Originally posted by jaywillhugh ross follows a different kind of gap theory. the kind that puts god in the knowledge gaps of science...supported by some blunt false statements and quote mining to boot.
In the meantime, relax this evening and listen to an interesting interview with Dr. Hugh Ross - Phd. Astrophysicist / Creationist (the unrepentent kind)
- (not a Gap Theory guy but Old Earth )
[b]Why The Universe Is The Way It Is Parts 1 & 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zWd_FuFWFM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCODUaHwNEA&feature=relmfu[/b]
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThere are just too many gaps in science for anything else to fill, I guess. In my opinion it is just false evolutionary science that is to blame. Hugh Ross just needs to accept this fact and quit trying to cover for the bad evolutionary scientists. 😏
hugh ross follows a different kind of gap theory. the kind that puts god in the knowledge gaps of science...supported by some blunt false statements and quote mining to boot.
2 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpiritGive a specific example. No trollish generalities.
hugh ross follows a different kind of gap theory. the kind that puts god in the knowledge gaps of science...supported by some blunt false statements and quote mining to boot.
You obviously do not realize how thoroughly the indexes of his books site science publications and journals to support his scientific ideas.
And quote mining is not a taboo. Quote mining is distasteful to people like you who don't care what is in the word of God. That's your weakness.
Now grab from the video your specific case justifying your criticism. And I will not accept anyone else coming to help you. You do it.
Why The Universe Is The Way It Is Parts 1 & 2
&feature=related
&feature=relmfu
Originally posted by jaywillQuote mining, as in deliberately quoting people out of context so as to give the impression that the person quoted supports a position other than their actual position in order to give an impression of support from authority for the argument being presented or in order to create a strawman argument should be distasteful to anyone regardless of whether or not they care about what is in the word of God. It is after all a dishonest practice.
Quote mining is distasteful to people like you who don't care what is in the word of God.
I find it strange that you openly support dishonesty and even go so far as to suggest it is the norm for your religion. Most Christians at least deny being dishonest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou have only pointed out that someone can have less integrity about quoting others IF HE WANTS TO.
Quote mining, as in deliberately quoting people out of context so as to give the impression that the person quoted supports a position other than their actual position in order to give an impression of support from authority for the argument being presented or in order to create a strawman argument should be distasteful to anyone regardless of whether or ...[text shortened]... at least deny being dishonest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context
Get your own Phd. and then hold your candle to Ross. Okay ? LOL.
Have you read a book by Hugh Ross ? Seriously.
His indexing is very thorough.
I believe that now he has some online for his lattest book "More Than a Theory".
What's the use !!
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
Quote mining, as in deliberately quoting people out of context so as to give the impression that the person quoted supports a position other than their actual position in order to give an impression of support from authority for the argument being presented or in order to create a strawman argument should be distasteful to anyone regardless of whether or ...[text shortened]... at least deny being dishonest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context
. Most Christians at least deny being dishonest.
"Most Christians this ..."
"Most Christians that ..."
You seem to have light on everybody's case but your own, Doctor.
Why don't you go and get a little light into your own case, Doc ?
Originally posted by twhitehead
Quote mining, as in deliberately quoting people out of context so as to give the impression that the person quoted supports a position other than their actual position in order to give an impression of support from authority for the argument being presented or in order to create a strawman argument should be distasteful to anyone regardless of whether or ...[text shortened]... at least deny being dishonest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context
I find it strange that you openly support dishonesty and even go so far as to suggest it is the norm for your religion.
Your examples of dishonest quote mining from Dr, Hugh Ross ARE ..... ?
Give me about three.
5 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is jaywill printing from a relatives PC.
No, I have apparently only pointed out that you don't know what the phrase 'quote mining' means (and you apparently would rather not know).
This reply of yours is expected and typical.
Nit Pick on an arguable minor point and make a big deal of that.
You shift the argument to one on the definition of "Quote Mining"
It is noted that you're honing in on the one point you think you have some ground to claim superior correctness on. It is noted that you provided no example of dishonest, out of context quotations from Dr. Hugh Ross.
Now what I expect from you is to demand apology or confession of error from me.
The issue is not Wikopedia's definition of Quote Mining, to me. The issue is you substantiating your innuendo that Dr. Ross involved himself in dishonest out of context quoting.
As expected you are making this an issue over the definition of "Quote Mining".
One more thing Doc. When you wrote "Most Christians ...." I knew that that was a cover to be general and not provide specifics to substantiate your innuendos.
You're quite predictable. Now I expect you not to move forward with substantiations of Dr. Ross dishonest quotes. Demand confession now of not using the phrase "Quote Mining" as Wikipedia may have defined it. Right. I concentrated on the substance of dishonest quoting of Dr. Ross.
NO examples yet from you.
Originally posted by GSWILLSo is yours - you can't simply admit you were wrong and move on, instead you have to try every possible tactic to avoid admitting an error even something as ridiculous as not understanding an English phrase. What is it about Christians and massive egos?
This reply of yours is expected and typical.
Nit Pick on an arguable minor point and make a big deal of that.
I was not Nit Picking, initially I was just surprised that you came out in support of such a dishonest practice as quote mining, and then when you responded to my comments I was somewhat surprised that you didn't even bother to educate your self on the matter despite the fact that I provided a useful Wikipedia link. Now I am starting to think that you did educated yourself, but cant admit you were wrong so will continue to pretend you are ignorant.
You shift the argument to one on the definition of "Quote Mining"
I wasn't 'shifting the argument'. I wasn't really part of the argument in the first place.
It is noted that you provided no example of dishonest, out of context quotations from Dr. Hugh Ross.
It is also noted that I never claimed there were any such examples. I was merely following the conversation and found it interesting that you supported quote mining and specifically suggested that it was OK for Christians and should only be frowned upon by those who ' don't care what is in the word of God', as if the word of God specifically supports quote mining.
The issue is you substantiating your innuendo that Dr. Ross involved himself in dishonest out of context quoting.
I never made any such innuendo. I stated that you were supporting a dishonest practice, and later pointed out that it was clear you simply didn't know what you were supporting.
One more thing Doc. When you wrote "Most Christians ...." I knew that that was a cover to be general and not provide specifics to substantiate your innuendos.
Go back and read my post and I think you will find that you have just practiced the dishonest art of 'quote mining'. My reference to 'most Christians' was perfectly valid (and I'd love to see you dispute it) and had nothing to do with avoiding specifics or innuendos.
Originally posted by RJHindsthere are too many gaps in your intellect. that would explain why a fictional god has filled it.
[b]There are just too many gaps in science for anything else to fill, I guess. In my opinion it is just false evolutionary science that is to blame. Hugh Ross just needs to accept this fact and quit trying to cover for the bad evolutionary scientists. 🙄/b]
Originally posted by jaywillspecific examples? i don't have to go more than 3 minutes in part one to find several. -- i'll post them later when i get access to youtube.
Give a [b]specific example. No trollish generalities.
You obviously do not realize how thoroughly the indexes of his books site science publications and journals to support his scientific ideas.
And quote mining is not a taboo. Quote mining is distasteful to people like you who don't care what is in the word of God. That's your weakness.
Now gr ...[text shortened]... FuFWFM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCODUaHwNEA&feature=relmfu [/quote][/b]
Originally posted by jaywillwow. you ask for examples and an hour later complain that i haven't responded? i don't work around your schedule. it is customary in internet etiquette to give at least 24 hours for a responce before moaning about not receiving one.
C'mon Void, Specifics we were waiting for ?
I thought you had a couple at the tip of your fingers, the way you went off critiquing the video.
Originally posted by VoidSpirithere we are, examining the first 3 minutes of video #1:
specific examples? i don't have to go more than 3 minutes in part one to find several. -- i'll post them later when i get access to youtube.
minute 1:20 ; misrepresenting stephen hawking on "grand design"
minute 1:37 ; "...how can the non physical come from the physical, you violate some principle of cause and effect..."
-false. thoughts and ideas are non physical, and they come from a physical brain. no principle of cause and effect have been violated.
minute -1:54 ; extra solar planets don't prove our planets are ordinary.
-false. they do prove that planets are ordinary.
minute -1:58 ; "...none of these planets are anything like any of the planets in our solar system..."
false. some of the planets found do share characteristics with planets in our solar system.
minute -2:01 ; "in fact what our research in extra solar planets is showing is that each of our planets has been designed to make advanced life possible here on planet earth."
-bold faced lie. no research in extra solar planets is showing that.
minute ->3:00 ... "atheistic agnostic astronomer freeman dyson..." claims there is design in the universe.
bold faced lie, freeman dyson is not atheistic-agnostic.
Both as a scientist and as a religious person, I am accustomed to living with uncertainty.
-freeman dyson.
freeman dyson is a religious apologist. he's even written books about it. doh!
so that's it. it works out to about 2 lies/distortions a minute. i can't take any more.