Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[oldbadger]

Quote mining is perhaps one of the most common reasons I've seen for people concluding that professional creationists are nothing more than hucksters and con men. It takes deliberate effort to take parts of one sentence and mash it up with parts of another to make it seem as if the author is saying the opposite of what they actually said; it takes deliberate effort to hide the full context of a quote.

The fact that creationists have to resort to this outrageously dishonest tactic to support their position exposes creationism for the fundamentally dishonest position that it is.

Come on........
Members scream and howl for sources, and then shout 'quote-miner!' when they get given those sources.

It's a common-enough tactic amongst the dunderheads who can't respond to good sources, don't you think?

 

[Jose Fly]

He probably gets bored when all the big-heads, supposedly on the same side of the discussion, start correcting each other.

You know, it's always fascinated me how fundamentalists often refer to those of us who defend science as "big heads" and similar terms, and quote the part from the Bible about God "confounding the wise". Underlying all that is an admission that us science folks are the smart ones, and those on the other side aren't. That has to generate a certain amount of insecurity, which I think manifests itself in different ways in their posts. I wonder now if that's part of why you felt compelled to jump in here and come to the defense of the Jehovah's Witnesses?

 

[oldbadger]

So let's try again. How do you account for the long-standing agreement among paleontologists about the fossil record supporting evolutionary common descent, and life scientists in general agreeing on common descent via evolution? Incompetence? Conspiracy? Magic spell?

I thought that you might appreciate a source that I noticed, or would you call that 'quote-mined'?

Have you got any answers about the missing links?

We have still not found the missing link between us and apes - BBC.com

www.bbc.com/.../20170517-we-have-still-not-found-the-missing-link-between-us-and...18 May 2017 - Apes in general represented evolutionary staging posts on the road to ... In his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature, Huxley said it ...

 

[Jose Fly]

Members scream and howl for sources, and then shout 'quote-miner!' when they get given those sources.

No, we shout "quote mine" when we're given a dishonestly-edited quote. What else do you think we should do? Ignore it?

It's a common-enough tactic amongst the dunderheads who can't respond to good sources, don't you think?

No. It's a response to a blatantly dishonest tactic that's common among creationists.

 

[oldbadger]

You know, it's always fascinated me how fundamentalists often refer to those of us who defend science as "big heads" and similar terms, and quote the part from the Bible about God "confounding the wise". Underlying all that is an admission that us science folks are the smart ones, and those on the other side aren't. That has to generate a certain amount of insecurity, which I think manifests itself in different ways in their posts. I wonder now if that's part of why you felt compelled to jump in here and come to the defense of the Jehovah's Witnesses?

I'm a Deist. Have you ever met with a Deist fundamentalist?

I didn't jump in...... I posted here from early on in the thread.. But when I read your paragraph which does suggest a nice smooth fossil record to mankind I thought I would ask for your opinion about reports that this record is absent?

And please don't assume that all evolution supporters are scientists.

 

[oldbadger]

No, we shout "quote mine" when we're given a dishonestly-edited quote. What else do you think we should do? Ignore it?

No. It's a response to a blatantly dishonest tactic that's common among creationists.

So..... basically speaking..... you honestly think that only creationists quote mine, or should I say, 'Dishonestly edit quotes?' You see that? One minute the challenge is about quote mining, the next it's about dishonest editing of quotes....... even that is a jumbled challenge, right there.

 

[Jose Fly]

I thought that you might appreciate a source that I noticed, or would you call that 'quote-mined'?

Doesn't look like it.

Have you got any answers about the missing links?

Depends on what the question is.

We have still not found the missing link between us and apes - BBC.com

www.bbc.com/.../20170517-we-have-still-not-found-the-missing-link-between-us-and...18 May 2017 - Apes in general represented evolutionary staging posts on the road to ... In his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature, Huxley said it ...

Not sure what your point is. Are you operating under the assumption that we can't say we share an ancestry with other primates until we know which specific species was the last common ancestor?

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm a Deist. Have you ever met with a Deist fundamentalist?

Not that I'm aware of.

I didn't jump in...... I posted here from early on in the thread.. But when I read your paragraph which does suggest a nice smooth fossil record to mankind I thought I would ask for your opinion about reports that this record is absent?

What paragraph and what "reports"?

And please don't assume that all evolution supporters are scientists.

Never said otherwise.

 

[oldbadger]

No, we shout "quote mine" when we're given a dishonestly-edited quote. What else do you think we should do? Ignore it?.

Please don't ignore that one about absent links, etc...... it's BBC one!!!

Here it is again......... how would you respond?

We have still not found the missing link between us and apes - BBC.com

www.bbc.com/.../20170517-we-have-still-not-found-the-missing-link-between-us-and...18 May 2017 - Apes in general represented evolutionary staging posts on the road to ... In his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature, Huxley said it ...

 

[Jose Fly]

So..... basically speaking..... you honestly think that only creationists quote mine, or should I say, 'Dishonestly edit quotes?

Never said that.

You see that? One minute the challenge is about quote mining, the next it's about dishonest editing of quotes....... even that is a jumbled challenge, right there.

Um.....dishonestly editing quotes is the definition of "quote mining".

 

[Jose Fly]

Please don't ignore that one about absent links, etc...... it's BBC one!!!

Slow down. I didn't ignore it. Again....

Not sure what your point is. Are you operating under the assumption that we can't say we share an ancestry with other primates until we know which specific species was the last common ancestor?

 

[oldbadger]

Doesn't look like it.


Depends on what the question is.


Not sure what your point is. Are you operating under the assumption that we can't say we share an ancestry with other primates until we know which specific species was the last common ancestor?

I missed the above post while I was writing a post...

You are not sure what my point is? Really?

What could possibly be the point about a weak fossil record link to humans, you ask?

This is a thread about evolution..... and we haven't yet got a nice smooth clear link to humans, which HAS to be a slight embarrassment to the 'we evolved' folks.

We are still not sure that we did. .

 

[Jose Fly]

You are not sure what my point is? Really?

Really.

What could possibly be the point about a weak fossil record link to humans, you ask?

So you really are operating under the assumption that we can't say we're related to other primates until we identify the specific species that was the last common ancestor.

Why do you think that?

We are still not sure that we did. .

Maybe you aren't, but most of the rest of the developed world is.

 

[oldbadger]

What paragraph and what "reports"?.

You mean to tell me that you didn't read the quoted ;paragraph which showed exactly what you wrote?

I'll go back and get it for you.......

Jose Fly said: ↑
So let's try again. How do you account for the long-standing agreement among paleontologists about the fossil record supporting evolutionary common descent, and life scientists in general agreeing on common descent via evolution? Incompetence? Conspiracy? Magic spell?

Now.... all you have to do is read what you wrote, and then read my source which explains that the fossil record to humans is weak? I hope that helped you.

 

[oldbadger]

So you really are operating under the assumption that we can't say we're related to other primates until we identify the specific species that was the last common ancestor..

Well, Science likes to be sure, you know.

 

[Deeje]

Did you watch even part of the video? All those famous names! Every one of them a calculated manipulator of human trust. Perhaps people with your mindset were the reason they got away with what they did for so long.....and now we are all paying the price.

Once the trust is gone....so is everything else. That is why social engineering works so well for them. They build the trust and milk it for all its worth and whole populations swallow the propaganda, hook, line and sinker. Are you a sucker like all the rest?

Right back atcha.

 

[Jose Fly]

You mean to tell me that you didn't read the quoted ;paragraph which showed exactly what you wrote?

I'll go back and get it for you.......

Jose Fly said:
So let's try again. How do you account for the long-standing agreement among paleontologists about the fossil record supporting evolutionary common descent, and life scientists in general agreeing on common descent via evolution? Incompetence? Conspiracy? Magic spell?

Now.... all you have to do is read what you wrote, and then read my source which explains that the fossil record to humans is weak? I hope that helped you.

First, I don't see anything in what I wrote that mentions "a nice smooth fossil record" as you claimed. Is there a reason you tried to claim that I said something I didn't?

Second, the BBC article didn't say "the fossil record to humans is weak".

I'm sensing a pattern with you.

 

[oldbadger]

OK....... it's 2300hrs here. I'm for bed. Will answer any posts tomorrow.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, Science likes to be sure, you know.

You're dodging. Again, are you operating under the assumption that we can't say humans are related to other primates until we identify the species that was the last common ancestor between the two groups?

 

[savagewind]

Once the trust is gone....so is everything else.

The reason for what I have wondered about.