Why Evolution is True (2)

[Loudmouth]

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

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]

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

I already did make my case. Read it.

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

Your answer showed no error on my part. Try again.

 

[createdtoworship]

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?

this is a misrepresentation of what was said. I never said that because quote mine is not found, that out of context quotes don't exist, as you imply here. I mentioned specifically that out of context quotes do exist, however they are very hard to prove.

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 quoted out of context 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?

(so I changed the wording from quote mine to quoting out of context).

so technically you can argue that the interpretation of that verse indicates there to be no God. That would be your opinion, as unscholarly as it is. However it could be that God is not omnipotent, and doubted his existence, or it could be that the Bible is not inspired and that there was an error. So to prove it a quote out of context is near impossible. But I believe it so, but that is my opinion, not fact. So you again would be wrong here, as I pointed out in the last few posts regarding this. I think because I swapped wording from quote mine to quoting out of context, you assumed I didn't believe in quoting out of context, but I do. It's just difficult to prove as fact. And this is where you err.

 

[createdtoworship]

I already did make my case. Read it.

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)

Your answer showed no error on my part. Try again

see my last post (posted just now)

I prove you wrong again regarding quoting out of context. (second time now)

 

[createdtoworship]

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.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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)

That is not what it means at all. Scientists are skeptical about all claims. They believe there is some doubt. That is all that it means. And continued investigation is what science does. Science is all about the careful investigation of the evidence. Now if any evidence arose that was contrary to the theory of evolution you might have a point. Sadly for you that is not the case.



[quoite]see my last post (posted just now)

I prove you wrong again regarding quoting out of context. (second time now)[/QUOTE]

No, you have not proved anything except for your own incredible reading comprehension and bias.

Do you remember how you linked a failed post of yours yesterday, it was the second in a list of failed posts of yours. You accused me of a double standard and there was none. You still did not understand the why your sources that do not quote correctly are bogus.

Why don't you break down the posts that you do not understand and ask for further clarification rather than making foolish statements and then declaring that you have won. That is the very definition of pigeon chess:

Pigeon chess - RationalWiki

 

[createdtoworship]

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 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 creationistic quotes that are out of topic, or missquoted does it take to prove the whole work wrong. We'll see how you answer this (odd) question. what is good enough for you, is good enough for me. I will answer your questions, but lets have both sides do the same thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

"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."
Dissent from Darwin

You don't have to reject evolution in order to sign off on that statement. You can be skeptical of a theory and still accept it. You can also suggest that mechanisms in addition to random mutation and selection (e.g. genetic drift, cladogenesis) are needed in the theory. You can also agree that the theory needs careful examination, and still accept the theory. That is exactly what Loran Moran comments on in his blog:

"Only an IDiot would claim that supporters of this statement are also creationists. Many atheist scientists, including me, would agree with the statement. Nevertheless, if you look at the list of people who signed [Scientific Dissent from Darwin List] you'll not find very many evolutionary biologists because we all know that the IDiots will misuse this list."
Sandwalk: The Purpose of "The Scientific Dissent from Darwin" List

Even funnier are the hosts and hosts of electrical and computer engineers on the list.

namely they are saying they don't believe in the complexity of current organisms are accounted for by simply selection or mutation.

Someone who agrees with the the theory of evolution would also agree that random mutations and selection by themselves can not explain the complexity of current organisms. However, they would agree that evolution could.

The lie that you have been sold is that "mutation and selection only" is the same as "evolution" or "Darwinism".

Can one deny mutation or natural selection and still be an evolutionist? No.

Can one say that other evolutionary mechanisms other than mutation and selection are needed? Yes.

I prove you wrong again regarding quoting out of context. (second time now)

Quote mines don't exist, so you can't have done that.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Darwinian history? Now you are inventing new words.

Why don't you show us the part of Darwin's theory where it says that we ought to kill Jews. I am still waiting for you to do that. If you can't, then I can only assume that you are lying about the theory of evolution leading to Social Darwinism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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:

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.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Loudmouth]

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

I think it gives us a small insight into just how dishonest the creationist position is.

The first claim that creationists often make is that the list is the number of scientists who back ID/creationism. Of course, the statement they sign says absolutely nothing about ID/creationism, either for or against.

Next, they will claim that by signing the statement you are "dissenting from Darwinism", which is silly in the extreme as we have both discussed.

As you state, the silliest is point is that finding a tiny percentage of scientists who may very well reject the theory of evolution constitutes a real scientific debate or controversy. It doesn't.

The only thing the list is really useful for is a DI mailing list.

 

[Dizredux]

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."

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.

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.

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.

Neither does any other knowledgeable person.

How can an evolutionist adhere to this statement and still be an evolutionist?

Because that is what the evidence shows. What on earth is your problem with this?

Can one deny mutation or natural selection and still be an evolutionist? No.

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

 

[dad]

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

One would hope that morals come from some other place than a dictionary.

I would hope so, too. However, it seems that if gradyll can find some type of semantic game or equivocation to wiggle out of immoral behavior, then that is exactly what will happen.

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.

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.

 

[justlookinla]

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?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

 

[justlookinla]

I figured it out. You can't refute the evidence, so all you have left is threats.

Go worship your vocal nerve.

 

[dad]

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.

Man has no other way to know right and wrong than God's word. Any other morality is lost in the fog of darkness.

 

[Loudmouth]

Go worship your vocal nerve.

I will accept your tacit admission that you can't address the evidence.