-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Quote mining and accepting lies.
- Thread starter Ryal Kane
- Start date
pgp_protector
Noted strange person
- Dec 17, 2003
- 51,919
- 17,827
- 57
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Now he is taking credit for inventing the camera:
But can quoting mining also be intentionally omitting certain parts of a word?
Yep, that's one way to take what they're saying Out of Context.
Upvote
0
Doveaman
Re-Created, Not Evolved.
- Mar 4, 2009
- 8,464
- 597
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
It is only quote mined if the quote distorts the originally intended meaning of the statement.
Example:
Original Statement:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. - Genesis 1:1.
Quote:
"God created...the earth."
There is nothing in this quote that distorts the originally intended meaning of Genesis 1:1 because God did create the earth.
Another example:
DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.
DAWKINS: Evolution.....hasn't been observed while it's happening.
There is nothing in this quote that distorts the originally intended meaning of Dawkins' statement because evolution indeed hasn't been observed while it's happening, which is what Dawkins meant in his statement.
Example:
Original Statement:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. - Genesis 1:1.
Quote:
"God created...the earth."
There is nothing in this quote that distorts the originally intended meaning of Genesis 1:1 because God did create the earth.
Another example:
DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.
DAWKINS: Evolution.....hasn't been observed while it's happening.
There is nothing in this quote that distorts the originally intended meaning of Dawkins' statement because evolution indeed hasn't been observed while it's happening, which is what Dawkins meant in his statement.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Another example of quote mining is committing the fallacy of equivocation, i.e. applying a meaning to a word that was not originally intended and then interpreting the passage in light of this incorrect meaning. For example, AVET recently posted the following somewhere as evidence that humans did not evolve from apes and that evolution is an invention:
This assumes that the word "upright" refers to having an erect body / back. The problem is though that this word is used in the Bible in reference to moral uprightness, not physical uprightness. There are a few instances in the KJV where it says "stand upright", but it is a different Hebrew word - a subtlety that KJV-onlyists are doomed to miss. This particular Hebrew word in Ecclesiastes however refers to moral uprightness, for example as in Job 1:1.
So what AVET has done here is he has quote mined Solomon, by taking his words out of context, misinterpreting his choice of words and applying them to a subject that was never originally intended.
This assumes that the word "upright" refers to having an erect body / back. The problem is though that this word is used in the Bible in reference to moral uprightness, not physical uprightness. There are a few instances in the KJV where it says "stand upright", but it is a different Hebrew word - a subtlety that KJV-onlyists are doomed to miss. This particular Hebrew word in Ecclesiastes however refers to moral uprightness, for example as in Job 1:1.
So what AVET has done here is he has quote mined Solomon, by taking his words out of context, misinterpreting his choice of words and applying them to a subject that was never originally intended.
Upvote
0
I tried clicking on both those links because I wanted to read Naraoias examples, but I received this message: Invalid Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator. Have you made an error or has the thread disappeared?
Upvote
0
pgp_protector
Noted strange person
- Dec 17, 2003
- 51,919
- 17,827
- 57
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,724
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Kinda like saying the 'days' in Genesis 1 are really anything but 'days' -- right?
Upvote
0
Actually, no. IIRC, the original word is a word that simply means "a time". Or more closely "day" in the same sense as saying "back in the day" in English. Fact is, the account of Genesis 1 actually doesn't give any specific measure of time. I only remember this because the whole "day" thing is probably one of the most commonly discussed specific regarding biblical interpretation.
Regardless of what length of time "day" refers to, however, we now know that the earth and the life hereon did not appear in the same sequence as described in Genesis 1.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,724
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Exiledoomsayer
Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this
Likewise I'm sure you would agree that..
Darwin: "To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Was correctly quoted because it does seem to be absurd. Nevermind what he said right after it..
Darwin: "When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
There is a bit of a difference between what the quotemined text implies and what the full text implies isnt there? If you really cannot see this then I worry about you.
Upvote
0
Exiledoomsayer
Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this
Alright
As you may know the darwin quotemine has been used by some creationists, do you disagree with them over the use of that tactic or do you view it differently?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
