The Dishonest Creationist Tactic of 'Quote Mining'

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]
Readers,this silly person is dcing what he criticizes ALL THE TIME

So he never discusses the things Darwin actually said and did.
Here is an example of each and they are undeniable

SAID

Charles Darwin

“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
[To William Graham 3 July 1881]”​

― Charles Darwin

DID
Following Wallace’s warning that he had admitted limitations, Darwin wrote to Wallace “I hope you have not murdered too completely your own & my child” (referring to the entire theory of natural selection). When the review was published, Darwin was not happy. In the margin of his copy, Darwin wrote “NO!!!” He then responded to Wallace expressing his surprise, stating “if you had not told me I should have thought that they had been added by someone else.” Darwin then confirmed Wallace’s fears: “as you expected, I differ grievously from you, and I am very sorry for it.”


..
.........
 
So he never discusses the things Darwin actually said and did.
Here is an example of each and they are undeniable

SAID
Charles Darwin

“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?​

[To William Graham 3 July 1881]”​

― Charles Darwin

DID
Following Wallace’s warning that he had admitted limitations, Darwin wrote to Wallace “I hope you have not murdered too completely your own & my child” (referring to the entire theory of natural selection). When the review was published, Darwin was not happy. In the margin of his copy, Darwin wrote “NO!!!” He then responded to Wallace expressing his surprise, stating “if you had not told me I should have thought that they had been added by someone else.” Darwin then confirmed Wallace’s fears: “as you expected, I differ grievously from you, and I am very sorry for it.”


..
No Bimb0.
Quote Mining is taking Short OUT of context (oft wrong) quotes, as you just did.
Do your quotes have any point? What is it?
That man can't think?
ie. Here is some CONTEXT:

""Darwin’s “horrid” doubt, in context - Amos Wollen1
Received: 19 September 2020 / Accepted: 27 January 2021
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021, corrected publication 2021

"Abstract
Proponents of Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against Naturalism (EAAN) often quote Charles Darwin’s 3 July 1881 letter to William Graham to imply Darwin worried that his theory of evolution committed its adherents to some sort of global skepticism. This niggling epistemic worry has, therefore, been dubbed‘ Darwin’s Doubt’.
But this gets Darwin wrong.
After combing through Darwin’s correspondence and autobiographical writings, the author maintains that Darwin only worried that evolution might cause us to doubt (a) particularly abstruse metaphysical and theological beliefs, and (b) beliefs arrived at by ‘intuition’ rather than evidence-based reasoning. He did not worry that unguided evolution should lead us to doubt all of our beliefs in the way Plantinga and others have implied that it does.""


Now go back to the Religion section and your immaculate (from nowhere) conception.
`

`
 
Last edited:
No Bimb0.
Quote Mining is taking Short OUT of context (oft wrong) quotes, as you just did.
Do your quotes have any point? What is it?
That man can't think?
ie. Here is some CONTEXT:

""Darwin’s “horrid” doubt, in context - Amos Wollen1
Received: 19 September 2020 / Accepted: 27 January 2021
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021, corrected publication 2021

"Abstract
Proponents of Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against Naturalism (EAAN) often quote Charles Darwin’s 3 July 1881 letter to William Graham to imply Darwin worried that his theory of evolution committed its adherents to some sort of global skepticism. This niggling epistemic worry has, therefore, been dubbed‘ Darwin’s Doubt’.
But this gets Darwin wrong.
After combing through Darwin’s correspondence and autobiographical writings, the author maintains that Darwin only worried that evolution might cause us to doubt (a) particularly abstruse metaphysical and theological beliefs, and (b) beliefs arrived at by ‘intuition’ rather than evidence-based reasoning. He did not worry that unguided evolution should lead us to doubt all of our beliefs in the way Plantinga and others have implied that it does.""


Now go back to the Religion section and your immaculate (from nowhere) conception.
`

`
Belief in a Creator and biological evolution are not mutually exclusive. They are complimentary.
 
Which is it.....slow, gradual accumulations of modifications (Darwin) or "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)
I win again, huh?

'quote mining' is the losers attempt to obviate an accurate quotation.

I win on that, too.

Right now you’re probably trying to brush something off your face…you didn’t realize it was the floor.
No, You LOSE again you DISHONEST POS.
You're quote mining AGAIN!
Gould is 100% Evolutionist and 100% Rejects YOUR Quote Mining Game.
It's OVER, YOU LOST PERMANENTLY if you were Honest.

Evolution as Fact and Theory

by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

[.......]
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
Creationists Pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the Common Conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire Creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to Falsify Evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its Supporters.
[......]

`
 
No, You LOSE again you DISHONEST POS.
You're quote mining AGAIN!
Gould is 100% Evolutionist and 100% Rejects YOUR Quote Mining Game.
It's OVER, YOU LOST PERMANENTLY if you were Honest.

Evolution as Fact and Theory

by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

[.......]
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
Creationists Pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the Common Conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire Creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to Falsify Evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its Supporters.
[......]


`Exactly as I have said: no one can explain the diverity of life. There is no more proof for Darwin's view than for the biblical explanation. Glad to have convinced you.
 
Because faith in a magical creator can complement anything.

"God did it!"

One can sprinkle that on anything at all, to absolutely no effect whatsoever.

Nevertheless, you are correct.
You say magical. I say natural. I know I am correct.
 
Notice the people that question "natural selection" or Manmade global climate warming change are labeled "deniers"?

And is denier a word associated with science or with Cults?
 
PoliticalSheik's post above is NOT a quote of me.
It's me quoting HER post within the context of refuting it.
Wildly Dishonest Bltch.
Deception/Misquote should not be allowed here.
Worse than 'quote mining.'

`
 
Notice the people that question "natural selection" or Manmade global climate warming change are labeled "deniers"?
Yes, because that's the compelling state of the theory in both cases.

If you are in a room of educated peole, you might as well deny that forks exist. You will get the same reaction.
 
Yes, because that's the compelling state of the theory in both cases.

If you are in a room of educated peole, you might as well deny that forks exist. You will get the same reaction.
Educated? You mean indoctrinated and only capable of parroting the Talking Points.
 

Forum List

Back
Top