Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[outhouse]

QUOTE MINING.

This is what happens when one party has no evidence for their position outside of faith.

They are so desperate to prove their point, they often dishonestly take quotes out of context because its all they can do to fight education and credible knowledge.


Scientist do often describe the desperate people that often use this poor methodology. It snot scientist fault for recognizing the problem.

 

[JM2C]

Until you start talking about evolution and not one of you many strawmen you call evolution...

huh?

 

[JM2C]

This is what happens when one party has no evidence for their position outside of faith.

They are so desperate to prove their point, they often dishonestly take quotes out of context because its all they can do to fight education and credible knowledge.


Scientist do often describe the desperate people that often use this poor methodology. It snot scientist fault for recognizing the problem.

A well educated person like you should be able to explain that with no problem at all.

 

[outhouse]

to describe quoting practices of certain creationists

Certain creationist are dishonest.

Evolution is fact, and they fight it by any dishonest means they can. Examples in this forum are plentiful.

 

[JM2C]

Certain creationist are dishonest.

Evolution is fact, and they fight it by any dishonest means they can. Examples in this forum are plentiful.

Are we still talking about LUCY?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Are we still talking about LUCY?

You never answered my question. Actually you haven't responded to the last couple of posts I have quoted you in.

But what about Lucy? She is our oldest hominid ancestor. What about her is faked?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Mestemia accused me of quote mining, but if you read it carefully, I was not really lying at all when I quote him or quote mine him.

Which is exactly why I said you shouldn't use the term, especially if you then want to claim that you are being honest. It was just a bit of advice.

And if you read the definition of QUOTE MINING “it is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize. It's a way of lying” -wiki.

“Scientists and their supporters used the term quote mining as early as the mid-1990s in newsgroup posts to describe quoting practices of certain creationists.[12][13][14] The term is used by members of the scientific community to describe a method employed by creationists to support their arguments,[15][16][17] though it can be and often is used outside of the creation–evolution controversy. Complaints about the practice predate known use of the term:Theodosius Dobzhanskywrote in his famous 1973 essay "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution": -Wiki

Now, as we can read from wiki that the term “quote mining” was used as early as the mid-1990s by the EVOLUTIONISTS or the scientific community. IOW, it was the EVOLUTIONISTS who gave the definition to the words “quote mining” as a “deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context” to describe a method employed by the CREATIONISTS.

But here you should be able to understand the true meaning of “Quote Mining” and it’s not what the EVOLUTIONISTS thought it was, but the opposite or the truth of what the CREATIONISTS thought of the EVOLUTIONISTS. IOW, every time a CREATIONIST quotes an EVOLUTINIST’S writer like Darwin, right away they accused the CREATIONIST of QUOTE MINING just to defeat the argument. I’ve quoted Darwin and Galton in this debate so many times, why no one accused me of QUOTE MINING.

You seem to be making no sense whatsoever. What does this have to do with what I explained? I already know what the phrase "quote mining" referred to, and that's exactly why I was telling you to avoid using the phrase.

So, when I said: “I love quote mining”, does this mean I’m telling a lie? NO! I was accused by Mestemia of “QUOTE MINING” but you people read that I was not. Mestemia was the one lying when he saidcontradicting his previous post

Like Mestemia, Metis did the same thing.

and I quote mine him from his previous post,

You're going WAYYYY overboard with this. All I said was that you shouldn't say such things as "I love quote-mining" because quote mining is a dishonest practice. I cannot comment on Mestermia's or Metis' accusation of quote-mining as I do not know the quotes or contexts in question.

You see how Metis contradicted himself by describing “Moses brought down the first 10 in tablet form”. How can he rightly quote about Moses if he was not sure if he really exist or not?

Presumably, the same way I can quote the Bible without believing it's the word of God, or quote Harry Potter without believing the origin of the statement was from Harry Potter.

And if you notice he even mentioned the “Seven Noachide Laws”. Was he referring after the flood on which the EVOLUTIONISTS do not agree at all?

Again, so? Referring to something doesn't mean believing it.

 

[JM2C]

Presumably, the same way I can quote the Bible without believing it's the word of God, or quote Harry Potter without believing the origin of the statement was from Harry Potter.

Again, so? Referring to something doesn't mean believing it.

Read the sentence again.

What preceded the 10 were what we call the seven Noachide Laws.

Who are the “WE” here?

 

[JM2C]

Which is exactly why I said you shouldn't use the term, especially if you then want to claim that you are being honest. It was just a bit of advice.

The words “quote mining” was used first by the scientific community or the Evolutionist in the 1990s to refute the Creationist arguments. So, every time you hear the words “quote mining” the next thing in your mind is, it’s a lie, because this is what the Evolutionist meant by it. I gave you an example on how Mestemia used the words “quote mining” and it proved that it was not really a lie at all, but the opposite, which is the truth. So, if you use the words “quote mining” make sure that it will not get back at you and prove you wrong.

 

[JM2C]

You're going WAYYYY overboard with this. All I said was that you shouldn't say such things as "I love quote-mining" because quote mining is a dishonest practice. I cannot comment on Mestermia's or Metis' accusation of quote-mining as I do not know the quotes or contexts in question.

When are you gonna start understanding this? Again for the 4th times, AHEM, AHEM, AHEM! It was used by the scientific community or Evolutionist as a way to refute Creationist arguments. So, if I say: I love quote mining, the next thing in your mind is I’m a liar because this is what the Evolutionist meant by it. Mestemia accused me of quote mining but it turn out that he is the liar, meaning that quote mining is not what the evolutionist really meant but actually the opposite, which is the truth. So how do you balance this? With prejudice of course in favor of mestemia and metis, but if you read and understand it correctly, the use of the words quote mining is misunderstood by you and the evolutionists and especially by Mestemia.

 

[outhouse]

The words “quote mining” was used first by the scientific community or the Evolutionist in the 1990s to refute the Creationist arguments.

That is not a true statement.

Pointing out creationist weak methodology of debating IS NOT a means of refuting the lack of evidence they provide.


Creationist NEVER have any credible evidence to refute.

 

[outhouse]

Mestemia accused me of quote mining but it turn out that he is the liar

Yet I also noticed how you quote mined the article.

You posted partial quotes and did 0not post other aspects that were vital to the understanding of the topic. That's is called quote mining

 

[McBell]

The words “quote mining” was used first by the scientific community or the Evolutionist in the 1990s to refute the Creationist arguments. So, every time you hear the words “quote mining” the next thing in your mind is, it’s a lie, because this is what the Evolutionist meant by it. I gave you an example on how Mestemia used the words “quote mining” and it proved that it was not really a lie at all, but the opposite, which is the truth. So, if you use the words “quote mining” make sure that it will not get back at you and prove you wrong.

Wow.
Seriously?

You are more out there than I thought.

 

[outhouse]

Are we still talking about LUCY?

No, just your lack of debating skills.

And how you quote mining.

 

[McBell]

Mestemia accused me of quote mining but it turn out that he is the liar.

Except that when I accused you of quote mining, you were quote mining.

Sad that you are so out of touch with reality

 

[SkepticThinker]

I remember last summer when I posted thisand this was his answer to that post but now you are agreeing with my “BOLD EMPTY CLAIMS”IOW, your inconsistency is proving you wrong or going against you.
Otherwise it will be held against you if you are not consistent of what you are saying just like today.



Mestemia accused me of quote mining, but if you read it carefully, I was not really lying at all when I quote him or quote mine him.

And if you read the definition of QUOTE MINING “it is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize. It's a way of lying” -wiki.

“Scientists and their supporters used the term quote mining as early as the mid-1990s in newsgroup posts to describe quoting practices of certain creationists.[12][13][14] The term is used by members of the scientific community to describe a method employed by creationists to support their arguments,[15][16][17] though it can be and often is used outside of the creation–evolution controversy. Complaints about the practice predate known use of the term:Theodosius Dobzhanskywrote in his famous 1973 essay "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution": -Wiki

Now, as we can read from wiki that the term “quote mining” was used as early as the mid-1990s by the EVOLUTIONISTS or the scientific community. IOW, it was the EVOLUTIONISTS who gave the definition to the words “quote mining” as a “deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context” to describe a method employed by the CREATIONISTS.

But here you should be able to understand the true meaning of “Quote Mining” and it’s not what the EVOLUTIONISTS thought it was, but the opposite or the truth of what the CREATIONISTS thought of the EVOLUTIONISTS. IOW, every time a CREATIONIST quotes an EVOLUTINIST’S writer like Darwin, right away they accused the CREATIONIST of QUOTE MINING just to defeat the argument. I’ve quoted Darwin and Galton in this debate so many times, why no one accused me of QUOTE MINING.

So, when I said: “I love quote mining”, does this mean I’m telling a lie? NO! I was accused by Mestemia of “QUOTE MINING” but you people read that I was not. Mestemia was the one lying when he saidcontradicting his previous post

Like Mestemia, Metis did the same thing.

and I quote mine him from his previous post,

You see how Metis contradicted himself by describing “Moses brought down the first 10 in tablet form”. How can he rightly quote about Moses if he was not sure if he really exist or not? And if you notice he even mentioned the “Seven Noachide Laws”. Was he referring after the flood on which the EVOLUTIONISTS do not agree at all?

What???

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So it's exactly as Monk of Reason just explained:

"This is true. A huge problem is that people think that there is a significant debate because we have a lot of non-scientists on the internet attempting to debate this rather than actually looking at the scientific field. There are no debates about the validity of evolution anymore. Most of these were hammered out in the late 1800's an early 1900's. Debate on evolution now involves the specifics of evolution. Both sides agree it happened but now we get to squabble over exactly how it happened and in what order."

both sides of a small inherently unreliable academic minority agree, the rest of us don't, as with static universes and classical physics, my money's on the rest of us

 

[SkepticThinker]

both sides of a small inherently unreliable academic minority agree, the rest of us don't, as with static universes and classical physics, my money's on the rest of us

Pardon?

A majority of scientists in the relevant fields agree that evolution is a fact of life and all the evidence indicates that evolution is a fact of life. What they argue about are the smaller details and mechanisms of evolution. They don't argue about whether it occurs or not. That's a done deal. So I don't know what you're trying to say.

 

[outhouse]

both sides of a small inherently unreliable academic minority agree

Substantiate that with credible sources.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Indeed. And yet we do have evidence for these small changes and smooth transitions in other species.

Why would it be different for others especially with the understanding that there will be gaps. would it not be most reasonable to assume based upon the evidence at hand? If I have evidence of a smooth transition between two species across millions of years and I have two species that are obviously related but there is a gap between the two forms should I assume god did it or should I assume that it followed the same patters that we already know to exist.

we have no other instance of the majority phyla, kinds, whatever word we prefer, appearing, just the Cambrian explosion and with 'no direct evidence of smooth transitions' as Dawkins put it.

It is all to easy for these debates to become polarized, this does not mean God did it, it simply means we have no evidence for evolution doing it, remove all the 'suspicion' 'invention' 'derision of the alternative' academics like Dawkins refer to, and look at the cold hard unemotional science, it's still an area that deserves investigation, application of the scientific method, not shutting down all dissent from academic consensus, as some still promote, as Hoyle did with Lemaitre.

No one who studies evolution thinks that it is some immutable truth. .

I agree with you that this should be the case, if evolution were a purely scientific field, it would be, but not all agree with us.

“Evolution is a fact. [] beyond doubt evolution is a fact" Dawkins