How To Define "Evolution"?

[PoliticalChic]

You should try out for the Olympic swim team -- the backstroke for your failure to defend Berlinski.

What's that sound I hear? it's bibles thumping.

So.....you can't provide that 'proof' as outlined in the OP?


Your attempt to change the subject pretty much means that you accept the lack of support for Darwin's theory.

My work here is done.

That's so silly. The entirety of your posts amounts to cutting and pasting from creationist charlatans.

In the relevant world, evolutionary science is among the best documented and supported sciences.

Now would be a good time to point out another total failure in the creationist argument for supernaturalism. Let’s pretend just for the sake of argument that the asserter of an uncaused supernatural entity had not directly contradicted him/herself. Let’s pretend that we somehow did reach the conclusion that at the end of this eternal chain of causation, there was an “unlimited cause” that started the whole thing.

What does this argument tell us about the nature and character of that “unlimited cause?”

Not a doggone thing. It could be Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, or some as yet undiscovered and unnamed cosmic entity or entities. Even were this argument correct (which it is not) it offers no evidence for the existence of your gods. Your gods are but one particular version of “gods” unique to one particular religious group. And there is no basis for connecting your sectarian deity with any of the arguments we have been offered to this point.

Speak to the fact, ding-bat.


I made an OP to which you can refer as you wish.

What I stated is true.
Science doesn't dispute what I've posted....only you do.


You write: "...another total failure in the creationist argument for supernaturalism."
There is no such argument made in the thread.....except by you.

I win, don't I.

What more is there to say?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most people learn to stop fighting when they leave the playground and become adults, PC dearest.

Some people grow out of childish shenanigans. Some people master them.

I would suggest that you are, indeed, a master of shenanigans, except that you aren't too good at that, either.

Hey....looks who's back!

The lonely loser.


Why?


Let's review.

I wrote an OP which you engaged.

I've been proven right....even by your admission....

I win, you lose. Ergo, your new nickname.

And now you want to change the subject.
Of course, that's not about to happen.


Carry on.

 

[orogenicman]

Some people grow out of childish shenanigans. Some people master them.

I would suggest that you are, indeed, a master of shenanigans, except that you aren't too good at that, either.

Hey....looks who's back!

The lonely loser.


Why?


Let's review.

I wrote an OP which you engaged.

I've been proven right....even by your admission....

I win, you lose. Ergo, your new nickname.

And now you want to change the subject.
Of course, that's not about to happen.


Carry on.

Questions: Do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian? Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I would suggest that you are, indeed, a master of shenanigans, except that you aren't too good at that, either.

Hey....looks who's back!

The lonely loser.


Why?


Let's review.

I wrote an OP which you engaged.

I've been proven right....even by your admission....

I win, you lose. Ergo, your new nickname.

And now you want to change the subject.
Of course, that's not about to happen.


Carry on.

Questions: Do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian? Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?

You've already admitted that I am correct, and there are no fossils that document the Darwinian myth of simple cells, leading to the trilobites and brachiopods.

We'll leave it at that.....unless you'd like to begin your own OP.

As I'm certain is true in your life outside of the message board, you stand no chance of me doing things other than my way.

 

[orogenicman]

Hey....looks who's back!

The lonely loser.


Why?


Let's review.

I wrote an OP which you engaged.

I've been proven right....even by your admission....

I win, you lose. Ergo, your new nickname.

And now you want to change the subject.
Of course, that's not about to happen.


Carry on.

Questions: Do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian? Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?

You've already admitted that I am correct, and there are no fossils that document the Darwinian myth of simple cells, leading to the trilobites and brachiopods.

We'll leave it at that.....unless you'd like to begin your own OP.

As I'm certain is true in your life outside of the message board, you stand no chance of me doing things other than my way.

I have admitted no such thing. Lying for Jesus is still lying. And projection is a common defense mechanism people use when they are put on the spot. Instead, try being honest. Answer the questions. Hint - it is okay to admit that you don't know.

 

[Hollie]

So.....you can't provide that 'proof' as outlined in the OP?


Your attempt to change the subject pretty much means that you accept the lack of support for Darwin's theory.

My work here is done.

That's so silly. The entirety of your posts amounts to cutting and pasting from creationist charlatans.

In the relevant world, evolutionary science is among the best documented and supported sciences.

Now would be a good time to point out another total failure in the creationist argument for supernaturalism. Let’s pretend just for the sake of argument that the asserter of an uncaused supernatural entity had not directly contradicted him/herself. Let’s pretend that we somehow did reach the conclusion that at the end of this eternal chain of causation, there was an “unlimited cause” that started the whole thing.

What does this argument tell us about the nature and character of that “unlimited cause?”

Not a doggone thing. It could be Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, or some as yet undiscovered and unnamed cosmic entity or entities. Even were this argument correct (which it is not) it offers no evidence for the existence of your gods. Your gods are but one particular version of “gods” unique to one particular religious group. And there is no basis for connecting your sectarian deity with any of the arguments we have been offered to this point.

Speak to the fact, ding-bat.


I made an OP to which you can refer as you wish.

What I stated is true.
Science doesn't dispute what I've posted....only you do.


You write: "...another total failure in the creationist argument for supernaturalism."
There is no such argument made in the thread.....except by you.

I win, don't I.

What more is there to say?

I’m trying to be benevolent and throw you a bone for “winning” something. However, with the benchmark of rational, objective commentary, you’re coming up short.

In terms of what you have offered, presented or demonstrated, you demonstrated only that your fraudulent “quotes”, stolen largely from Harun Yahya are pointless and easily dismissed as creationist blathering.

I should educate you to the fact that evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to creationist (supernatural) argument.

This is why the anti-evolution / anti-science crowd tends to run screaming from actual discussion of the science surrounding evolution and instead insist that they be linked to issues that are philosophical or theological. Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is effectively useless in the study of science. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine demonstrable utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true. Like most religious extremists, you rail against science and particularly evolutionary science because it presents any number of irreconcilable contradictions to biblical tales and fables. Religious fundies / supernatural creationists have had decades to present a coherent argument supporting your gawds. In spite of the various, phony, incarnations of “creationists” that have appeared, they have only become more desperate and more pathetic in their attempts to advance their religious fundamentalism under differing labels.

Even if evolution is completely negated (and that is not likely given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any religious assertion.

Evolution being disproved does not equal Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam being "right". There are a few just-as-likely possibilities that are being ignored if evolution is not the mechanism by which life came about.

What is abundantly clear is that you don’t understand the very first thing about Darwin’s theory of evolution, thus, you have no business bringing your silly creationist cutting and pasting into a public forum.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's so silly. The entirety of your posts amounts to cutting and pasting from creationist charlatans.

In the relevant world, evolutionary science is among the best documented and supported sciences.

Now would be a good time to point out another total failure in the creationist argument for supernaturalism. Let’s pretend just for the sake of argument that the asserter of an uncaused supernatural entity had not directly contradicted him/herself. Let’s pretend that we somehow did reach the conclusion that at the end of this eternal chain of causation, there was an “unlimited cause” that started the whole thing.

What does this argument tell us about the nature and character of that “unlimited cause?”

Not a doggone thing. It could be Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, or some as yet undiscovered and unnamed cosmic entity or entities. Even were this argument correct (which it is not) it offers no evidence for the existence of your gods. Your gods are but one particular version of “gods” unique to one particular religious group. And there is no basis for connecting your sectarian deity with any of the arguments we have been offered to this point.

Speak to the fact, ding-bat.


I made an OP to which you can refer as you wish.

What I stated is true.
Science doesn't dispute what I've posted....only you do.


You write: "...another total failure in the creationist argument for supernaturalism."
There is no such argument made in the thread.....except by you.

I win, don't I.

What more is there to say?

I’m trying to be benevolent and throw you a bone for “winning” something. However, with the benchmark of rational, objective commentary, you’re coming up short.

In terms of what you have offered, presented or demonstrated, you demonstrated only that your fraudulent “quotes”, stolen largely from Harun Yahya are pointless and easily dismissed as creationist blathering.

I should educate you to the fact that evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to creationist (supernatural) argument.

This is why the anti-evolution / anti-science crowd tends to run screaming from actual discussion of the science surrounding evolution and instead insist that they be linked to issues that are philosophical or theological. Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is effectively useless in the study of science. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine demonstrable utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true. Like most religious extremists, you rail against science and particularly evolutionary science because it presents any number of irreconcilable contradictions to biblical tales and fables. Religious fundies / supernatural creationists have had decades to present a coherent argument supporting your gawds. In spite of the various, phony, incarnations of “creationists” that have appeared, they have only become more desperate and more pathetic in their attempts to advance their religious fundamentalism under differing labels.

Even if evolution is completely negated (and that is not likely given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any religious assertion.

Evolution being disproved does not equal Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam being "right". There are a few just-as-likely possibilities that are being ignored if evolution is not the mechanism by which life came about.

What is abundantly clear is that you don’t understand the very first thing about Darwin’s theory of evolution, thus, you have no business bringing your silly creationist cutting and pasting into a public forum.

"I should educate you to the fact that evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to creationist (supernatural) argument."


But you're the only one doing that.

Surely, that is a mental aberration: you bring it up....and then you deny it....

You know....both you and Lonely Loser seem to have something wrong with you...
I feel like I'm taking advantage.


But....I appreciate the opportunity to document the facts, i.e., Darwin's theory lacks physical proof.


That was my point ...and that's what I did.

Thanks for your help.

 

[Hollie]

Speak to the fact, ding-bat.


I made an OP to which you can refer as you wish.

What I stated is true.
Science doesn't dispute what I've posted....only you do.


You write: "...another total failure in the creationist argument for supernaturalism."
There is no such argument made in the thread.....except by you.

I win, don't I.

What more is there to say?

I’m trying to be benevolent and throw you a bone for “winning” something. However, with the benchmark of rational, objective commentary, you’re coming up short.

In terms of what you have offered, presented or demonstrated, you demonstrated only that your fraudulent “quotes”, stolen largely from Harun Yahya are pointless and easily dismissed as creationist blathering.

I should educate you to the fact that evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to creationist (supernatural) argument.

This is why the anti-evolution / anti-science crowd tends to run screaming from actual discussion of the science surrounding evolution and instead insist that they be linked to issues that are philosophical or theological. Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is effectively useless in the study of science. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine demonstrable utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true. Like most religious extremists, you rail against science and particularly evolutionary science because it presents any number of irreconcilable contradictions to biblical tales and fables. Religious fundies / supernatural creationists have had decades to present a coherent argument supporting your gawds. In spite of the various, phony, incarnations of “creationists” that have appeared, they have only become more desperate and more pathetic in their attempts to advance their religious fundamentalism under differing labels.

Even if evolution is completely negated (and that is not likely given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any religious assertion.

Evolution being disproved does not equal Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam being "right". There are a few just-as-likely possibilities that are being ignored if evolution is not the mechanism by which life came about.

What is abundantly clear is that you don’t understand the very first thing about Darwin’s theory of evolution, thus, you have no business bringing your silly creationist cutting and pasting into a public forum.

"I should educate you to the fact that evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to creationist (supernatural) argument."


But you're the only one doing that.

Surely, that is a mental aberration: you bring it up....and then you deny it....

You know....both you and Lonely Loser seem to have something wrong with you...
I feel like I'm taking advantage.


But....I appreciate the opportunity to document the facts, i.e., Darwin's theory lacks physical proof.


That was my point ...and that's what I did.

Thanks for your help.

That unseemly drool on your keyboard notwithstanding, I have to acknowledge the confused, rambling and largely “quote-mined” mess that was your OP.

As I did later in exposing the lies and fraudulent “quotes” you dumped into the thread, it was not surprising that you would throw in the obligatory Steven Mayer “quote”.

As with so much of the nonsense drooling out of the Disco’tute, Mayer’s latest disaster of a book is thoroughly trashed as incompetent and meaningless. And, not surprisingly, Mayer “quote-mines” his way through his book.

Stephen Meyer: workin' in the quote mines - The Panda's Thumb

Stephen Meyer’s new book, “Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design,” has received highly critical reviews from several working scientists. Don Prothero panned the book for (among other things) its misrepresentations of paleontology, and Nick Matzke showed Meyer’s ignorance of (among other things) phylogenetic methods (see also here). Now John Farrell has critically reviewed the book in National Review (behind a $0.25 paywall). Farrell’s review criticizes Meyer’s book on several grounds, but the part of immediate interest here is Meyer’s quote mining of a genuine scientist. I’ll quote from the review at some length below the fold.

…

So Meyer (or maybe Casey Luskin, Meyer’s research assistant on the book), mashed up quotations separated by 15 pages in the original to create a statement that the original author did not make. I’m not sure that ellipses zooming past 15 pages is a new land speed record, but it has to be well out in the tail of the distribution. This sounds like a case for John Pieret and the Quote Mine Project.

 

[Hollie]

Speak to the fact, ding-bat.


I made an OP to which you can refer as you wish.

What I stated is true.
Science doesn't dispute what I've posted....only you do.


You write: "...another total failure in the creationist argument for supernaturalism."
There is no such argument made in the thread.....except by you.

I win, don't I.

What more is there to say?

I’m trying to be benevolent and throw you a bone for “winning” something. However, with the benchmark of rational, objective commentary, you’re coming up short.

In terms of what you have offered, presented or demonstrated, you demonstrated only that your fraudulent “quotes”, stolen largely from Harun Yahya are pointless and easily dismissed as creationist blathering.

I should educate you to the fact that evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to creationist (supernatural) argument.

This is why the anti-evolution / anti-science crowd tends to run screaming from actual discussion of the science surrounding evolution and instead insist that they be linked to issues that are philosophical or theological. Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is effectively useless in the study of science. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine demonstrable utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true. Like most religious extremists, you rail against science and particularly evolutionary science because it presents any number of irreconcilable contradictions to biblical tales and fables. Religious fundies / supernatural creationists have had decades to present a coherent argument supporting your gawds. In spite of the various, phony, incarnations of “creationists” that have appeared, they have only become more desperate and more pathetic in their attempts to advance their religious fundamentalism under differing labels.

Even if evolution is completely negated (and that is not likely given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any religious assertion.

Evolution being disproved does not equal Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam being "right". There are a few just-as-likely possibilities that are being ignored if evolution is not the mechanism by which life came about.

What is abundantly clear is that you don’t understand the very first thing about Darwin’s theory of evolution, thus, you have no business bringing your silly creationist cutting and pasting into a public forum.

"I should educate you to the fact that evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to creationist (supernatural) argument."


But you're the only one doing that.

Surely, that is a mental aberration: you bring it up....and then you deny it....

You know....both you and Lonely Loser seem to have something wrong with you...
I feel like I'm taking advantage.


But....I appreciate the opportunity to document the facts, i.e., Darwin's theory lacks physical proof.


That was my point ...and that's what I did.

Thanks for your help.

Darwin's theory lacks physical proof.

Of course it does, dear.

All of the scientists representing the fields of geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry and physics have all conspired to fake the entirety of the evidence supporting evolution.

Enjoy your lurid conspiracies.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But we cannot yet test any of it, and so all we are left with is some great mathematical proofs with no empirical evidence to back them up. That may come in the future, but we are a long way from getting there. To me, M-theory currently has the best promise, but like I said, we've got a long way to go.

We couldn't test for the Higgs bosun either, what's your point?

You enjoy watching me repeat myself, don't you?

You keep saying such stupid things.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I’m trying to be benevolent and throw you a bone for “winning” something. However, with the benchmark of rational, objective commentary, you’re coming up short.

In terms of what you have offered, presented or demonstrated, you demonstrated only that your fraudulent “quotes”, stolen largely from Harun Yahya are pointless and easily dismissed as creationist blathering.

I should educate you to the fact that evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to creationist (supernatural) argument.

This is why the anti-evolution / anti-science crowd tends to run screaming from actual discussion of the science surrounding evolution and instead insist that they be linked to issues that are philosophical or theological. Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is effectively useless in the study of science. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine demonstrable utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true. Like most religious extremists, you rail against science and particularly evolutionary science because it presents any number of irreconcilable contradictions to biblical tales and fables. Religious fundies / supernatural creationists have had decades to present a coherent argument supporting your gawds. In spite of the various, phony, incarnations of “creationists” that have appeared, they have only become more desperate and more pathetic in their attempts to advance their religious fundamentalism under differing labels.

Even if evolution is completely negated (and that is not likely given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any religious assertion.

Evolution being disproved does not equal Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam being "right". There are a few just-as-likely possibilities that are being ignored if evolution is not the mechanism by which life came about.

What is abundantly clear is that you don’t understand the very first thing about Darwin’s theory of evolution, thus, you have no business bringing your silly creationist cutting and pasting into a public forum.

"I should educate you to the fact that evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to creationist (supernatural) argument."


But you're the only one doing that.

Surely, that is a mental aberration: you bring it up....and then you deny it....

You know....both you and Lonely Loser seem to have something wrong with you...
I feel like I'm taking advantage.


But....I appreciate the opportunity to document the facts, i.e., Darwin's theory lacks physical proof.


That was my point ...and that's what I did.

Thanks for your help.

Darwin's theory lacks physical proof.

Of course it does, dear.

All of the scientists representing the fields of geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry and physics have all conspired to fake the entirety of the evidence supporting evolution.

Enjoy your lurid conspiracies.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.

Geology?

Really?



I believe you've given me an idea for the next thorn in your paw.

I'm just gonna have to show still another area in which being clueless doesn't prevent you from exhibiting strong opinions.


Just gonna have to rip you up again.

 

[Hollie]

"I should educate you to the fact that evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to creationist (supernatural) argument."


But you're the only one doing that.

Surely, that is a mental aberration: you bring it up....and then you deny it....

You know....both you and Lonely Loser seem to have something wrong with you...
I feel like I'm taking advantage.


But....I appreciate the opportunity to document the facts, i.e., Darwin's theory lacks physical proof.


That was my point ...and that's what I did.

Thanks for your help.

Darwin's theory lacks physical proof.

Of course it does, dear.

All of the scientists representing the fields of geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry and physics have all conspired to fake the entirety of the evidence supporting evolution.

Enjoy your lurid conspiracies.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.

Geology?

Really?



I believe you've given me an idea for the next thorn in your paw.

I'm just gonna have to show still another area in which being clueless doesn't prevent you from exhibiting strong opinions.


Just gonna have to rip you up again.

Now geology?

Oh my. It seems that with your earlier spamming of "quote mines" being exposed as fraudulent, you're goin to scour Harun Yahya's website for more stupidity.

Anyone who has ever weed whacked their way through the landscape of fundie / creationist "quote mining" has come across goofy cut and pasters such as PC.

"Quote mine" away, dear. Just remember that any new collection of lies and falsified "quotes" are subject to the same dismantling as your earlier lies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course it does, dear.

All of the scientists representing the fields of geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry and physics have all conspired to fake the entirety of the evidence supporting evolution.

Enjoy your lurid conspiracies.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.

Geology?

Really?



I believe you've given me an idea for the next thorn in your paw.

I'm just gonna have to show still another area in which being clueless doesn't prevent you from exhibiting strong opinions.


Just gonna have to rip you up again.

Now geology?

Oh my. It seems that with your earlier spamming of "quote mines" being exposed as fraudulent, you're goin to scour Harun Yahya's website for more stupidity.

Anyone who has ever weed whacked their way through the landscape of fundie / creationist "quote mining" has come across goofy cut and pasters such as PC.

"Quote mine" away, dear. Just remember that any new collection of lies and falsified "quotes" are subject to the same dismantling as your earlier lies.

I don't believe that here is any hope that you'll ever be other than an idiot....but, do try to use words correctly.

You regularly use the term 'quote mining,' with no understanding of the meaning.





It doesn't mean finding quotations that support a thesis....which is the correct usage....it means incorrectly using a quote....as in the following example:

Although you are clearly an idiot, you might try to hide same by writing "my friends don't think I'm an idiot.'

If one than were to quote you as having said "... I'm an idiot.'"...that would be quote mining.


So, you see, you have been using it incorrectly.



quote mining
Web definitions
The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical 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.
Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So, although my example could be shown to be incorrect....

....in actuality, you are an idiot.

 

[Hollie]

Geology?

Really?



I believe you've given me an idea for the next thorn in your paw.

I'm just gonna have to show still another area in which being clueless doesn't prevent you from exhibiting strong opinions.


Just gonna have to rip you up again.

Now geology?

Oh my. It seems that with your earlier spamming of "quote mines" being exposed as fraudulent, you're goin to scour Harun Yahya's website for more stupidity.

Anyone who has ever weed whacked their way through the landscape of fundie / creationist "quote mining" has come across goofy cut and pasters such as PC.

"Quote mine" away, dear. Just remember that any new collection of lies and falsified "quotes" are subject to the same dismantling as your earlier lies.

I don't believe that here is any hope that you'll ever be other than an idiot....but, do try to use words correctly.

You regularly use the term 'quote mining,' with no understanding of the meaning.





It doesn't mean finding quotations that support a thesis....which is the correct usage....it means incorrectly using a quote....as in the following example:

Although you are clearly an idiot, you might try to hide same by writing "my friends don't think I'm an idiot.'

If one than were to quote you as having said "... I'm an idiot.'"...that would be quote mining.


So, you see, you have been using it incorrectly.



quote mining
Web definitions
The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical 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.
Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So, although my example could be shown to be incorrect....

....in actuality, you are an idiot.

I can understand you're angry at being exposed as a fraud, but why lash out at me?

Your dishonest quote mining is a tactic you chose to pursue. When your "quotes" were shown to be lies, you stomped your feet and whined like a petulant child who was scolded for bad behavior.

Go to your room for a time out.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now geology?

Oh my. It seems that with your earlier spamming of "quote mines" being exposed as fraudulent, you're goin to scour Harun Yahya's website for more stupidity.

Anyone who has ever weed whacked their way through the landscape of fundie / creationist "quote mining" has come across goofy cut and pasters such as PC.

"Quote mine" away, dear. Just remember that any new collection of lies and falsified "quotes" are subject to the same dismantling as your earlier lies.

I don't believe that here is any hope that you'll ever be other than an idiot....but, do try to use words correctly.

You regularly use the term 'quote mining,' with no understanding of the meaning.





It doesn't mean finding quotations that support a thesis....which is the correct usage....it means incorrectly using a quote....as in the following example:

Although you are clearly an idiot, you might try to hide same by writing "my friends don't think I'm an idiot.'

If one than were to quote you as having said "... I'm an idiot.'"...that would be quote mining.


So, you see, you have been using it incorrectly.



quote mining
Web definitions
The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical 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.
Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So, although my example could be shown to be incorrect....

....in actuality, you are an idiot.

I can understand you're angry at being exposed as a fraud, but why lash out at me?

Your dishonest quote mining is a tactic you chose to pursue. When your "quotes" were shown to be lies, you stomped your feet and whined like a petulant child who was scolded for bad behavior.

Go to your room for a time out.

1. Oh, gee....and here I thought you were going to admit that you are an idiot.

2. I haven't lashed out, I explained the concept clearly, with documentation, as one would to any three year old (intellect).

3. "When your "quotes" were shown to be lies,..."
As you frequently do, you make things up. None of my selections were lies.
Yours are.

4. I view our little exchanges as the verbal equivalent of smashing a custard pie in your face.
It's fun.


Write soon.

 

[Hollie]

I don't believe that here is any hope that you'll ever be other than an idiot....but, do try to use words correctly.

You regularly use the term 'quote mining,' with no understanding of the meaning.





It doesn't mean finding quotations that support a thesis....which is the correct usage....it means incorrectly using a quote....as in the following example:

Although you are clearly an idiot, you might try to hide same by writing "my friends don't think I'm an idiot.'

If one than were to quote you as having said "... I'm an idiot.'"...that would be quote mining.


So, you see, you have been using it incorrectly.



quote mining
Web definitions
The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical 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.
Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So, although my example could be shown to be incorrect....

....in actuality, you are an idiot.

I can understand you're angry at being exposed as a fraud, but why lash out at me?

Your dishonest quote mining is a tactic you chose to pursue. When your "quotes" were shown to be lies, you stomped your feet and whined like a petulant child who was scolded for bad behavior.

Go to your room for a time out.

1. Oh, gee....and here I thought you were going to admit that you are an idiot.

2. I haven't lashed out, I explained the concept clearly, with documentation, as one would to any three year old (intellect).

3. "When your "quotes" were shown to be lies,..."
As you frequently do, you make things up. None of my selections were lies.
Yours are.

4. I view our little exchanges as the verbal equivalent of smashing a custard pie in your face.
It's fun.


Write soon.

1. I was expecting more quote mining from Harun Yahya, you know, to "prove" your "Creation Theory".

2. Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent.

3. Your time out is now extended.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I can understand you're angry at being exposed as a fraud, but why lash out at me?

Your dishonest quote mining is a tactic you chose to pursue. When your "quotes" were shown to be lies, you stomped your feet and whined like a petulant child who was scolded for bad behavior.

Go to your room for a time out.

1. Oh, gee....and here I thought you were going to admit that you are an idiot.

2. I haven't lashed out, I explained the concept clearly, with documentation, as one would to any three year old (intellect).

3. "When your "quotes" were shown to be lies,..."
As you frequently do, you make things up. None of my selections were lies.
Yours are.

4. I view our little exchanges as the verbal equivalent of smashing a custard pie in your face.
It's fun.


Write soon.

1. I was expecting more quote mining from Harun Yahya, you know, to "prove" your "Creation Theory".

2. Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent.

3. Your time out is now extended.

What can one say about an individual shown to be in error....yet repeats same?

Oh...right: you're an idiot.



"Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent."

I notice you didn't provide any examples.....

 

[Hollie]

1. Oh, gee....and here I thought you were going to admit that you are an idiot.

2. I haven't lashed out, I explained the concept clearly, with documentation, as one would to any three year old (intellect).

3. "When your "quotes" were shown to be lies,..."
As you frequently do, you make things up. None of my selections were lies.
Yours are.

4. I view our little exchanges as the verbal equivalent of smashing a custard pie in your face.
It's fun.


Write soon.

1. I was expecting more quote mining from Harun Yahya, you know, to "prove" your "Creation Theory".

2. Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent.

3. Your time out is now extended.

What can one say about an individual shown to be in error....yet repeats same?

Oh...right: you're an idiot.



"Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent."

I notice you didn't provide any examples.....

1. How sad for you. Absent your need to drench this thread and other threads with a litany of fraudulent "quotes", you are unable to offer a single relevant comment. Did you somehow miss the earlier examples of the parsing, editing and lack of relevant citation of your quote mining?

2. It's obvious you have retreated from any effort at trying to support the thread topic.

3. When you open a thread that is propped up on the crooked timber of creationist lies and deceit, it is bound to fail (and come crashing to the ground in flames), as did this latest disaster of yours.

4. Those are just the rules of engagement.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. I was expecting more quote mining from Harun Yahya, you know, to "prove" your "Creation Theory".

2. Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent.

3. Your time out is now extended.

What can one say about an individual shown to be in error....yet repeats same?

Oh...right: you're an idiot.



"Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent."

I notice you didn't provide any examples.....

1. How sad for you. Absent your need to drench this thread and other threads with a litany of fraudulent "quotes", you are unable to offer a single relevant comment. Did you somehow miss the earlier examples of the parsing, editing and lack of relevant citation of your quote mining?

2. It's obvious you have retreated from any effort at trying to support the thread topic.

3. When you open a thread that is propped up on the crooked timber of creationist lies and deceit, it is bound to fail (and come crashing to the ground in flames), as did this latest disaster of yours.

4. Those are just the rules of engagement.

"Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent."

I notice you didn't provide any examples.....

 

[Hollie]

What can one say about an individual shown to be in error....yet repeats same?

Oh...right: you're an idiot.



"Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent."

I notice you didn't provide any examples.....

1. How sad for you. Absent your need to drench this thread and other threads with a litany of fraudulent "quotes", you are unable to offer a single relevant comment. Did you somehow miss the earlier examples of the parsing, editing and lack of relevant citation of your quote mining?

2. It's obvious you have retreated from any effort at trying to support the thread topic.

3. When you open a thread that is propped up on the crooked timber of creationist lies and deceit, it is bound to fail (and come crashing to the ground in flames), as did this latest disaster of yours.

4. Those are just the rules of engagement.

"Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent."

I notice you didn't provide any examples.....

I notice you are confused and befuddled.