Why Evolution is True (2)

[createdtoworship]

Earlier, you said that this was a quote mine.

"There is no God."--Psalm 14:1

Are you saying it isn't a quote mine since quote mines don't exist?

Also, it is technically okay to quote part of a passage, so there is nothing wrong with that quote, right?



It is extremely easy to show in this case.



It is jargon used to denote the use of quotes that are pulled out of context. Given that evolutionists use that jargon and creationists do pull quotes out of context means that they do exist.



Play with semantics all you want. It won't cover up the multiple quotes you have used out of context.

I am questioning the overuse of quote out of context, and the non existence of quote mining in any legitimate dictionary. What I mean by overuse, is that it is very difficult to prove a quote out of context, and even if you do, it could be that there was a mistake made by the author. What you can say is, "my interpretation is different" and you can prove that. But that is an opinion, but to state that someone quote mined or quoted out of context, no I haven't seen that, even with the "there is no God" verse. I don't interpret that verse the same way you do. But that does not mean that it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is wrong. It could be the Bible was in error, a typo, or God wanted to say "there is no God" proving himself wrong. But I do know that the majority of the Bible mentions God, so it would be inconsistent in my opinion to interpret it that way. But to prove it, well thats not very easy. You can't ask God. We can't put it under a microscope. So your view is in error.

again try to prove any quote out of context/quote mines

I was talking about oranges for 10 minutes, but one minute I was
talking about bananas.

Now, If you quote the banana part, then you have quote mined because it was not in context of the oranges.

But who is to say HE just didn't change opinions or doubt his orange
opinion in the few minutes he debated bananas?

See, quote mining doesn't exist.
It's all a lie of evolutionists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quote mining is a two word phrase, that is one reason that it may not appear in any of your dictionaries.

Also if you don't like the so called overuse of be called out for quote mining there is a very easy and reasonable solution. Make sure that you do not quote mine or use sources that quote mine. Quotable sites will have links to the sources of their quotes. Don't use sources that do not quote properly and you will not be called out for quote mining.

Why is that so unreasonable? Is it because, as I have claims, creationists quote mine left and right.

Debate honestly and people will respect you. Debate dishonestly and people will not.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

no one needs to prove it. We just need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. BTW low criticism is what it is called when they compare various manuscripts to what they view was closest to the original. The originals are extant. But we have copies, numerous copies with 99.7 % accuracy between them. Some sort of diety must have made that happen.

Uh . . . "extant" means they exist, which they no longer do. So you should have written "no longer extant" or "no longer exist".

 

[createdtoworship]

Quote mining is a two word phrase, that is one reason that it may not appear in any of your dictionaries.

Also if you don't like the so called overuse of be called out for quote mining there is a very easy and reasonable solution. Make sure that you do not quote mine or use sources that quote mine. Quotable sites will have links to the sources of their quotes. Don't use sources that do not quote properly and you will not be called out for quote mining.

Why is that so unreasonable? Is it because, as I have claims, creationists quote mine left and right.

Debate honestly and people will respect you. Debate dishonestly and people will not.

find any slang or online dictionary that contains quote mining. all I could find was wikipedia but that is user edited and not trustworthy. the fact that only wikipedia has it should alarm us as to wikipedias sources.

secondly you uave never proven any of my quotes as out of context or missquotes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

find any slang or online dictionary that contains quote mining. all I could find was wikipedia but that is user edited and not trustworthy. the fact that only wikipedia has it should alarm us as to wikipedias sources.

secondly you uave never proven any of my quotes as out of context or missquotes.

I am sure that I have, but we could always do it again. What was the name of that faulty book that you had? Was it the "evolution handbook". Back in a few minutes.

 

[justlookinla]

I am sure that I have, but we could always do it again. What was the name of that faulty book that you had? Was it the "evolution handbook". Back in a few minutes.

Maybe Darwin's "Origin of Species"? It's pretty faulty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe Darwin's "Origin of Species"? It's pretty faulty.

It has faults, but it clearly has fewer faults than the Bible.

Why do you believe your Bible with all of its faults if you think the few faults that Darwin's work has are fatal?

 

[justlookinla]

It has faults, but it clearly has fewer faults than the Bible.

Why do you believe your Bible with all of its faults if you think the few faults that Darwin's work has are fatal?

Pick whatever book you think gives you eternal life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pick whatever book you think gives you eternal life.

Foolish claim. None of them do.

No matter what you believe sooner or later you will be dead. But then so will I.

 

[justlookinla]

Foolish claim. None of them do.

No matter what you believe sooner or later you will be dead. But then so will I.

It's the second death which should concern you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's the second death which should concern you.

Nope, dead is dead.

 

[createdtoworship]

I am sure that I have, but we could always do it again. What was the name of that faulty book that you had? Was it the "evolution handbook". Back in a few minutes.

Evolution Handbook 3

and if you mean by a few minutes, you mean more like an hour right?

here is one for you, in case you forgot:

""Darwin often said quite plainly that it was wrong to ameliorate the conditions of the poor, since to do so would hinder the evolutionary struggle for existence."—R.E.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1958), p. 120."

 

[createdtoworship]

I am sure that I have, but we could always do it again. What was the name of that faulty book that you had? Was it the "evolution handbook". Back in a few minutes.

while I wait I can show several posts, where you have been proven wrong:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-post66200778
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-8/#post66196231
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-47/#post66171951
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-48/#post66171514
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-13/#post66191413
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-13/#post66191405
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-34/#post66183936
should I search for more?

 

[Subduction Zone]

while I wait I can show several posts, where you have been proven wrong:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-post66200778
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-8/#post66196231
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-47/#post66171951
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-48/#post66171514
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-13/#post66191413
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-13/#post66191405
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-34/#post66183936
should I search for more?

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!

 

[Subduction Zone]

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:

The Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement, "provided crucial funding" for the book's research.

Sorry but your so called expert has lost all credibility. He is simply another person that is willing to lie against evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way gradyll, since you failed terribly, yes you should search for more.

The fact that I answered most of those with little more than a laugh should have told you that they were garbage.

Good night, I will see you tomorrow.

 

[dad]

""Darwin often said quite plainly that it was wrong to ameliorate the conditions of the poor, since to do so would hinder the evolutionary struggle for existence."—R.E.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1958), p. 120."

When we start thinking of man as an animal and waving off God and creation and His glorious plan and design, that is the sort of devilry men end up with. We see that today in the eco fraud folks, some of them, where they feel that man is just another 'species' or animal. Some have poisoned meat to make a statement about man treating poultry badly, or put spikes in trees, etc. I have heard some lament the human population number and wish it was drastically culled. Of course when babies are just unborn animals to them, killing hundreds of millions of them is fine and even a noble endeavor..etc etc. The many heads and facets of Satanic inspiration, which very much includes evolution. (the theory of evolution as per Darwin)

I would not blame evolution for Hitler's evils or mankind's...it is just an outcrop of the disease.

 

[dad]

How many quote mines do I have to find to show that your link is worthless?
...

Using a relevant part of a quote is not bad but a great thing if done right. It saves time, and avoids things that are not the issue, and gets to the heart of the matter.

 

[dad]

Earlier, you said that this was a quote mine.

"There is no God."--Psalm 14:1.

That does offend the context, because the thought was specifically that a fool does that.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am questioning the overuse of quote out of context, and the non existence of quote mining in any legitimate dictionary.

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.

What I mean by overuse, is that it is very difficult to prove a quote out of context, and even if you do, it could be that there was a mistake made by the author. What you can say is, "my interpretation is different" and you can prove that. But that is an opinion, but to state that someone quote mined or quoted out of context, no I haven't seen that, even with the "there is no God" verse. I don't interpret that verse the same way you do. But that does not mean that it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is wrong. It could be the Bible was in error, a typo, or God wanted to say "there is no God" proving himself wrong. But I do know that the majority of the Bible mentions God, so it would be inconsistent in my opinion to interpret it that way. But to prove it, well thats not very easy. You can't ask God. We can't put it under a microscope. So your view is in error.

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?