This is no answer to Arphy's post. It isn't even an honest attempt it is just a waste of a post.
Please try harder or remain silent.
It is an honest answer if we stick to the moderators' requirements that we stay on topic.
If it is now the moderators' wish that we should reply to a Gish Gallop, instead of pointing it out that this is a load of off-topic nonsense selected from all the nonsense that every creationist has ever written about everything, then I guess I could slap Arphy down point by point by pointing out the well-known answers to his "PRATTs".
The topic of this thread is dishonest creationist quote-mining. If Arphy wishes to change the subject by inundating us with every mistake that every creationist has made, whether or not it involves quote-mining, then you may feel inclined to tolerate that. I do not. If he's lost that debate, he should start a new one.
I thought Arphy's post was arguing that his original Patterson quote was not a distortion of Patterson's actual position, and therefore not a quote mine. Patterson does actually seem to be questioning whether sufficient evidence for placing fossils and extant life into a nested hierarchy really exists.
My own opinion is that Patterson's talk spoke more to his own ignorance of the detailed evidence rather than any actual lack of evidence.
I agree with you about what you thought that Arphy thought about Patterson, and what you thought about Patterson. And since the topic of this thread is dishonest creationist quote-mines, let's talk about that.
But in fact what we are being subjected to here are random creationist errors. Each of them deserving their own thread.
only in terms of bird evolution, as far as I know.
Which is the only subject in evolution he ever discusses, so far as I know.
Do you know anything different?
Skipping over the rest of your mess, I find at the bottom:
Well, it just so happens that the answer from the Bible does have supporting evidence.
Please start a thread presenting the "supporting evidence" for "the answer from the Bible". Thank you. Please note that halfwitted and incoherent attacks against the current state of scientific knowledge do not actually constitute evidence for the story about the talking snake and the magic tree.
Re: How Arphy Stays On Topic: Yet another example of quote mining
So they finally found a dating method that also agrees with their biostratigraphic evidence (or at least as it stands at the moment)?
What do you mean "they finally found a dating method"? Argon-argon dating and uranium-lead dating have been around for decades. Of course they agree with the biostratigraphic evidence. This is because of, y'know ... that thing about evolutionists being right, and creationists being wrong. Remember that?