A thread on evolution

[Obliquinaut]

so again you have no evidence that this occurs. Because I don't honor quote mining as a term.

It does happen. I don't know if it happened in the first video you posted since I didn't watch it but indeed, there are people take others quotes out of context and present them dishonestly.

Please don't strain credulity anymore

So you'll have to try harder if you wish to relay your information clearly.

I have relayed my information clearly. You called it empty walls of text.

But do you know why I use the terminology I use? Because I want to be as technically accurate in my claims as I can possibly be.

You would do well to pay attention to what people actually say.

 

[Obliquinaut]

By the way, I took the "good person test". The test failed. That was a rather idiotic test. Did Ray Comfort have anything to do with it? It has his hamfisted "morals" all over it.

No doubt Ray would use this to remind us that EVERYONE is flawed and fallen.

That's actually one part of Christianity I kind of like. It is a sense of humility. GRANTED humility is something that fits Ray and many Creationists like a bad suit, but humility is a virtue I think is quite important.

The thing I like about Christian soteriology and the idea of Grace is that it can be "secularized" so well. We are all "bad people" undeserving of the love and support of our fellow people. Indeed "grace" in this secular setting is simply our communal offer of support for each other even when others don't deserver it. Because we know that we don't, ourselves, deserve it either.

That's kind of the beauty of a secular grace.

 

[pitabread]

In fact 90% of atheists questioned in the long video, recanted of their views and became theist by the end of the movie.

Out of curiosity, I watched the end of the video to see these so-called conversions. There only appear to be 4 or 5 people that legitimately say they will repent. When I went back to the beginning of the video to see whether they identify as atheists, I could only find 2. Furthermore a number of the people at the beginning who self-identify as atheists don't appear to explicitly adopt theism at the end of the video.

So I'm not really sure where this 90% figure came from, but I'm not seeing it. For those that do appear to convert or say they will repent, can you point to specifically in the video where they identify themselves as atheists?

 

[createdtoworship]

Nope, you don't know what logical fallacies are or how to use them. You should just try your best to be honest.

equivocation is when one word means two different things inappropriately in the same argument. You said

I have never made a false accusation against you. Nor have I attacked you.

So I guess I am safe, whew!

you accuse me of all sorts of mayhem, here is one:

A thread on evolution

 

[createdtoworship]

Nope, you don't know what logical fallacies are or how to use them. You should just try your best to be honest.

And you may not "honor gravity as an official force". That does not make it not exist.

Sorry, you have shown that you are not interested in "the truth". An honest person, regardless of faith, will despise quote mining.

here is another place you accuse me (this time dishonesty), I am not sure you are aware. But ad hominems are attacks against the person. If you attack an argument that is fine. But flaming the user is not allowed.

 

[createdtoworship]

It does happen. I don't know if it happened in the first video you posted since I didn't watch it but indeed, there are people take others quotes out of context and present them dishonestly.

Please don't strain credulity anymore



I have relayed my information clearly. You called it empty walls of text.

But do you know why I use the terminology I use? Because I want to be as technically accurate in my claims as I can possibly be.

You would do well to pay attention to what people actually say.

again quote mines don't exist, only quoting out of context, I hope you can at least admit that.

 

[createdtoworship]

Of course it is.

Just because it is your thread does not mean that you can ignore the rules of the site.

again another flame, here I ignore all the rules of the site.

 

[createdtoworship]

No doubt Ray would use this to remind us that EVERYONE is flawed and fallen.

That's actually one part of Christianity I kind of like. It is a sense of humility. GRANTED humility is something that fits Ray and many Creationists like a bad suit, but humility is a virtue I think is quite important.

The thing I like about Christian soteriology and the idea of Grace is that it can be "secularized" so well. We are all "bad people" undeserving of the love and support of our fellow people. Indeed "grace" in this secular setting is simply our communal offer of support for each other even when others don't deserver it. Because we know that we don't, ourselves, deserve it either.

That's kind of the beauty of a secular grace.

well said, I agree.

 

[Gene2memE]

again quote mines don't exist, only quoting out of context, I hope you can at least admit that.

Quote mining is a colloquial term describing the practice of selectively taking quotes out of context to denude them of their proper meaning. It does exist - as much as anything involving language and logic can be said to exist. The term describing the concept has been around for decades - dating back at least to mid 1990 Usenet debates.

Saying "quote mines don't exist, only quoting out of context", is like saying "mining doesn't exist, only taking minerals out of the ground". They're different terms for functionally the same thing.

Quote mining is so prevalent in creationist circles that there entire online projects dedicated to correcting the record, so to speak, about the quotes taken out of context. Even Answers in Genesis has issued a caution abut the "dangers" of quote mining.

The classic example is the repeating of the first part in Darwin's Origin of Species about the evolution of the eye, while omitting the second part of the paragraph. However, there are lists of thousands of examples available online.

 

[Obliquinaut]

again quote mines don't exist, only quoting out of context, I hope you can at least admit that.

I'm fine with you ignoring a well-known phrase. Yes, quoting out of context with the intent to misrepresent someone else's position by selectively decontextualizing the quote is fine. I'm happy to use that phrase if it will make you happy.

There are many instances in which Creationists have quoted evolutionary scientists out of context with what appears to be the intent to misrepresent the evolutionary scientists position by selectively decontextualizing the quotes.

There are many examples easily found in a quick Google search. (But since the internet is not as much of a linguistic purist as yourself they may use the non-existent phrase "quote mining", but do be assured that it is only out laziness of people who make webpages).

 

[Subduction Zone]

here is another place you accuse me (this time dishonesty), I am not sure you are aware. But ad hominems are attacks against the person. If you attack an argument that is fine. But flaming the user is not allowed.

Pointing out that you have been less than honest is not directly saying that you are dishonest.

And I have do not use ad hominems in a debate.

By the way, that is nothing compared to you stating that I lied, which of course I did not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

again another flame, here I ignore all the rules of the site.

Hardly. That is not a flame. You need to quit being so sensitive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

equivocation is when one word means two different things inappropriately in the same argument. You said

Yes, and I did not do that.

you accuse me of all sorts of mayhem, here is one:

A thread on evolution

You even apologized for your action that led to that claim. Again, no fault on my part there.

 

[createdtoworship]

Quote mining is a colloquial term describing the practice of selectively taking quotes out of context to denude them of their proper meaning. It does exist - as much as anything involving language and logic can be said to exist. The term describing the concept has been around for decades - dating back at least to mid 1990 Usenet debates.

Saying "quote mines don't exist, only quoting out of context", is like saying "mining doesn't exist, only taking minerals out of the ground". They're different terms for functionally the same thing.

Quote mining is so prevalent in creationist circles that there entire online projects dedicated to correcting the record, so to speak, about the quotes taken out of context. Even Answers in Genesis has issued a caution abut the "dangers" of quote mining.

The classic example is the repeating of the first part in Darwin's Origin of Species about the evolution of the eye, while omitting the second part of the paragraph. However, there are lists of thousands of examples available online.

show me one dictionary (official, non wiki sourced) with quote mine in it. Then I will believe you. But even you admit its a new term relatively speaking.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm fine with you ignoring a well-known phrase. Yes, quoting out of context with the intent to misrepresent someone else's position by selectively decontextualizing the quote is fine. I'm happy to use that phrase if it will make you happy.

There are many instances in which Creationists have quoted evolutionary scientists out of context with what appears to be the intent to misrepresent the evolutionary scientists position by selectively decontextualizing the quotes.

There are many examples easily found in a quick Google search. (But since the internet is not as much of a linguistic purist as yourself they may use the non-existent phrase "quote mining", but do be assured that it is only out laziness of people who make webpages).

again even if quote mining existed it's hard to prove as I said numerous times. As you could be talking about bananas for 10 minutes and talk about apples one minute, if you quote the apple section then it presumed to be out of context. So there is a failure in the methods of discovering quote mines, (or better said quotes that are out of context)

 

[createdtoworship]

Pointing out that you have been less than honest is not directly saying that you are dishonest.

lol, you got me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

show me one dictionary (official, non wiki sourced) with quote mine in it. Then I will believe you. But even you admit its a new term relatively speaking.

Dictionaries tend to generally define one word at a time. They do not define phrases. Second dictionaries are not "official". Thirdly, until you demonstrate a serious flaw with Wikipedia, it is still a valid source. Your unsupported assertions are worthless.

 

[Gene2memE]

show me one dictionary (official, non wiki sourced) with quote mine in it.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe how language is used and has has previously been used. They don't determine how it should be used.

There's no such thing as an "official" dictionary either (at least not in English).

Then I will believe you.

Not a dictionary, but here's an "official" source that uses it (a text book).

Argumentation and Debate By Austin J. Freeley, David L. Steinberg, 13th edition 2013. Page 80:

"Taking evidence out of context, also referred to as quote mining, contextomy, suppressed evidence or cherry picking, my offer a convenient way to find the quotes and conclusions which will support a claim, or to avoid consideration of parts of the evidence which are counter to your conclusion, but it is intellectually dishonest and when brought to light likely to be a counterproductive strategy."​

But even you admit its a new term relatively speaking.

And? It's a neologism. That's hardly surprising. So are the words quark, cyberspace, internet, brunch, smog, chortle, nerd, laser, feminist, yuppie and yahoo.

New words get added to dictionaries all the time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe how language is used and has has previously been used. They don't determine how it should be used.

There's no such thing as an "official" dictionary either (at least not in English).



Not a dictionary, but here's an "official" source that uses it (a text book).

Argumentation and Debate By Austin J. Freeley, David L. Steinberg, 13th edition 2013. Page 80:

"Taking evidence out of context, also referred to as quote mining, contextomy, suppressed evidence or cherry picking, my offer a convenient way to find the quotes and conclusions which will support a claim, or to avoid consideration of parts of the evidence which are counter to your conclusion, but it is intellectually dishonest and when brought to light likely to be a counterproductive strategy."​

And? It's a neologism. That's hardly surprising. So are the words quark, cyberspace, internet, brunch, smog, chortle, nerd, laser, feminist, yuppie and yahoo.

New words get added to dictionaries all the time.

Are you sure about Yahoo? You may have been a bit swift in your claim, or to put it more precisely, not Swift enough.

 

[Jimmy D]

I wonder what happened to Gradyll's question he hadn't seen answered in ten years? Did it really exist?