That is just your intepretation, and since "quote mine" isn't in the dictionary then it can't be out of context.
[this is what gradyll is arguing]
Upvote
0
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.
That does offend the context, because the thought was specifically that a fool does that.
it is no better than the dissent from darwinism statement, show how you think the document signed somehow shows wishy washiness on behalf of those who made it. Make your case.
secondly you want me to prove where you were wrong, well I just answered this post regarding your error of alleging a quote out of context: http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960/#post66203025
You know exactly what we mean when we say "quote mine". That is all that is required. Trying to run away from dishonest quotes by pointing to the absence of the phrase "quote mine" in the dictionary is as dishonest as it gets.
Then this isn't a quote mine because I really do interpret it as meaning that David was an atheist:
"There is no God."--Psalm 14:1
Does that seem like an honest argument to you? Can I further state that this can't be a dishonest, out of context quote because "quote mine" is not found in the dictionary?
you made no case. You didn't put the two statments up for comparison, you simply said that the statement for the dissent from darwin was wishy washy. Lets analyze that.I already did make my case. Read it.
Your answer showed no error on my part. Try again
Looking at gradyll's list of fail on his part I got curious about a person that he contacted. Now a wise person would have contacted a neutral person to give his claims some validity.
gradyll is anything but wise. He contacted Richard Weikart, a historian and that right away throws away about 90% of his ability to comment since historians are usually very weak in biology, and then it turns out it was a particular historian. He contacted Richard Weikart, a stooge of the Discovery Institute. If you don't remember the Discovery Institute they lost all credibility by being on the losing side of the Dover Trial. They were the ones that dressed up creationism in a cheap suit and called it ID.
From the Wikipedia article on Richard:
Sorry but your so called expert has lost all credibility. He is simply another person that is willing to lie against evolution.
you made no case. You didn't put the two statments up for comparison, you simply said that the statement for the dissent from darwin was wishy washy. Lets analyze that.
this is the statment
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
namely they are saying they don't believe in the complexity of current organisms are accounted for by simply selection or mutation. That's it. How can an evolutionist adhere to this statement and still be an evolutionist? Can one deny mutation or natural selection and still be an evolutionist? No. So your statement lacks factual data. (as usual)
Sorry, but I am a bit busy tonight. I will be checking your Evolution Handbook for quote mines tomorrow. How many quote mines do I have to find to show that your link is worthless?
And please do not lie. You have never proven me wrong. I have only checked out the first link so far but you failed totally in that post. There was no double standard, simply an example of extremely poor reading comprehension on your part. All you proved is that you are a fool. Why do you insist on making it obvious. I even explained to you how you were wrong. Loudmouth explained to you how you were wrong. I even offered to explain in a PM so that you could avoid further embarrassment and now you lie about your post. The hypocrisy is amazing!
I have been busy. I tell you what. Grab a favorite quote of yours that an evolution supporter made and I will tell you right now whether or not it was quote mined and support my claim. You have a half an hour to reply, otherwise I have to run again, not run away, but I do have to work a little bit.I knew you wouldn't answer the above allegations, thats why I posted them for everyone to see and to form their own opinions. I also foresee you never getting "around to" actually finding quote mines. Find as many as you like, I will leave it up to your discretion. Let me ask you the question, how many evolutionary quotes that are out of context, or missquoted does it take to prove the whole work wrong. We'll see how you answer this (odd) question.
you made no case. You didn't put the two statments up for comparison, you simply said that the statement for the dissent from darwin was wishy washy. Lets analyze that.
namely they are saying they don't believe in the complexity of current organisms are accounted for by simply selection or mutation.
Can one deny mutation or natural selection and still be an evolutionist? No.
I prove you wrong again regarding quoting out of context. (second time now)
again how do you prove a historian doesn't understand biology, or evolution for that matter. Besides even if he knew nothing of biology, he knows darwinian history. Which is what I was talking about, how social darwinism had reflected into the lives of many evil men in history.
After more than a decade of effort the Discovery Institute proudly announced in 2007 that it had got some 700 doctoral-level scientists and engineers to sign "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." Though the number may strike some observers as rather large, it represented less than 0.023 percent of the world's scientists. On the scientific front of the much ballyhooed "Evolution Wars", the Darwinists were winning handily. The ideological struggle between (methodological) naturalism and supernaturalism continued largely in the fantasies of the faithful and the hyperbole of the press.
Loudmouth, gradyll is showing the typical creationist all or nothing attitude. When you put that through a creationist filter you can make amazing claims. For him any dissent against the theory of evolution is "proof" that it is debunked. Never mind that the petition that he is so fond of has less than one percent of the world's scientists endorsing it, even if you do include the countless unqualified signers:
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
you made no case. You didn't put the two statments up for comparison, you simply said that the statement for the dissent from darwin was wishy washy. Lets analyze that.
this is the statment
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Well "duh" what do you think biologists and scientists in related fields do? Do you think that in their training scientists are taught not to examine the evidence? You never know, you might indeed think that.Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
Neither does any other knowledgeable person.namely they are saying they don't believe in the complexity of current organisms are accounted for by simply selection or mutation. That's it.
Because that is what the evidence shows. What on earth is your problem with this?How can an evolutionist adhere to this statement and still be an evolutionist?
One can easily deny that these are the only mechanisms involved in evolution. If fact if someone says that these two mechanisms are adequate to explain evolution then they have a rather serious case of ignorance about the subject.Can one deny mutation or natural selection and still be an evolutionist? No.
One would hope that morals come from some other place than a dictionary. In the case of the bible, the biggest best seller of all time, too many people know something of what it says to get away with that anyhow.That is just your intepretation, and since "quote mine" isn't in the dictionary then it can't be out of context.
[this is what gradyll is arguing]
One would hope that morals come from some other place than a dictionary.
In the case of the bible, the biggest best seller of all time, too many people know something of what it says to get away with that anyhow.
Good grief, anybody who knows anything about evolution as it is currently seen would agree with this statement. Of course random mutation and natural selection alone do not account for the complexity of life. There are other mechanisms involved such as genetic drift which some think is just as powerful as natural selection especially in speciation.
Well "duh" what do you think biologists and scientists in related fields do? Do you think that in their training scientists are taught not to examine the evidence? You never know, you might indeed think that.
Neither does any other knowledgeable person.
Because that is what the evidence shows. What on earth is your problem with this?
One can easily deny that these are the only mechanisms involved in evolution. If fact if someone says that these two mechanisms are adequate to explain evolution then they have a rather serious case of ignorance about the subject.
You will, as usual reject this as you reject anything else that doesn't agree with you but readers can figure out what is going on.
Sigh, Grady continues to be often wrong but never in doubt.
Dizredux
Typical rant toward those who embrace Jesus Christ as creator while narry a peep when the antichrist denies Jesus Christ as creator.
Don't touch Darwinian evolution folks. Reject Christ, mock those who present God as creator, but don't touch Darwinian evolution.
Can readers figure out what's going on?
I figured it out. You can't refute the evidence, so all you have left is threats.
In the case of real human morality, we don't justify morality with the phrase, "because the Bible says so". It's a bit more complicated than that.
Go worship your vocal nerve.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?