selective quotation, even though the meaning of the actual quotations hasn't changed, are still dishonest.

"Hosea 3:1-2 "Then said the LORD unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress.... So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley."

prostitution is bible endorsed, thats what this quote (whose meaning has not changed) says to me"

Now, you are taking the quote out of context because you are distorting the meaning of the words. "You" here refers to Hosea, not to you.

Geesh, are you really this ignorant, or brainwashed. I don't relish being offensive, but something is wrong with you here.

Please state where the quotes are actually "out of context" where the quoter has distorted their meaning. Also, thier meaning is not the same as the purpose in using them. Take the example of the surplus. As long as the figures were the same, the meaning is the same though one argues for a tax cut and one for a tax increase.

In any other thread you'd be jumping all over these quotes and telling me they are out of context, you aren't now because you won't admit that your assertion that there is nothing wrong with slective quotation as long as the original meaning of that quotation is preserved, is wrong

Geesh, are you really this ignorant, or brainwashed. I don't relish being offensive, but something is wrong with you here. - randman, the self deceit in this statement is indicative of a general affliction from which you seem to suffer

"are you getting the picture here, I can take these selected quotes and tell someone that the bible endorses canibalism, prostitution and that god is at once warlike and peaceful and that god punishes the sons of sinners but also doesn't punish them. Selective quotation, even though the meaning of the actual quotations hasn't changed, are still dishonest."

That's where you are wrong. In order to do all of that, you would need to distort the meaning and add to the meaning of the verses you quoted. Still, it is perfectly acceptable to use the quotes in an argument about what the Bible teached, just as someone else can quote the Bible to counter those arguments.

The issue we are dealing with is whether there is any misrepresentation of the quoted material, and there is not. This is where you fundamentally miss the crux of the matter. The creationist understands what the evolutionist is saying. He is just disagreeing with it.

Take away all the words, and think about what is actually being described. Basically, the creationist wants to make darn sure that it is clear that it is understood that the species to species transitions are not shown, and that there is considerable debate about the exact lineages, and that when an evolutionist speaks of facts of thousands of transitional fossils, it isn't clear always where these species lie in the lineages, that there is considerable debate on what the correct lineages are, and that either way, "transitional" does not mean the actual species to species transitions are shown.

I find it curious that evolutionists fight so hard to obscure these facts, even though they at times admit to them, as the quotes indicate. It is odd and makes me wonder if they are not upset by the correction of false impressions that the public has due to their terminology. Basically, it looks like the evolutionists are just upset being caught perpetuating a lie.

Otherwise, why be upset over the quotes? Creationists basically are pointing out things evolutionists have conceded in order to counter the false statements of popularizers of evolution such as the talkOrigins site.

"In any other thread you'd be jumping all over these quotes and telling me they are out of context, you aren't now because you won't admit that your assertion that there is nothing wrong with slective quotation as long as the original meaning of that quotation is preserved, is wrong"

That's just not true. Other than the actual taking out of context the Hosea scripture, I don't see the problem with the others. The Lord is both a warrior and a man of peace. Look at Jesus's life. He destroyed the works of the devil.

God is to be loved, but feared too.

"What you fail to understand, randman, is that quotes from authorities are not data, they are opinions. When quoting an authority's opinion, it is the responsiblity of the quoter to fairly represent that entire opinion.

You said in post #7:

"The author, an ardent evolutionist, as pointed out by Wallace, of course feels evolution is true..."

So you yourself admit that the authority believes evolution is true. Isn't it therefore dishonest to selectively quote the same authority to make it sound like he doesn't believe evolution is true?"

If you beleive this LFOD, I am basically not interested in talking with you. First of all, the quoter mentions the person is an evolutionist. Let me say that again since you are particularly brainwashed. The creationist STATES THE MEN BEING QUOTED ARE ARDENT EVOLUTIONISTS. THERE IS NO ATTEMPT TO MAKE THEM APPEAR OTHERWISE. To define taking out of context in some other way than distorting the meaning of the words is just bogus.

Bottom line in debate, it is fine to quote from the authorities of your opponent without conceding them as authoritative in their final conclusions. Basically, you can't see it, but your view here is pretty twisted mind control stuff which is product of indoctrination, and actually is basically an attempt to argue from authority, as you state, by insisting it is improper to quote an authroity if you disagree with his final conclusion.

You also know full well that noone tried to pass these men off as creationist. You are lying. I am more concerned if you are doing so unknowingly since that means you have lost some of your mental reasoning abilities.

Ok guys, can we please tone it down in here? No need to get personal or insulting.

Thank You.

Well, I havemade dozens of quotes fully in cotext in debate with evolutionists, and immediately they all spout the same thing, except for maybe one out of ten, here and there. I don't know if you are a Christian, but have you ever tried to witness to a Jehovah witness? They are not all the same, but it is true that often it is like talking to a machine. Pat answers are given for every situation regardless of what is said. For the most part, ardent evolutionists I meet on the web are just like that. Actually, they are much worse. If they see a quote of an evolutionist, they simply state "it is argument from authority" and taking it "out of context." Heck, I am not even sure half of them know what "out of context" means anymore. It's like they are half-brainwashed or something.

Pat answers are given for every situation regardless of what is said. For the most part, ardent evolutionists I meet on the web are just like that. Actually, they are much worse. If they see a quote of an evolutionist, they simply state "it is argument from authority" and taking it "out of context." Heck, I am not even sure half of them know what "out of context" means anymore. It's like they are half-brainwashed or something.

Click to expand...

When you are constantly called upon to do battle against bad quotes, out of context, that often misrepresent the original author's ideas, and sometimes even their words, yeah, you tend to develop a knee-jerk reaction. That is understandable... That is human nature...

The funny thing is that, when making points with evolutionists quotes HONESTLY, the points available are so trivial as not to deserve mention... it is easy to expect a hidden agenda if the only point you appear to be making is one that is so simple and irrelevant that it doesn't even go against mainstream evolution.

Besides - why do you use so many quotes in the first place? Have you no arguments? Can you not cite actual data as reported in the peer review literature?

I use quotes because they force evolutionists to confront the data you seem to think of as inconsequential. If it was so trivial, I don't think people like LFOD and others would fight so hard to cloud the issue.

I still go back to the old Archy thread, and I think it illustrates the evidence in the fossil record quite well.

1.
2.
3. Archy
4.
5.

Evolutionists like to use diagrams and pictures too. Guess it isn't pleasant to see it used against their ideas. I can still remember the depictions of Neanderthal as half-ape in order to make the case for evolutionism. That little false bit of evidence was a large reason many accepted evolution.

I still go back to the old Archy thread, and I think it illustrates the evidence in the fossil record quite well.

1.
2.
3. Archy
4.
5.

Click to expand...

So you are saying that the fossil record has only one species, Archaeopteryx? If not, you are not illustrating the evidence in the fossil record, you are only illustrating the absence of a very particular KIND of evidence, as it relates to one distinct GENUS of organsisms, from the fossil record.

Why would you want to do this? WHO HAS CLAIMED THAT THIS SPECIFIC KIND OF EVIDENCE, RELATING TO THIS SPECIFIC GENUS, EXISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Archy is a mosaic. That doesn't mean he is transitional. The idea that he is transitional is at best an inference, and at worst a fallacious assumption. I pick on him because he is perhaps the most famous so-called transitional fossil ou there.

Originally posted by randman
Archy is a mosaic. That doesn't mean he is transitional. The idea that he is transitional is at best an inference, and at worst a fallacious assumption. I pick on him because he is perhaps the most famous so-called transitional fossil ou there.

Click to expand...

For that matter, how do you define mosaic? Does it have bits of characters and structures from a variety of known organisms, or is it functionally intermediate between reptiles and birds?

What does the theory of evolution predict about the existence of a "mosaic" of this kind?

What other theory makes predictions about a "mosaic" of this kind?

Are there any other fossil species that bear great resemblance to Archae? What were they, & when did they live?