And Equal Time for the Gap Theory

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

You atheists only like "quote mining" when you do it to support your worldview. You do not like it when Christians and creationists do it. 😏

http://www.unidiversal.com/CreationEvolutionCruncher19b.html

Originally posted by twhitehead
So 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?

[b]Nit Pick on an arguable minor point and make a big deal of that.
I was not Nit Picking, init e you dispute it) and had nothing to do with avoiding specifics or innuendos.[/b]

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.

I can admit that Quote Mining has a basically NEGATIVE connotation. However, having said that, I would call ANY kind of careful searching for QUOTATIONS to shed light certain aspect of a discusion "Quote Mining".

In other words if you made a careful search of quotations which supported which shed light on something you were trying to argue, I would not automatically dismiss that as "Quote Mining." Of course you are mining for relevant quotations.

So in that sense I probably would not be going along rigorously with Wikipedia's article. Sure, I would regard ANYONE doing a in depth search someone's quotations as a kind of "mining" of sorts.

It is also noted that I never claimed there were any such examples.

Then the matter is concluded. You know more about Wikipedia's definitions of "Quote Minging" than I did.

Just vague accusations are innuendos.

"Most Christians ....etc. etc. "

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
wow. 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.

Hey, You give "Rapid Response" trashing of a link I put up, Expect "Rapid Response" defense that you do better.

You take a little more time to consider carefully the links that I submit and I'll return the curtesy to give you some time for critique.

You want to dish out an under 100 second trashing dismissal, be willing to take a little taste of your own medicine.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
wow. 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.

wow. 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.

You want to do a "Quick Response" trashing of opinions you don't like, and then whine about Internet etiquette when you get a Quick Response Pushback.

What is this, a bedside conversion that VoidSpirit is now suddenly concerned with manners and etiquette ?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
here we are, examining the first 3 minutes of video #1:

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 t's it. it works out to about 2 lies/distortions a minute. i can't take any more.

Before I watch both videos again in their entirety, I would give my initial reaction to your samples of dishonest quotation usage.

This is preliminary. I will watch again. If I agree with your complaint, I will say so. And if I don't, I tell you why I don't concur with your accusation.

These are just my preliminary reactions before an in-deth minute by minute verification of whether you have a valid case or not.

here we are, examining the first 3 minutes of video #1:

minute 1:20 ; misrepresenting stephen hawking on "grand design"

I have not read Hawkings' "The Grand Design". I don't recall anything derogatory about Ross's comment on it. The title and the author still sound interesting to me.

You can give me a head up on exactly what you thought was MISREPRESENTATIVE about Ross's overall reference to Hawking's The Grand Design.

minute 1:37 ; "...how can the non physical come from the physical, you violate some principle of cause and effect..."

Where's the misrepresentative QUOTATION VoidSpirit ? I didn't say quote stuff you disagree with !! I said show me his dishonest quote mining misrepresentations.

IF you are just saying that you DISAGREE with the above sentence, that does not make the sentence DISHONEST or a twisting of someone else's words.

I will give special attention to this one when I watch the videos again.

-false. thoughts and ideas are non physical, and they come from a physical brain. no principle of cause and effect have been violated.

That is a debate about whether Ross's statement is TRUE or NOT. You are welcomed to your opinion. You may even be right.

But that is not the issue with this post request. This request was for dishonest QUOTE MINING Wikapedia style.

Don't give me things you disagree with and say they are dishonest quote mining.

minute -1:54 ; extra solar planets don't prove our planets are ordinary.

-false. they do prove that planets are ordinary.

Same as above. Ross expressed an opinion. The discovery of planets has shown that our planets in our solar system are not ordinary.

Now I do recall Ross saying that it was SAID by someone that the discovery of the hundreds of other planets HAS shown that our planets are ordinary.

In this case I will search for WHO it was who he is refereing to, as having SAID that. If I find that Dr. Ross dishonestly quoted that person, I'll say so. If he did NOT dishonestly quote someone, then I consider your accusation as libelous and false.

The truth remains to be seen. Stay tuned.

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.

This is another example of you simply disagreeing with what Ross said.
Point out the quotation that he is dishonestly twisting or misrepresenting.

You're not doing to well VoidSpirit. And I haven't looked at the videos again yet.

So far what I see from you is "I didn't agree with this or that statement Dr. Ross made."

If I recall rightly, the CHARGE was Dr. Ross "QUOTE MINES" in some dishonest or misrepresentative way.

My gut reaction is that you do not easily get to a doctor's degree in a rigorous discipline like Astrophysics by pulling junior high pranks like twisting people's words out of context. Your work and methods are scrutinized. He didn't earn his doctorate before a board of deacons at the local Baptist church.

You are in danger of libeling the man.

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.

I don't even like to dignify this charge with a comment.

So, with a Astrophysicists opinion with which you disagree, you call a bold face lie ?

I'm embarressed, but not for Dr. Ross.

minute ->3:00 ... "atheistic agnostic astronomer freeman dyson..." claims there is design in the universe.

bold faced lie, freeman dyson is not atheistic-agnostic.

I know nothing about Freeman Dyson. In this case I will find out if you are commiting a Genetic Fallacy. It doesn't matter what the source of the quote is. All that matters is whether the quote was "Quote Mined" in some dishonest and misrepresentative way.

That is ALL I care about. What Freeman Dyson is is not important. It is only relavent to YOUR charges whether or not his having said something was misrepresented by Dr. Ross.

The QUOTATIONS VoidSPirit. The usage of QUOTATIONS ! That the point here. I don't CARE who Freeman Dyson is. I only care, for purposes of this exchange, was this Dyson person quoted dishonestly to give some impression not really representative of his words.

Both as a scientist and as a religious person, I am accustomed to living with uncertainty.

-freeman dyson.

So what ?

What I will be looking for is MISREPRESENTATION of any words said by this Freeman Dyson. That's what your charge is about.

freeman dyson is a religious apologist. he's even written books about it. doh!

I don't care if he's the Pope.

The ISSUE is whether or not Dr. Hugh Ross, made Dyson's words mean something other than what Dyson meant.

Your charge has to do with one man giving the appearance of another man saying something OTHER than what he said, using his words dishonestly.

so that's it. it works out to about 2 lies/distortions a minute. i can't take any more.

This sounds like your rational for not listening to the video.

NO wonder you flashed back with your trashing critique in under five minutes ( I do believe ).

I'm glad I have a reason now to go through it again. And I'll see whose doing the Wiki Quote Mining and who is not.

Originally posted by jaywill
Before I watch both videos again in their entirety, I would give my initial reaction to your samples of dishonest quotation usage.

This is preliminary. I will watch again. If I agree with your complaint, I will say so. And if I don't, I tell you why I don't concur with your accusation.

These are just my preliminary reactions before an in-deth minut e doing the Wiki Quote Mining and who is not.

If I recall rightly, the CHARGE was Dr. Ross "QUOTE MINES" in some dishonest or misrepresentative way.

no, the issue was "blunt false statements and quote mining to boot."

from my original response:

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.

in my 3 minute analysis, i have sufficiently shown 6 lies in a 3 minute period. that is sufficient to rest my argument. i will not suffer the entire videos again in order to point out the rest of the inconsistencies which are no longer necessary for my argument.

in response to your counter arguments:

concerning stephen hawking, you claimed ignorance.
stephen hawking at no time talks about design in the context of an intelligent designer, and so his view was misrepresented. he talks about design in the context of many scientists who use the term; poetically.

concerning non physical coming from the physical, it is not a matter of opinion, i have given a sufficient example to lay that argument to rest. the non physical can come from the physical. ross made an untrue statement.

concerning planets not being ordinary. all planets are unique. but all planets share common characteristics. that we have discovered so many other planets, many of which share characteristics with our planets proves that planets are ordinary in the galaxy. hugh ross didn't express an opinion, he made a false statement to lead up to this next whopper.

concerning research in extra solar planets proving that our planets have been designed to make advanced life possible on earth. this is a complete bold faced lie. no such research exists. he did not express an opinion, he claimed there is research which proves this. there is nada.

concerning the charge of "atheistic agnostic" to dyson. an easy search on google and the books and articles written by dyson is sufficient to prove that this is another bold faced lie. it is a bold faced lie to support his other lie about extra-solar planetary research.

this is the pattern set down by the interview. one lie/misrepresentation after the other. if these are not enough for you to realize that this man is a complete unrepentant liar, nothing else i post of his lies will alter your opinion.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit

This is jaywill writing.

in my 3 minute analysis, i have sufficiently shown 6 lies in a 3 minute period. that is sufficient to rest my argument. i will not suffer the entire videos again in order to point out the rest of the inconsistencies which are no longer necessary for my argument.

I have not finished my review. I started and was so far disgusted with you. You're more eager to libel and do character assasination then serious debate.

in response to your counter arguments:

concerning stephen hawking, you claimed ignorance.

I claim ignorance about the content of his book because I HAVEN'T READ IT. That's not legitimate ? I searched for some quotes.

You say Hawking's words were quoted mined dishonestly. If I have read the book I have to claim ignorance until I find some quote of it that Dr. Ross USED.

I hear Ross say that the design is grander than Hawking thinks. That's certainly not a dishonest quote mine. Ross makes a few other comments on the book.

If anyone on the Forum HAS the book they can help you and put out the SPECIFIC Quotation that you claim Ross dishonestly lifted and used.

stephen hawking at no time talks about design in the context of an intelligent designer, and so his view was misrepresented. he talks about design in the context of many scientists who use the term; poetically.

I didn't hear Ross mention that Hawking said anything about an Intelligent Designer. Special attention will be given to the Ross comments on Hawking.

concerning non physical coming from the physical, it is not a matter of opinion, i have given a sufficient example to lay that argument to rest. the non physical can come from the physical. ross made an untrue statement.

No dishonest quote mining by Ross so on this subject. Your boasting that you can put the matter to rest (whether true or not) does not substantiate a libelous charge of Dr. Ross "Quote Mining".

You do not have to attack a person's character just because you think what he teaches is false.

concerning planets not being ordinary. all planets are unique.

This is irrelevant to your charge of dishonest Quote Mining.

but all planets share common characteristics. that we have discovered so many other planets, many of which share characteristics with our planets proves that planets are ordinary in the galaxy. hugh ross didn't express an opinion, he made a false statement to lead up to this next whopper.

He made some statements with which you disagree. That's all I see so far.

concerning research in extra solar planets proving that our planets have been designed to make advanced life possible on earth. this is a complete bold faced lie. no such research exists. he did not express an opinion, he claimed there is research which proves this. there is nada.

It is an opinion with which you strongly disagree.

When a man with 7 or 8 times the educational qualifications than yourself expresses a stand on something with confidence, you call him a LIAR.

You were only out to poison the well of discussion. Basically you're line of attack is that "This person is immoral. So it is a waste of time to listen to him for more than a few minutes."

Some of us truth seekers are turned off by these kinds of tactics. If Dr. Hugh Ross had said on that discussion "Oh Stephen Hawking's book The Grand Design ? That is a book of bold face lies" I would not consider him acting in a manner consistent with his level of prefessional training.

You do not need to attack the character. Maybe you think it helps. It doesn't. It just poisons the well. If you hear something you are confident the errors of which can be pointed out, that's all some of us need.

Some people, when they see your kind of character attack, will detect the malice. It will backfire on you.

concerning the charge of "atheistic agnostic" to dyson. an easy search on google and the books and articles written by dyson is sufficient to prove that this is another bold faced lie. it is a bold faced lie to support his other lie about extra-solar planetary research.

I still don't know about Freeman Dyson. However, it is no surprise that some Agnostics can also be magnanimous and express tolerance against religious persecution.

I will give particular attention to this matter too. Did Dr. Ross Quote Mine words of Freeman Dyson.

There are Atheist Pastors of churches. There are Agnostic theology teachers. There are Atheist Seminary Professors. This is very much a FREE society in the US with education. I don't know where you are.

Some Theological Seminaries give theology degrees to people who are Atheist or Agnostics. There are some Theological Seminaries where you can go IN a fundamentalist Christan, and COME OUT largly doubting your faith - Agnostic.

" I went in with one Gospel of John. And I came out with five."

"I went in with one book of Isaiah. And I came out with five."

" They taught me that Luke didn't write Luke, and Matthew didn't write Matthew, and Mark didn't write Mark, and Ezekiel didn't write Ezekiel, and Isaiah didn't write Isaiah, and Moses didn't exist, and Jesus is questionable that he even lived, and they gave me a Doctorate in Theology and sent me out. Now I don't know what I believe."

I still have to research Freeman Dysn. But it does not suprise me in the least that a person vocal about some aspect of religious customs or even a defender of Religion could also be an Agnostic or even an Atheist. This is not a surprise to me.

I once lived near to a Seminary Professor in Princeton NJ, who discribed himself as a Christian Atheist, according to his son. This is a free country here in the US in this regard. And you can become REVEREND So and So and at the same time be as Atheistic as the day is long. There are modernist and liberal institutions which will gladly accomodate you. Not all will. Some will.

this is the pattern set down by the interview. one lie/misrepresentation after the other. if these are not enough for you to realize that this man is a complete unrepentant liar, nothing else i post of his lies will alter your opinion.

So far that is what you have not substantiated to me.
Then again I think you hate Theists, PERIOD.
I think you are just desparate to cling to your bigotry that no theist is to be trusted.

Originally posted by GSWILL
This is jaywill writing.

in my 3 minute analysis, i have sufficiently shown 6 lies in a 3 minute period. that is sufficient to rest my argument. i will not suffer the entire videos again in order to point out the rest of the inconsistencies which are no longer necessary for my argument.

I have not finished my review. I started and w ...[text shortened]... te to cling to your bigotry that no theist is to be trusted.

Liberal Democrats always have to attack a person's character when they disagree with them because that is all they usually have. It is a good tactic in debates I have learned. One really doesn't have to know much to use it and one can then pretend thay know more but it is useless to argue with a numbnuts. I have learned well from them for I do it myself and have increased my communication skills tremendously. Just ask googlefudge if you don't believe me. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Liberal Democrats always have to attack a person's character when they disagree with them because that is all they usually have. It is a good tactic in debates I have learned. One really doesn't have to know much to use it and one can then pretend thay know more but it is useless to argue with a numbnuts. I have learned well from them for I do it myself a ...[text shortened]... eased my communication skills tremendously. Just ask googlefudge if you don't believe me. 😏

So its bad when a dem attacks someones character but it's ok for you to call people pejoratives. Ok, I see now.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Liberal Democrats always have to attack a person's character when they disagree with them because that is all they usually have. It is a good tactic in debates I have learned. One really doesn't have to know much to use it and one can then pretend thay know more but it is useless to argue with a numbnuts. I have learned well from them for I do it myself a ...[text shortened]... eased my communication skills tremendously. Just ask googlefudge if you don't believe me. 😏

I'm a Liberal Democrat in some areas. And I have met in my life too many political right wingers who were as bigoted and insulting as could be, to make me think Liberal Democrats have any kind of copyright on dishonestly attacking people's characters, by a long shot.

Originally posted by jaywill
I can admit that Quote Mining has a basically NEGATIVE connotation. However, having said that, I would call ANY kind of careful searching for QUOTATIONS to shed light certain aspect of a discusion "Quote Mining".

I wouldn't use it that way and don't think it makes much sense to do so. However, it seems to me that it is pretty obvious that the context in which it originally appears in this thread clearly refers to the Wikipedia meaning.

In other words if you made a careful search of quotations which supported which shed light on something you were trying to argue, I would not automatically dismiss that as "Quote Mining." Of course you are mining for relevant quotations.
That sounds like you are not too sure of your own use of the phrase. When you say you would not automatically dismiss it as 'quote mining' you are clearly referring to the dishonest practice.

Just vague accusations are innuendos.
"Most Christians ....etc. etc. "

And if you go back and look back at the context, as I suggested you do, you will find that it is not an accusation but a compliment (not to you, but to 'most Christians'😉 and something that you might even agree with. That you have twice chosen to quote it out of context and deliberately misrepresented the context in which I used it is remarkably similar to the dishonest practice of "quote mining".

Originally posted by jaywill
I can admit that Quote Mining has a basically NEGATIVE connotation. However, having said that, I would call ANY kind of careful searching for QUOTATIONS to shed light certain aspect of a discusion "Quote Mining".

I am still struggling to understand what you originally meant when you said:

Quote mining is distasteful to people like you who don't care what is in the word of God.

If you were simply referring to the practice of carefully searching for quotations to shed light on certain aspects of a discussion, then why would it be distasteful to anyone and why specifically to those that 'don't care what is in the word of God'?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am still struggling to understand what you originally meant when you said:

Quote mining is distasteful to people like you who don't care what is in the word of God.

If you were simply referring to the practice of carefully searching for quotations to shed light on certain aspects of a discussion, then why would it be distasteful to anyone and why specifically to those that 'don't care what is in the word of God'?

That's too bad that you're still struggling to understand something.

You said you had no examples of dishonest quoting.
And I think you said you never meant you did.

So I need nothing else from you now.
Why don't you do something different and start your OWN thread?
I mean instead of playing continous Curious George about other's statments, why not orginate your own thread? Propose some answers to life's questions.

Have you ever started your own discussion with your own OP in the Spirituality Forum?
Why don't you start one if you are so certain about us theists who make some claims.

Go start a discussion and pass on something you know or believe.
We know what you DON'T believe.
Do you believe anything about Spirituality ?

Originally posted by GSWILL
That's too bad that you're still struggling to understand something.

I see from your response that you don't know what you meant either, or are too ashamed to admit what you did mean. Oh well.

Have you ever started your own discussion with your own OP ?
Yes, a number of times. The subjects related to theism that interest me the most however, theists don't seem to want to discuss.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see from your response that you don't know what you meant either, or are too ashamed to admit what you did mean. Oh well.

[b]Have you ever started your own discussion with your own OP ?
Yes, a number of times. The subjects related to theism that interest me the most however, theists don't seem to want to discuss.[/b]

10 points for twhitehead !!

I see you started one on April 30th. Assistance From God.
Good for you.

Start another one. Proclaim your ideas and let everyone put you under the magnifying glass.

Ashamed to stand for something ?
Only feel comfortable yelping at what others here believe ?