The Dishonest Creationist Tactic of 'Quote Mining'

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,038
Reaction score
661
Points
315
Used hourly here mainly by Political Sheik.
Indeed it is her Main and Bogus line of attack.


Quote mining (also contextomy) is the Fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[note 1] It's a way of Lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists (YEC) in an attempt to discredit evolution.

Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote.
...
Examples

Darwin
A famous example, possibly one of the most famous examples of quote mining, is the following misquotation of Charles Darwin, where the bold section is often presented without including the rest of the quote.

“”To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.
—Charles Darwin[5]


..
.........
 
OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,038
Reaction score
661
Points
315
The Quote Mine Project
Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines
Introduction
by the talk.origins newsgroupEdited by John Pieret


One frequent creationist poster to the talk.origins newsgroup produced a long list of what he dubbed "Famous quotes from famous evolutionists" [1]. It was not hard to discover that the list was taken, almost verbatim, from a creationist site called "Anointed-One.Net", where the list is called "Quotes by Famous Evolutionists." Lists like this, presented with little or no context except for vague claims that they somehow "disprove" evolution, are common among creationists. Indeed, entire books of these quotes have been published [2].

For a number of reasons, the posting of this list was illustrative of a persistent and basically dishonest practice, frequently engaged in by creationists, that has become known as "quote-mining." While the etymology of this term is obscure [3], the definition is clear enough. It is the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, "which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored" [4].

In response, numerous people took the trouble to look up the source material to learn the context of the passages. The result of this considerable effort demonstrated that these "quotes" were, in very large part, so out-of-context as to qualify as complete distortions of the authors' intent.
[......]

Another aspect of this practice is that these "quotes" are widely passed around and used repeatedly by creationists, while Neither bothering to check the Original source nor giving any indication that they are taken from secondary sources. This is shown by the fact (as can be seen in a number of these cases)[/b] that there are Errors that can and have crept into these quotes or their citations which are then Propagated by other creationists when they are copied without attribution. [/b][/B](Ironically, this is the same type of "copying error", i.e. mutation, that can be used to trace phylogenetic histories of populations.) More importantly, such thoughtless iterations demonstrate an unwillingness to understand the underlying issues and an indifference to the ideas and reputations of the people whose names they are appropriating.

In addition, some of the "quotes" were outright fabrications; others were actually taken from creationist authors or other people who doubted, rather than supported, evolution (making their designation as "evolutionists" itself disingenuous); several were expressions of opinion by people with no expertise in fields related to evolution and many were so old as to be of no use at all in understanding present day evolutionary theory.
The few quotes that can be said to be both in context and from knowledgeable proponents of evolution [7] invariably discuss limited technical subjects which may appear, to those unfamiliar with the details of modern biology, to contradict evolutionary theory but, in fact, do Not.


Of course, even if each and every one of these quotes was accurate and truly reflected the opinions of the authors, it would not matter a bit. If all eighty-six were from different scientists [8] and all eighty-six thought evolution wrong, that would not begin to tip the consensus formed by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of scientists from a broad range of fields that firmly hold evolution to be the only current scientific theory that explains all the myriad facts surrounding the nature of life on Earth.
.......

......
 
Last edited:
OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,038
Reaction score
661
Points
315
Approximately 40% of Americans have IQ's of low 90s or lower.
While app 93% of the National Academy of Sciences, and 96% of the UK's Royal Academy do not believe in god.


`
 
Last edited:
OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,038
Reaction score
661
Points
315
Note Sunni Moron above, who believes god came from nothing.
You know. POOF, magic.
Not to mention this stupid Turd, like the one above him, is OFF TOPIC.

`
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
71,520
Reaction score
4,245
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Approximately 40% of Americans have IQ's of low 90s or lower.
While app 93% of the National Academy of Sciences, and 96% of the UK's Royal Academy do not believe in god.


`
I guess the inference you are making here is that only stupid people believe in a Creator.

That's not insulting at all. :lol:
 
OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,038
Reaction score
661
Points
315
Political-Chick-LYING-for-Jesus post #1 in the thread 'The Most Famous Fakes In Science.'

ALL relevant ones will be put here. HUNDREDS.
Thousands.
She won't touch this thread as it completes GUTS her only tactic.


What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution




2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations, both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics, is based on lies.
In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?



4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:

“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)

Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.


And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?
But there is an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it….I’ll get to it…
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
71,520
Reaction score
4,245
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Note Sunni Moron above, who believes god came from nothing.
You know. POOF, magic.
Not to mention this stupid Turd, like the one above him, is OFF TOPIC.

`
The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging. Which means that this something can be no thing because things (i.e. matter and energy) are not unchanging.

Luckily we have an example of a "no thing" which is eternal and unchanging... truth.

For any given thing there is a final state of fact. Once discovered it is realized that it was always that way and will always be that way. In other words, truth is eternal and unchanging.

The final state of fact or truth is known as reality. Ergo God is truth, God is reality, God is existence.

Yoar welcome.

:dance:
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
71,520
Reaction score
4,245
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
So if God is truth, logic and love. It would make sense that the material world (aka the universe) that He willed into existence would have those attributes. And not surprisingly, this is exactly what we find.
 
OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,038
Reaction score
661
Points
315
Note Sunni Moron above, who believes god came from nothing.
You know. POOF, magic.
Not to mention this stupid Turd, like the one above him, is OFF TOPIC.

`
The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging. Which means that this something can be no thing because things (i.e. matter and energy) are not unchanging.

Luckily we have an example of a "no thing" which is eternal and unchanging... truth.

For any given thing there is a final state of fact. Once discovered it is realized that it was always that way and will always be that way. In other words, truth is eternal and unchanging.

The final state of fact or truth is known as reality. Ergo God is truth, God is reality, God is existence.

Yoar welcome.

:dance:
Oh look, God of the Gaps pt 68,974.
Knock yourself out.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
71,520
Reaction score
4,245
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Note Sunni Moron above, who believes god came from nothing.
You know. POOF, magic.
Not to mention this stupid Turd, like the one above him, is OFF TOPIC.

`
The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging. Which means that this something can be no thing because things (i.e. matter and energy) are not unchanging.

Luckily we have an example of a "no thing" which is eternal and unchanging... truth.

For any given thing there is a final state of fact. Once discovered it is realized that it was always that way and will always be that way. In other words, truth is eternal and unchanging.

The final state of fact or truth is known as reality. Ergo God is truth, God is reality, God is existence.

Yoar welcome.

:dance:
Oh look, God of the Gaps pt 68,974.
Knock yourself out.
When one has truth on his side, he argues facts. When one has logic on his side he argues reason. When he has neither he does what you just did.

:dance:
 
OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,038
Reaction score
661
Points
315
What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.



1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution




2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations, both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics, is based on lies.
In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?



4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:

“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)

Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.


And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?
But there is an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it….I’ll get to it…


Below is the rest of the story. The takeaway, never ever trust PC.


When you are as dumb as you are, you post things like the above.

The Cambrium Period proves Darwin WRONG!!!


And he admitted it, you moron.

"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302


“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6



. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine

The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”



Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!! " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)


There are the folks who know, and the folks who don’t know, but you belong to the third group: the ones who don’t know, and don’t know they don’t know.
A true imbecile.
Here we have another of the fraudulent “quotes” that the dishonest religionist dumps into multiple threads.

To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. Several eminent geologists, with Sir R. Murchison at their head, were until recently convinced that we beheld in the organic remains of the lowest Silurian stratum the first dawn of life. Other highly competent judges, as Lyell and E. Forbes, have disputed this conclusion. We should not forget that only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy. Not very long ago M. Barrande added another and lower stage, abounding with new and peculiar species, beneath the then known Silurian system; and now, still lower down in the Lower Cambrian formation, Mr. Hicks has found in South Wales beds rich in trilobites, and containing various molluscs and annelids. The presence of phosphatic nodules and bituminous matter, even in some of the lowest azoic rocks, probably indicates life at these periods; and the existence of the Eozoon in the Laurentian formation of Canada is generally admitted. There are three great series of strata beneath the Silurian system in Canada, in the lowest of which the Eozoon is found. Sir W. Logan states that their "united thickness may possibly far surpass that of all the succeeding rocks, from the base of the palæozoic series to the present time. We are thus carried back to a period so remote that the appearance of the so-called primordial fauna (of Barrande) may by some be considered as a comparatively modern event." The Eozoon belongs to the most lowly organised of all classes of animals, but is highly organised for its class; it existed in count less numbers, and, as Dr. Dawson has remarked, certainly preyed on other minute organic beings, which must have lived in great numbers. Thus the words, which I wrote in 1859, about the existence of living beings long before the Cambrian period, and which are almost the same with those since used by Sir W. Logan, have proved true. Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. It does not seem probable that the most ancient beds have been quite worn away by denudation, or that their fossils have been wholly obliterated by metamorphic action, for if this had been the case we should have found only small remnants of the formations next succeeding them in age, and these would always have existed in a partially metamorphosed condition. But the descriptions which we possess of the Silurian deposits over immense territories in Russia and in North America, do not support the view, that the older a formation is, the more invariably it has suffered extreme denudation and metamorphism.
The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.To show that it may hereafter receive some explanation, I will give the following hypothesis. From the nature of the organic remains which do not appear to have inhabited profound depths, in the several formations of Europe and of the United States; and from the amount of sediment, miles in thickness, of which the formations are composed, we may infer that from first to last large islands or tracts of land, whence the sediment was derived, occurred in the neighbourhood of the now existing continents of Europe and North America. The same view has since been maintained by Agassiz and others. But we do not know what was the state of things in the intervals between the several successive formations; whether Europe and the United States during these intervals existed as dry land, or as a submarine surface near land, on which sediment was not deposited, or as the bed on an open and unfathomable sea. - Origin of Species, 6th Ed. John Murray, 1872, Chapter 10, pp. 286-288.
Darwin is concerned about the lack of fossils before the Cambrian, and seeks to explain it in terms of the wearing away of the earlier strata. He notes here (sixth edition, 1872) that he had said in 1859 (first edition) that fossils would be found in earlier strata, and they eventually were. However, Darwin was probably mislead about the Eozoon formations, as they are not currently considered a real fossil but a metamorphic feature formed from the segregation of minerals in marble through the influence of great heat and pressure.

Tectonic subduction, something that Darwin could not known of, has destroyed some of the relevant material but mostly he was right. The older the sediment, the greater the chance that it has either eroded away or been metamorphosed to an extent that fossils are destroyed. Even so, we have multicellular fossils now back to the Ediacaran (circa 580 million years before the present) and single cell fossils arguably back to 3.75 billion years. The valid argument no longer has any purchase, and Darwin has been vindicated.

Citing it out of the specific context suggests Darwin thought there were a lot of things he could not explain using evolution, and that he knew it was false. This is extraordinarily bad quote mining.
 
OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,038
Reaction score
661
Points
315
Politic Chic's QUOTE MINIING post/OP # 56,874
"Voting for scientific truth"
(QUOTE MINING LIES FOR JESUS)


What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?
No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.
1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was not a biologist he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.

2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.



3. See the problem? Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?

None. They are entitled to their opinions, on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?



4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
Steps of the Scientific Method
Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

  • Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
  • Form a Hypothesis. ...
  • Conduct an Experiment. ...
  • Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



5. “
Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,757
Reaction score
31,405
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Politic Chic's QUOTE MINIING post/OP # 56,874
"Voting for scientific truth"
(QUOTE MINING LIES FOR JESUS)


What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?
No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.
1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was not a biologist he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.

2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.



3. See the problem? Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?

None. They are entitled to their opinions, on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?



4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
Steps of the Scientific Method
Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

  • Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
  • Form a Hypothesis. ...
  • Conduct an Experiment. ...
  • Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



5. “
Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.



PoliticalChic said:

What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?
No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.
1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was not a biologist he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.

2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.



3. See the problem? Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?

None. They are entitled to their opinions, on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?



4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
Steps of the Scientific Method
Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

  • Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
  • Form a Hypothesis. ...
  • Conduct an Experiment. ...
  • Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



5. “
Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.




And?
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,757
Reaction score
31,405
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Politic Chic's QUOTE MINIING post/OP # 56,874
"Voting for scientific truth"
(QUOTE MINING LIES FOR JESUS)


What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?
No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.
1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was not a biologist he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.

2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.



3. See the problem? Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?

None. They are entitled to their opinions, on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?



4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
Steps of the Scientific Method
Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

  • Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
  • Form a Hypothesis. ...
  • Conduct an Experiment. ...
  • Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



5. “
Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.


And, for elucidation, the term 'quote mining' is an attempt at making pejorative the providing quotes for which you, the dunce who used the term, have no answer.




But please continue to re-post as many of my 100% true, accurate, and correct posts, as you like.
 
OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,038
Reaction score
661
Points
315
Politic Chic's QUOTE MINIING post/OP # 56,874
"Voting for scientific truth"
(QUOTE MINING LIES FOR JESUS)


What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?
No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.
1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was not a biologist he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.

2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.



3. See the problem? Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?

None. They are entitled to their opinions, on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?



4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
Steps of the Scientific Method
Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

  • Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
  • Form a Hypothesis. ...
  • Conduct an Experiment. ...
  • Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



5. “
Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.


And, for elucidation, the term 'quote mining' is an attempt at making pejorative the providing quotes for which you, the dunce who used the term, have no answer.




But please continue to re-post as many of my 100% true, accurate, and correct posts, as you like.
I've had plenty of answers past and present.

Using 100% Pro-Evo Gould as anti-evolution, separating Darwin from the Body of Evolution, which is basically the same NATURAL evolutionary process, AS OPPOSED you You Biblical Literalist Creation (7/11 AdvenTITS YEC) that you Cannot defend and never post as the alternative because it has NO EVIDENCE and you know you are DISHONEST/Lying-for-Jesus and full of ****/LAUGHABLE.

You are DISHONEST FILTH who can't even state her own creation idea because you know it's 100% Trash/indefensible.



`

`

`
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,757
Reaction score
31,405
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Politic Chic's QUOTE MINIING post/OP # 56,874
"Voting for scientific truth"
(QUOTE MINING LIES FOR JESUS)


What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?
No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.
1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was not a biologist he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.

2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.



3. See the problem? Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?

None. They are entitled to their opinions, on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?



4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
Steps of the Scientific Method
Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

  • Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
  • Form a Hypothesis. ...
  • Conduct an Experiment. ...
  • Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



5. “
Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.


And, for elucidation, the term 'quote mining' is an attempt at making pejorative the providing quotes for which you, the dunce who used the term, have no answer.




But please continue to re-post as many of my 100% true, accurate, and correct posts, as you like.
I've had plenty of answers past and present.

Using 100% Pro-Evo Gould as anti-evolution, separating Darwin from the Body of Evolution, which is basically the same NATURAL evolutionary process, AS OPPOSED you You Biblical Literalist Creation (7/11 AdvenTITS YEC) that you Cannot defend and never post as the alternative because it has NO EVIDENCE and you know you are DISHONEST/Lying-for-Jesus and full of ****/LAUGHABLE.

You are DISHONEST FILTH who can't even state her own creation idea because you know it's 100% Trash/indefensible.



`

`

`


Gould destroyed.....eviscerated all of Darwin's premises.

All of 'em.....just as I do yours.

“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top