Why Evolution is True

[PsychoSarah]

we were talking about how peer review works. We were talking about the process of peer review very kindly.

To the person who doesn't think quote mining can be done, note I have added no new material, only gotten rid of some of the words you said, to change the message completely

 

[createdtoworship]

To the person who doesn't think quote mining can be done, note I have added no new material, only gotten rid of some of the words you said, to change the message completely

a misquote, thats what most laywers, professors etc will call it. Quotemines don't exist. But feel free to find a dictionary not affiliated with wikipedia that defines quote mine for you, and I may actually believe it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

a misquote, thats what most laywers, professors etc will call it. Quotemines don't exist. But feel free to find a dictionary not affiliated with wikipedia that defines quote mine for you, and I may actually believe it.

Quote mine = misquote

It is a different name for the same freaking thing dude. What you call it isn't important, that the action happens is. If you honestly have been arguing against the phrase quote mine this whole time and not the actual practice I am going to be really mad.

 

[createdtoworship]

LM Grady, the main reason that I gave up trying to discuss with you is that you don't read. You don't read the articles and sites given to you.

I will read them until they pose errors, then I will not waste more time on it.

You seem to just glance at them then respond. You don't even read the cites you give again appearing to just give them a quick look and if they appear to be supporting you in any way, use them whether or not they actually do.


This is a good example. Loudmouth clearly said that her discovery was peer reviewed 17 years *before* she won the Nobel.

a slight mistake

You did not even bother to pay attention to what was said, you simply blundered on with your response. As a result you just made yourself look very foolish. But more importantly, this bad habit of yours makes it almost impossible to discuss anything with you.

I wouldn't say that.

 

[createdtoworship]

Quote mine = misquote

It is a different name for the same freaking thing dude. What you call it isn't important, that the action happens is. If you honestly have been arguing against the phrase quote mine this whole time and not the actual practice I am going to be really mad.

well yes and no. I dont argue against the presence of misquotes but of quotemines. quote mines are used as a hodgepodge catch-all word. for misquote but mainly for quoting out of contxt.

 

[PsychoSarah]

well yes and no. I dont argue against the presence of misquotes but of quotemines. quote mines are used as a hodgepodge catch-all word. for misquote but mainly for quoting out of contxt.

* epic rage quit because of how much of my time you have wasted over wording*

 

[createdtoworship]

* epic rage quit because of how much of my time you have wasted over wording*

quote mines don't exist, eccept in the mind of the evolutionist. Do you hear a Judge in a court room say , violation of quote mining" no because quoting out of context, or misquoting is the norm. Again quote mining doesn't exist..

here is an example of the folly of quote mining theories:

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.

quote mining doesn't exist as I have just proven.

Misquotes exist. Quoting out of context exist. But not quote mining.

it was made up by evolutionists to debate creationists.

 

[dad]

The sins such as pride are considered as such when they prevent or hinder worship and service to god. When people get all uppity about their faith rather than using that time to practice it, that is a sin.

Are you suggesting David was too uppity?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Are you suggesting David was too uppity?

If you are talking about the biblical figure, well, he wasn't exactly flawless. He kinda sent a guy to his death so he could steal his wife. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Samuel 11

 

[dad]

If you are talking about the biblical figure, well, he wasn't exactly flawless. He kinda sent a guy to his death so he could steal his wife.

He paid for that. God deals with His people here. I don't see how that made him 'uppity'? He was a man after God's heart.

 

[Vergil10]

He paid for that. God deals with His people here. I don't see how that made him 'uppity'? He was a man after God's heart.

and a certain young ladies heart, one he wanted so bad he broke the whole no murder rule to get.

 

[PsychoSarah]

He paid for that. God deals with His people here. I don't see how that made him 'uppity'? He was a man after God's heart.

You don't see how adultery and then having a guy killed so one could have their wife isn't horrifically nasty?

 

[stevevw]

You don't see how adultery and then having a guy killed so one could have their wife isn't horrifically nasty?

It wasn't as bad as you are making it out in those days. I dont think they had the same perspective of things. It was a different way of life. Nowadays we are a lot more civilized. But David did sin and he was punished. But he realized his wrongs and repented. He was a human not a robot or angel. But David had a heart after God. So even though he did wrong he must have realized and repented. But he did a lot of great things as a man of God as well.

 

[Dizredux]

Dizredux

Grady, the main reason that I gave up trying to discuss with you is that you don't read. You don't read the articles and sites given to you.

Grady

will read them until they pose errors, then I will not waste more time on it.

Somehow I suspect that anything that disagrees with you, you will see as errors.

Diz

You seem to just glance at them then respond. You don't even read the cites you give again appearing to just give them a quick look and if they appear to be supporting you in any way, use them whether or not they actually do.

This is a good example. Loudmouth clearly said that her discovery was peer reviewed 17 years *before* she won the Nobel.

Grady

slight mistake

Caused by your not reading before posting.

Diz

You did not even bother to pay attention to what was said, you simply blundered on with your response. As a result you just made yourself look very foolish. But more importantly, this bad habit of yours makes it almost impossible to discuss anything with you.

Grady

I wouldn't say that.

No you wouldn't, that would take self reflection on your behaviors. You seem to be rather lacking on that.

Dizredux

 

[stevevw]

and a certain young ladies heart, one he wanted so bad he broke the whole no murder rule to get.

I always get this sense that when someone says they are a christian or in King Davids case a great man of God that if and when they sin its like huh caught you out so there you go your not as good as you said you were game.

 

[dad]

and a certain young ladies heart, one he wanted so bad he broke the whole no murder rule to get.

No one has ever kept all the rules. No, not even you. David was a real sinner. Yet he looked to the mercy and forgiveness of God. That is after all the heart of God! His anger is but for a moment, but His mercy endures forever.

 

[Vergil10]

I always get this sense that when someone says they are a christian or in King Davids case a great man of God that if and when they sin its like huh caught you out so there you go your not as good as you said you were game.

well the guy i responded to said he was after god's heart, but he seems to have placed his own desires ahead of god. even you have to admit killing a man to marry said man's wife is not something a good man does.

 

[dad]

I always get this sense that when someone says they are a christian or in King Davids case a great man of God that if and when they sin its like huh caught you out so there you go your not as good as you said you were game.

No one is good. No, not one. Especially you and I.

 

[dad]

You don't see how adultery and then having a guy killed so one could have their wife isn't horrifically nasty?

It doesn't matter what I see. God saw. God dealt with the poor guy. Harshly. Severely. David was never a sinless saint. Yet God honored him extremely, greatly. From his live was to come the forever King, the eternal ruler. The throne of David will always be here, and so will David! I for one am glad that he leaned stuff. That makes for a kinder gentler, wiser, better person. This thing was never about pretending to be a goody two shoes.

 

[createdtoworship]

Dizredux Grady Somehow I suspect that anything that disagrees with you, you will see as errors.

Diz
Grady Caused by your not reading before posting.

DizGrady No you wouldn't, that would take self reflection on your behaviors. You seem to be rather lacking on that.

Dizredux

I think it's about time to stop derailing the thread on your personal vendettas and get back to the OP. That would be the honest thing to do. Thanks for the comment.