How Do Evolutionists Explain Mass Extinctions in their Theories?

[Acim]

Just taking out of context, with no intent or attempt to make the quoted hold a position other than the one they actually do is not the issue and is not quote mining ... it is quoting, and is properly done all the time, albeit often as part of a misplaced argument from authority.

Here is what DW posted:

I don't see what you cited as a form of lying anymore than taking a teeny tiny snippet from Dostoyevsky's "Notes From The Underground" and using that as a side swipe regarding facts vs. opinions. But I'm thinking your opinion on all this will outweigh any facts I may wish to allude to in the point I am making. So, if you feel self justified in attacking the poster with various "you" statements rather than the ideas, so be it. I just enjoy calling that stuff out.

 

[Sapiens]

I don't see what you cited as a form of lying anymore than taking a teeny tiny snippet from Dostoyevsky's "Notes From The Underground" and using that as a side swipe regarding facts vs. opinions.

No,that was in support of sarcasm, not in opposition to quote mining or facts vs. opinions (which was a whole 'nother thread ... the Moynihan quote).

But I'm thinking your opinion on all this will outweigh any facts I may wish to allude to in the point I am making. So, if you feel self justified in attacking the poster with various "you" statements rather than the ideas, so be it. I just enjoy calling that stuff out.

I am my ideas, doesn't bother me. If you want too call stuff out ... you need to keep up with the flow and not be confusticaing posts.

 

[Acim]

No,that was in support of sarcasm, not in opposition to quote mining or facts vs. opinions (which was a whole 'nother thread ... the Moynihan quote).

It was quote mining to support your attack on a fellow member.

I am my ideas, doesn't bother me. If you want too call stuff out ... you need to keep up with the flow and not be confusticaing posts.

Oh, I'm keeping up with the flow. Just deviating from your desire to attack a poster rather than the ideas up for discussion.

 

[Sapiens]

Your accusations are without merit, in fact your first one does not even make a vaguely logical connection. Are you sure you're confusing posts and authors? It sure seems that way.

 

[Acim]

That, as previously observed, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

As Dostoevsky wrote: Sarcasm is the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded.

@Sapiens did not write this post?

What was the purpose (anyone) of the Dostoevesky quote that wouldn't have been conveyed by quoting the entire context from where this came? Is it just a sound bite assertion meant to address the persona (personhood) of a fellow member, or strictly related to the ideas up for discussion in this thread: how evolutionists explain mass extinctions in their theories?

 

[Sapiens]

I was defending my own use of sarcasm. It was DW whom I was suggesting coarsely and intrusively invading the souls of all the participants here. I suspect that, with perhaps the exception you, all would agree. There is no question here of any "quote mining," there's nothing to see, move on.

 

[viole]

The evolutionists often defend their theories by saying it took billions of years for life to evolve into the forms we see today.

Actually, the majority of life forms we see today happened in the much much shorter space of less than 200 million years. That is a short space of time when you consider the massive amounts of evolution changes that would have had to occur. Modern humans are said to have evolved just 200,000 years ago.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

There have been 5 mass extinctions recorded in our history: https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth-sciences/big-five-extinctions

Your thoughts?

How to explain those seemingly pointless mass extinctions?

I don't know. Bad design, perhaps?

Cio

- viole

 

[Acim]

I was defending my own use of sarcasm. It was DW whom I was suggesting coarsely and intrusively invading the souls of all the participants here. I suspect that, with perhaps the exception you, all would agree. There is no question here of any "quote mining," there's nothing to see, move on.

Good to note that no one in the thread was quote mining. I guess we can move on.

To larger questions, like how one invades the soul of another? If scrutinizing the heck out of mass extinctions, perhaps we could explore what is really meant by that type of thinking. Or perhaps do that in another thread? While allowing this one to stay on topic with addressing ideas, from OP, as intended to be discussed, or ignored.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Gravity is a law. The science of evolution is made up of several theories.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation

Gravity is a scientific theory and a law.

 

[Sapiens]

Good to note that no one in the thread was quote mining. I guess we can move on.

To larger questions, like how one invades the soul of another? If scrutinizing the heck out of mass extinctions, perhaps we could explore what is really meant by that type of thinking. Or perhaps do that in another thread? While allowing this one to stay on topic with addressing ideas, from OP, as intended to be discussed, or ignored.

No, DW was quote mining.

 

[YmirGF]

No, DW was quote mining.

Try saying it s l o w e r ....

 

[Acim]

No, DW was quote mining.

And observably, so were you.

 

[Sapiens]

And observably, so were you.

That is an unsupported claim.

 

[Acim]

That is an unsupported claim.

I've already supported the claim. More than once. Would you like for me to re-quote the post where you utilized a quote from another source, out of its context?

 

[Sapiens]

I've already supported the claim. More than once. Would you like for me to re-quote the post where you utilized a quote from another source, out of its context?

No, I'd like you to provide an example of where I quote mined, that is to say, removed something from its context for the express purpose of making the author seemingly agree with my viewpoint; or to make the comments of the author seem more extreme; or to make the author appear to hold positions he or she doesn't hold, in order to make his or her positions easier to refute or demonize.

 

[Acim]

No, I'd like you to provide an example of where I quote mined, that is to say, removed something from its context for the express purpose of making the author seemingly agree with my viewpoint; or to make the comments of the author seem more extreme; or to make the author appear to hold positions he or she doesn't hold, in order to make his or her positions easier to refute or demonize.

Interesting. This is not what I get as definition for quote mined. I thought of it more along lines of:

The practice of quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as "contextomy" and quote mining), is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Contextomies are stereotypically intentional, but may also occur accidentally if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it non-essential.
​

As I see it, DW quote mined to alter the intention of the author's belief in possibility for existence of deity. I honestly don't see it as a vastly different assertion, but with that said, then why remove it?

Whereas you are taking a snippet / quote (and famous one) and used it as something to criticize the persona of person you are in argument with, thus altering the intention that FD had for that quote within the context of his book. Even more interesting that this quoted text by you (from FD) is related to another quote you used to imply further characteristic traits about the person you hold disagreement with this thread. It is a noticeable pattern, and so I'm sure there are plenty more quotes that will aid in your efforts for character assassination.

 

[Sapiens]

I don't see what you cited as a form of lying anymore than taking a teeny tiny snippet from Dostoyevsky's "Notes From The Underground" and using that as a side swipe regarding facts vs. opinions.

You need to go back and reread the thread, what you will find is that your antipathy towards my views is inhibiting your reading comprehension. I was quoting Dostoyevsky in support of my use of sarcasm, that is all.

But I'm thinking your opinion on all this will outweigh any facts I may wish to allude to in the point I am making.

Actually it apears that the facts outweigh whatever it is that you are alluding to.

So, if you feel self justified in attacking the poster with various "you" statements rather than the ideas, so be it. I just enjoy calling that stuff out.

Clearly you enjoy "calling out." The question is, "do you have anything worth listening to?" Quote mining is a rather more specific form of quoting out of context, kind of contextomy on steroids.

Interesting. This is not what I get as definition for quote mined. I thought of it more along lines of:

The practice of quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as "contextomy" and quote mining), is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Contextomies are stereotypically intentional, but may also occur accidentally if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it non-essential.
​

As I see it, DW quote mined to alter the intention of the author's belief in possibility for existence of deity. I honestly don't see it as a vastly different assertion, but with that said, then why remove it?

So we agree that DW is a quote miner ... good, there is some common ground. Now ... "Sarcasm is the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded." is offered, in just that form, on many, many "famous quote sites" (including, might I note, "Christian Quotes"), so aside from that fact that the quote is removed from the entire book, it is not removed in such a way as to distort its intended meaning, thus your complaint is without merit.
.

Whereas you are taking a snippet / quote (and famous one) and used it as something to criticize the persona of person you are in argument with, thus altering the intention that FD had for that quote within the context of his book.

No, I am using it in precisely the way Dostoyevsky meant it, in defense of the use of sarcasm.
.

Even more interesting that this quoted text by you (from FD) is related to another quote you used to imply further characteristic traits about the person you hold disagreement with this thread.

You'll have to refresh my memory, I read widely and quote often.
.

It is a noticeable pattern, and so I'm sure there are plenty more quotes that will aid in your efforts for character assassination.

One need not assassinate those who who have already committed intellectual suicide, it would be ever so redundant.

 

[Acim]

So we agree that DW is a quote miner ... good, there is some common ground. Now ... "Sarcasm is the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded." is offered, in just that form, on many, many "famous quote sites" (including, might I note, "Christian Quotes"), so aside from that fact that the quote is removed from the entire book, it is not removed in such a way as to distort its intended meaning, thus your complaint is without merit.

I still see it as having merit. On famous quote sites, it is allowed to stand on its own. You are injecting it into this conversation as if that has merit.

No, I am using it in precisely the way Dostoyevsky meant it, in defense of the use of sarcasm.

A mighty bold claim. Why not quote the whole passage if so confident with how that quote applies to the use of sarcasm? Why be selective in using the quote?

You'll have to refresh my memory, I read widely and quote often.
One need not assassinate those who who have already committed intellectual suicide, it would be ever so redundant.

Thus, you are righteous in piling on wherever you find a person engaged in what you (subjectively) deem intellectual suicide? One big version of "I'm always right, you can never possibly be. How do I know this, because I'm always right."

What was the purpose of this quote (from post #114)?

According to Smithsonian: "Children understand and use sarcasm by the time they get to kindergarten. An inability to understand sarcasm may be an early warning sign of brain disease."

 

[Sapiens]

What was the purpose of this quote (from post #114)?

Just being concerned for my fellow man. The sarcasm was rather clear, and seemed to be undetected. If medical intervention is warranted it is best sought out as soon as possible.

 

[Acim]

Just being concerned for my fellow man.

Well, that's all I was doing as well. So we can move on now.