Evolution As Science? Really...?

[Morallyangelic]

Quote mining is not a valid debate tactic and will get you ridiculed and laughed at.

It is also a form of false witness because many of the quotes are taken out of context and used to make it sound like the person being quoted is saying something that they are not.

As a Christian when I read those quotes I see some people who are educated in their fields going against evolution and I'm taking them at face value.

If you know how they are taken out of context then teach me that don't let your only argument be " Those were taken out of context ".

 

[Tomk80]

Let's assume that he is an educated individual. Do you think the best method of getting your point across is to ridicule him and to point out his failures?

Sometimes that works quite well. In the case of quote mining, as he has done, ridicule is the only fitting answer. I am very honest here when I state that anyone who thinks that out of context quotes make an argument does not fit in the category of educated idividual. Sorry.

Just because someone appears uneducated in an arena that other people appear to be seriously educated doesn't mean you have the right to term them an a-hole. Nor does it give you a right to ridicule them and their beliefs by calling us a bunch of ' Bible thumpers ' .

No, but we know him from other threads. The term fits his behavior in those threads perfectly.

For clarification, bible thumper is another legendary poster on the internet, on this and several other forums. His rudeness is unsurpassed by any atheist I have ever met on the net. With 'bible thumper', people were referring to him, not to creationists or christians in general.

I would like to learn from these forums ... If you know something then TEACH me, don't sterotype me and ridicule me because the only thing I'm learning here is that people are cruel and I can learn that anywhere.

Lesson 1: quote mines are a very, very, very bad way of arguing your point. The reason for this is that the context of the quotes is missing. Context is important to see what someone really said.

If you have read some of the posts that have gone in more detail, you should have seen that a number of the quotes were from the 19th century, a number of quotes were taking out of context (in other words, they appear to say something different than they really do when read in the context of the whole argument of the original author) or had nothing to do with evolution. Do you agree that using quotes in this way isn't a very good way to go about it?

 

[Tomk80]

As a Christian when I read those quotes I see some people who are educated in their fields going against evolution and I'm taking them at face value.

Why? Seriously, why would you take them at face value? Why not apply some critical thinking and check out the complete quote?

If you know how they are taken out of context then teach me that don't let your only argument be " Those were taken out of context ".

On which quotes do you still have questions after reading post #18?

 

[Forever42]

As a Christian

Also, please stop saying this - if you notice the faith icons, there are many, many Christians in here who are scientists and accept evolution. Being Christian doesn't mean you automatically have to accept that the world is young and that evolution doesn't occur.

(edit: this is not meant as an attack, as I am Christian myself)

 

[Morallyangelic]

Sometimes that works quite well. In the case of quote mining, as he has done, ridicule is the only fitting answer. I am very honest here when I state that anyone who thinks that out of context quotes make an argument does not fit in the category of educated idividual. Sorry.


No, but we know him from other threads. The term fits his behavior in those threads perfectly.

For clarification, bible thumper is another legendary poster on the internet, on this and several other forums. His rudeness is unsurpassed by any atheist I have ever met on the net. With 'bible thumper', people were referring to him, not to creationists or christians in general.


Lesson 1: quote mines are a very, very, very bad way of arguing your point. The reason for this is that the context of the quotes is missing. Context is important to see what someone really said.

If you have read some of the posts that have gone in more detail, you should have seen that a number of the quotes were from the 19th century, a number of quotes were taking out of context (in other words, they appear to say something different than they really do when read in the context of the whole argument of the original author) or had nothing to do with evolution. Do you agree that using quotes in this way isn't a very good way to go about it?

I do agree but I also think a better method of showing me that those quotes were indeed taken out of context is to post the entire article or whatever.

Otherwise I'm thinking to myself how do YOU know it was indeed taken out of context.

 

[Tomk80]

I do agree but I also think a better method of showing me that those quotes were indeed taken out of context is to post the entire article or whatever. Otherwise I'm thinking to myself how do YOU know it was indeed taken out of context.

To be honest, I've checked a reasonable amoount of quotes out in the past. It's easy enough, just google for the quote mine project. I have never found a single quote by a creationist that was not taken out of context. There are exceptions. Those include quotes by people whose area of expertise is not evolution, quotes of people who changed their minds on evolution afterwards and quotes from the 19th century or before (when the debate on evolution was indeed still being fought). Since then, whenever I see a bunch of quotes posted by a creationist of the likes of Edmond, I know I can dismiss them automatically.

Other pointers:

• whenever you see a quote by an 'evolutionist' that seems to imply that evolution cannot be true, you can get suspicious. At least I would. I mean, if they think that evolution cannot be true, they wouldn't be evolutionists now, would they?
• Whenever you see a quote by a well-known 'evolutionist' (for example Mayr, Gould, Miller or Dawkins) that seems to imply that evolution has not happened, you can be certain that this is out of context. These people were very certain that the theory of evolution best fits the facts we see in nature.
• Whenever you see a quote by Darwin, the same holds.
• Whenver you do not see the date of the quote mentioned, it is most likely very old and often irrelevant to the current discussion.
• For good measure: the quote mine project.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

As a Christian when I read those quotes I see some people who are educated in their fields going against evolution and I'm taking them at face value.

If you know how they are taken out of context then teach me that don't let your only argument be " Those were taken out of context ".

Here is an entire website dedicated to these types of quote mines and researching their context.

 

[Morallyangelic]

To be honest, I've checked a reasonable amoount of quotes out in the past. It's easy enough, just google for the quote mine project. I have never found a single quote by a creationist that was not taken out of context. There are exceptions. Those include quotes by people whose area of expertise is not evolution, quotes of people who changed their minds on evolution afterwards and quotes from the 19th century or before (when the debate on evolution was indeed still being fought). Since then, whenever I see a bunch of quotes posted by a creationist of the likes of Edmond, I know I can dismiss them automatically.

Other pointers:

• whenever you see a quote by an 'evolutionist' that seems to imply that evolution cannot be true, you can get suspicious. At least I would. I mean, if they think that evolution cannot be true, they wouldn't be evolutionists now, would they?
• Whenever you see a quote by a well-known 'evolutionist' (for example Mayr, Gould, Miller or Dawkins) that seems to imply that evolution has not happened, you can be certain that this is out of context. These people were very certain that the theory of evolution best fits the facts we see in nature.
• Whenever you see a quote by Darwin, the same holds.
• Whenver you do not see the date of the quote mentioned, it is most likely very old and often irrelevant to the current discussion.
• For good measure: the quote mine project.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain that to me. I hope that some of you realize that everyone hasn't been on this forum forever and if you'd actually like to hear some new opinions on things you may not want to scare everyone away with your attack tactics.

I appreciate whoever takes the time to explain to me and others things that aren't always clear.

Thank you.

 

[notto]

I do agree but I also think a better method of showing me that those quotes were indeed taken out of context is to post the entire article or whatever.

Otherwise I'm thinking to myself how do YOU know it was indeed taken out of context.

Because we have seen them before - over and over and over.

You should ask yourself, why didn't the original poster provide you with the context or a link to the original source? (hint - because often, they have not read the original context themselves and are simply copy and pasting from another source).

I guarantee you that the original poster has never read most of the works from which most of these quotes come from. It is not the posters work that is shown - the poster is posting a list from somewhere else.

It is a poor way to debate, and a poor way to present anything.

 

[notto]

I think the Bible was pretty specific about where it stands on creation/evolution.

You should take a look at the actual creation sometime. As the only physical thing made by God we can actually observe and research, it has a lot to say as well.

 

[jwu]

And it's not about what the Bible doesn't say it's about what the Bible DOES say. GENESIS 1:21 mentions Bringing forth after their KIND.

I think the Bible was pretty specific about where it stands on creation/evolution.

Evolution does not propose that anything ever gives birth to something that is not of their own species though.
The offspring will be slightly different, but still the same species. Only over many many generations do enough changes accumulate to make it a new species than its great great.............(another 10.000 "greats")........grandparents. The passage which you quoted merely forbids speciation within a single generation.

 

[Morallyangelic]

Because we have seen them before - over and over and over.

You should ask yourself, why didn't the original poster provide you with the context or a link to the original source? (hint - because often, they have not read the original context themselves and are simply copy and pasting from another source).

I guarantee you that the original poster has never read most of the works from which most of these quotes come from. It is not the posters work that is shown - the poster is posting a list from somewhere else.

It is a poor way to debate, and a poor way to present anything.

I agree with you that this appears to be the case this time. I still don't think that warrants people making jokes at another human beings expense.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I'm not suggesting at all that I don't know science. You may have assumed that. I am actually a chemical engineer so I know a little about science.

And it's not about what the Bible doesn't say it's about what the Bible DOES say. GENESIS 1:21 mentions Bringing forth after their KIND.

I think the Bible was pretty specific about where it stands on creation/evolution.

Everything does bring forth after its kind. Dogs have puppies, cats have kittens. Evolution does not contradict that. Indeed, if animals could give birth to different kinds of animals from themselves evolution could not work.

 

[Morallyangelic]

Here's a big one:

"If you are trying to make a point to the majority of Christians you may want to use language that is compelling to us so that we can see your point clearly."

That's from http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=20337628&postcount=8

right there. You're inferring that Christians don't understand science, so need things dumbed down.

And above, you said that as a Christian, you would take quote referring to science as face value. If you are an engineer, why would you do that?

Further above, you mention this:



You're saying that you're a good person because you take the Bible literally and we're not because we accept evolution. If you don't mean this, then you need to clarify, because that's the impression you're giving.

What exactly is a "kind"? We never really seem to get a definition of that here.

I don't understand your arguing tactics or the ' lingo ' used on this or any forum for that matter. From what I've read throughout these things everyone seems to over exercise you intelligence.

Why not speak in lamens terms for those who may not understand?

 

[Forever42]

I don't understand your arguing tactics or the ' lingo ' used on this or any forum for that matter. From what I've read throughout these things everyone seems to over exercise you intelligence.

Why not speak in lamens terms for those who may not understand?

I'm not sure what you mean by arguing tactics, here.

The so called "lingo" is basic scientific terms. (I'm an engineer as well.) You can ask if you need clarification on anything, people will be happy to answer. Which words do you need clarified?

If you ask a specific question, you'll get a specific answer. If others need simpler language, they can ask for that as well. I think if people are going to start arguing against evolution and the age of the earth, they should be able to understand things such as put forward in that meteor thread. I don't think they were difficult to understand.

Edit: I have to leave at this point, but I think others will be happy to answer any questions that you have

 

[vipertaja]

Why not speak in lamens terms for those who may not understand?

Being one of the dumber persons here I understand your point.
If one puts too many professional/"insider" terms into a post
it easily becomes psychobabble. This is still a scientific debate
forum though so people won't spare the hard ammo. Just do like
me and try not to get into a topic that's over your head. And if I
find myself in such a topic I just say I don't know and back away.
Don't worry if you do that, someone else with more knowledge on
the subject will pick it up.

 

[cerad]

I'm not suggesting at all that I don't know science. You may have assumed that. I am actually a chemical engineer so I know a little about science.

I know it's off topic but while you were training to be a chemical engineer and asked to explain a given process or reaction, did you ever just say "God Did It". And if so, what happened?

 

[Dracil]

As a Christian when I read those quotes I see some people who are educated in their fields going against evolution and I'm taking them at face value.

If you know how they are taken out of context then teach me that don't let your only argument be " Those were taken out of context ".

As a Christian when I read those quotes I see quote mines.

 

[Morallyangelic]

I know it's off topic but while you were training to be a chemical engineer and asked to explain a given process or reaction, did you ever just say "God Did It". And if so, what happened?

You can explain any given process or reaction without ever getting into evolution and as far as any evolutionary teaching goes in schools you can opt not to be a participant in those teachings and still pass ... Go figure.

 

[cerad]

You can explain any given process or reaction without ever getting into evolution and as far as any evolutionary teaching goes in schools you can opt not to be a participant in those teachings and still pass ... Go figure.

So you are also a biologist and managed to get your degree by answering "God Did It" to evolution type questions? Which university did you attend? Or were you talking about other biologists?