Quote mining and accepting lies.

[Ryal Kane]

Reading through this thread
http://www.christianforums.com/t7532409/

I came across this excellent post by Naraoia

http://www.christianforums.com/t7532409-6/

The post points out the real quotes and how they are distorted.

My question to the creationist posters on this board is:
Do you approve of these lies?

I'm not talking about whether you believe the original quotes or the edited versions or how they relate to your worldview.

I'm asking whether you feel it is acceptable to take a snippet of a quote from an individual and present it as saying the opposite of what they said.

For example this comment
DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.

Is turned into this.

DAWKINS: Evolution.....hasn't been observed while it's happening.

Now this is a very obvious and deliberate distortion.It is lying.

It's as if I quoted the sixth commandment as 'Thou shalt...kill."


Whatever your opinions of evolution may be, surely this sort of tactic is dishonest and immoral.

Do the creationists on the board agree?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Definition of "Quote Mine": Any quote from a philosopher, scientist, or mathematician that a mainstream fundamentalist Darwinist disagrees with. Usually a matter of fact that cannot easily be refuted.

 

[sandwiches]

The reason is two-fold. First of all, for creationists and many theists, in general, words have almost a magical power. You see this in the insistence by many creationists such as AoS who misquotes scientists, philosophers to fit his point of view or AV who cherry pick from the Bible to the same end. AV for instance, seems to be under the impression that by changing the classification of Pluto from a planet, we've suddenly changed reality and Pluto is something other than what it was before. He also seems to believe that by calling humans 'apes,' we're somehow obligated to act like gorillas or chimpanzees.

The second issue is the fact that creationists are used to this kind of misquoting. Go into any debate thread about the Bible and notice all the verses flying around that purportedly support one point of view over another and the dozens that oppose the latter. In other words, misquoting and quoting out of context is the norm for many theists, particularly those who base their beliefs on sacred texts. So, when you believe that a reasonable defense for your claim is one verse out of a chapter many pages long, which is itself part of a larger story, of course you'll believe that taking some words from Dawkins or whoever out of context is a completely logical and reasonable tactic.

 

[sandwiches]

Definition of "Quote Mine": Any quote from a philosopher, scientist, or mathematician that contradicts Darwinism and cannot easily be refuted

I remember getting a warning in the forums for calling you out when you misquoted someone. The funny thing is that you never owned up to the fact that you did change the quote to fit your desired meaning.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Definition of "Quote Mine": Any quote from a philosopher, scientist, or mathematician that a mainstream fundamentalist Darwinist disagrees with. Usually a matter of fact that cannot easily be refuted.

I'm not referring to the nature of the quotes, merely the honest representation of them.

Consider the example in the OP.

Richard Dawkins said one thing.
The quote was manipulated to make it appear as if he said this opposite.
Do you consider this deceit on the part of the manipulator to be wrong?

 

[Doveaman]

For example this comment
DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.

Is turned into this.

DAWKINS: Evolution.....hasn't been observed while it's happening.

Now this is a very obvious and deliberate distortion.It is lying.

Only an evolutionist would consider this a distortion or a lie simply because a few words were omitted to make the relevant point.

"it hasn't been observed while it's happening."

"Evolution.....hasn't been observed while it's happening."

Do you see a difference other than the noun "Evolution" being used in place of the pro-noun "it"?

The point is that Dawkins' statement is one of the most ridiculous statements ever made.

"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening."

Am I the only one who recognize how ridiculous this statement is? How can it be observed if it's not happening? Ridiculous.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Only an evolutionist would consider this a distortion or a lie simply because a few words were omitted to make the relevant point.

"it hasn't been observed while it's happening."

"Evolution.....hasn't been observed while it's happening."

Do you see a difference other than the noun "Evolution" being used in place of the pro-noun "it"?

The point is that Dawkins' statement is one of the most ridiculous statements ever made.

"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening."

Am I the only one who recognize how ridiculous this statement is? How can it be observed if it's not happening? Ridiculous.

This is in line with a lot of Dawkins' analogies for understanding evolution. He makes one about investigating evolution is like investigating a crime. You weren't there when the crime occurred, but you can piece together what happened based on the crime scene. Thus, you are able to observe what happened in that sense, but it would be impossible to observe the event itself because it has already passed.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Only an evolutionist would consider this a distortion or a lie simply because a few words were omitted to make the relevant point.

"it hasn't been observed while it's happening."

"Evolution.....hasn't been observed while it's happening."

Do you see a difference other than the noun "Evolution" being used in place of the pro-noun "it"?

The point is that Dawkins' statement is one of the most ridiculous statements ever made.

"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening."

Am I the only one who recognize how ridiculous this statement is? How can it be observed if it's not happening? Ridiculous.

Now putting aside your bit of rethoric, I think that you have a fair question to ask, and it deserves an answer.
"What did dawkins mean by saying evolution has been observed, yet not while it happend?" Now I do not know what he meant specifically and frankly its 4am I am not going to look it up right now.

But I'll give you an example of how you can say this.
Lets say a murder toke place last friday, There are no withnesses but there was a camera outside the window.
Today we happen to discover this camera and we play the tape, we observe how the murder happend on the tape BUT we are not seeing the murder while its happening.
To see the murder WHILE its happening we'd need to have been watching the livestream last friday.

Now replace the videotape with the fossil record, Genetics and Pelontology.
And you could see what he might have meant by observing it, without observing it while it happend.

Course I could be wrong on this, but do you think this explaination is plausible?

No need to comment on how you think evolution is a scam I just want to know if this helps you understand how he could have said something you inititially consider gramatically rediculous.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Only an evolutionist would consider this a distortion or a lie simply because a few words were omitted to make the relevant point.

"it hasn't been observed while it's happening."

"Evolution.....hasn't been observed while it's happening."

Do you see a difference other than the noun "Evolution" being used in place of the pro-noun "it"?

The point is that Dawkins' statement is one of the most ridiculous statements ever made.

"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening."

Am I the only one who recognize how ridiculous this statement is? How can it be observed if it's not happening? Ridiculous.

If the middle of the quote is so insignificant, why go to the trouble of removing it? The seven words being removed hardly add to brevity. You may claim that the statement is absurd but that isn't the point either.

By altering the quote it makes it appear as if Dawkins said something when in fact he was making a point quite the opposite.

 

[JustMeSee]

I will step up and say it. It is wrong, very wrong.
In many cases, I would say that it is worse than plagiarism.
(I am skeptical about creationism and the evidence for evolution)

 

[Drathnor]

Only an evolutionist would consider this a distortion or a lie simply because a few words were omitted to make the relevant point.

"it hasn't been observed while it's happening."

"Evolution.....hasn't been observed while it's happening."

Do you see a difference other than the noun "Evolution" being used in place of the pro-noun "it"?

The point is that Dawkins' statement is one of the most ridiculous statements ever made.

"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening."

Am I the only one who recognize how ridiculous this statement is? How can it be observed if it's not happening? Ridiculous.

As in it happens so slowly its somthing akin to watching grass grow or somthing, google it

And its wrong as its trying to twist the intended meaning of the statement.

Why dont i try one

If a man also lie ... with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13

We could probably do this all day and gain nothing from the discussion.

 

[driewerf]

Whatever your opinions of evolution may be, surely this sort of tactic is dishonest and immoral.

Do the creationists on the board agree?

I agree with sandwich's post number 3, but I think there is some more to say.
Knowing very well that they have no science to offer, creationists do everything to avoid a debate on the scientific level. What they do is
- pose themselves as good christians and trustworhty sources of knowledge
e.g. Kent Hovind opening statements about what he believes:
YouTube - hovind debate

or Conservapedia's logo

- depict scientists as frauds, liars and dishonest people in general. That is why creationists so often equalize evolution with atheism.

This is very well illustrated in other rhetorical tactics that creationists use. They systematically downgrade scietific research to "guesses", copying textbooks from one another, all evidence for evolution consists of frauds (Piltdown Man!, Nebraska Man!), etc. For examples of this, see
http://www.christianforums.com/t7533225-3/#post56696786


That's also why they like some quotes where "evolutionists" themselves don't "believe" in evolution. If these "evolutionists" don't believe it, why would we? And that last sentence is material for a great quote mine itself.

It comes down to "thrust me, not the other side".
This is very well illustrated in other rhetorical tactics that creationists use. They systematically downgrade scietific research to "guesses", copying textbooks from one another, all evidence for evolution consists of frauds (Piltdown Man!, Nebraska Man!), etc.

 

[driewerf]

playing the game:

Evolution is not a fairy tale.

 

[Doveaman]

This is in line with a lot of Dawkins' analogies for understanding evolution. He makes one about investigating evolution is like investigating a crime. You weren't there when the crime occurred, but you can piece together what happened based on the crime scene. Thus, you are able to observe what happened in that sense, but it would be impossible to observe the event itself because it has already passed.

Tell that to those innocent prisoners who have been condemned to death based on the "evidence", see if they agree with you.

 

[Doveaman]

Lets say a murder toke place last friday, There are no withnesses but there was a camera outside the window.
Today we happen to discover this camera and we play the tape, we observe how the murder happend on the tape BUT we are not seeing the murder while its happening...

No need to comment on how you think evolution is a scam I just want to know if this helps you understand how he could have said something you inititially consider gramatically rediculous.

This camera analogy doesn't help at all. Do you have any video tapes of your ape ancestor?

 

[sandwiches]

Tell that to those innocent prisoners who have been condemned to death based on the "evidence", see if they agree with you.

And how do we determine if they're innocent, Doveaman?

 

[Freodin]

This camera analogy doesn't help at all. Do you have any video recordings of your ape ancestor?

Excuse me... but this thread is not about whether a certain statement is correct or meaningful... but whether a certain (mis)quote of that statement correctly represented the intent of the author.

Even if you disagree with the content of the statement you should be able to see that it doesn´t do that. It misrepresents the author. Intentionally.

That is what is commonly called "lying".

And it seems that, because you disagree with the content, you have no problem with lying about it... correct?

 

[Doveaman]

And how do we determine if they're innocent, Doveaman?

By determining you were wrong in the firsts place.

 

[Delphiki]

Definition of "Quote Mine": Any quote from a philosopher, scientist, or mathematician that a mainstream fundamentalist Darwinist disagrees with. Usually a matter of fact that cannot easily be refuted.

Would you mind actually reading the OP and answering the question or is plugging your ears and humming loudly all you know?

 

[Delphiki]

No pun intended, but it's no surprise when the bible is similarly quote mined to hell and back by the very people who claim to follow it.