|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why do creationist posters quote so? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
I've noticed a strong trend for Creationist posters to 'argue by quoting'. They begin their posts with a quote, then respond to any arguments with more quote. It seems they rarely argue the points, prefering instead to rely on outside authority. The evos meanwhile seem to argue the points, only quoting or posting links to support points they themselves have argued.
It's possible this only my impression, and not an actual property of the posts. Does anyone else agree with this trend? Any ideas as to why it is so?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
"Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain."
(Joan of Arc, act I, scene 2 by von Schiller)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
I suggest that creationists have a predisposition to accept authority - whether it is their religious text which has to be taken literally and accepted as inerrent, or in their choice to submit themselves to the authority of a spiritual master.
With this mindset, creationists think that argument from authority trumps any other form of evidence and therefore are inclined to quote mine. And they do not care if a particular quote is consistent with quotee's considered position or not, as long as it superficially apppears to support the creationist's view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
As with everything else they offer in support of their position, the quotes offered by creationists are notoriously selective and misleading. If (as in the case of the Milton quotes WILLOWTREE offered) the quoted author is anti-evolution, then his word is taken as absolute, objective truth. The assumption is always that the author's sole intent is to destroy the insidious materialist/naturalist/whateverist conspiracy, and his motives are assumed to be pure. Often (as in the case of the countless quotes DNAunion offered) the authors are more or less conventional scientific researchers, but their words can be misread to support claims with which the authors themselves would almost certainly disagree. In this case, the assumption is that the author must have had a rare epiphany in which the truth appeared to him despite his brainwashing by the etc.ist conspiracy.
The most frustrating aspect to this creationist quote mining is its invulnerability to correction. When people questioned Milton's credentials or his grasp of the concepts he was discussing, WILLOWTREE took the criticism as a sign of Milton's maverick insight. When evidence was offered to counter Milton's claims, WILLOWTREE answered that the evidence could only refute him if it were filtered through an evolutionist perspective. Concerning the quotes from evolutionists, creationists still stand their ground even though evolutionists put the original quotes into their proper context: the assumption is that the same scientists can be regarded as reliable if their words support the creationist's claims, but unreliable when they don't. The cornerstone of creationism is the belief that any support for evolutionary theory is motivated by atheism, the urge to perpetuate the vast cover up, or both. Attempts to counter creationist claims can come from believers or atheists, researchers or theorists, but their opposition to creationism is always dismissed as atheistic folly. Thus, any attempt at rational discourse ends up becoming an emotionally charged battle about irrelevant metaphysics instead of an objective debate about the significance of empirical evidential inquiry. ------------------The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
mindset of submission to authority + conspiracy theory + martyr complex = creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I think both "quote mining" and "fact mining" (to be discussed below) can both be honest attempts at arguing a point, by a creationist under the influence of "Morton's Demon". That is, they hear what they want to here, and are oblivious to what conflicts with what they want to hear.
I once again bring up Terry, from "Terry's Talk Origins". While I don't remember Terry being a "quote miner", he does have a real talent at "fact mining". That is, the digging up of little facts (sometimes remarkably obscure) that he thinks will be a step toward the downfall of "old earthism". In looking at his tidbid, he is astonishingly oblivious to context. As a prime example, I bring you Terry's "Rocks don't have dates on them!" topic. There he takes the article "Ironstone pods in the Archean Barberton greenstone Belt, South Africa: Earths oldest seafloor hydrothermal vents reinterpreted as Quaternary subareal springs", and interpretes it as a great failing of "old earthism", despite the fact that the enclosing rocks are still clearly defined as 3.2 Ga greenstones. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admiral Valdemar Inactive Junior Member |
Appeal to Authority Fallacies and Copy 'n' Paste tactics make such debaters tactically inept. They may as well just tell you to argue with yourself as they have no valid input of their own.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1017 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
I agree, wj. I also think it's because creationists (at least the fundamentalist Christian types) are programmed to accept authority - no questions asked. Submitting to authority is something that is strongly pushed as a good thing and necessary for being a good Christian. The woman must submit to the man, the man to his pastor, the pastor to a higher church leader, and so on - all of whom must submit to God. It's called faith.
I've seen this same mentality when discussing politics. The fundamentalists do not like to question the president's decisions or his motives and they argue that because he is the president (or whatever), then he knows better than we do. Questioning authority is frowned upon and it probably has to do with that sort of indoctrination being necessary to take the Bible literally. Or at least follow church leaders without questioning why. In the creation context, if church leaders/elders say that so and so said this about evolution, then it must be true. He's a godly man and wouldn't lie... I've discussed creation with intelligent creationists, but even after pointing out why quote mining is meaningless and unethical, they still have been unable to grasp why it's wrong. I keep hearing, "But that's what they say right there; it doesn't matter what he says elsewhere." I think a huge problem is that many people don't have the slightest idea of what evidence is - WILLOWTREE is a perfect example of this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1017 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
That, too, Valdemar. Most creationists are not science savvy enough to argue in their own words so have to turn to other *experts.*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Exactly which quotes that I have posted at this site do you contend misrepresent the authors' actual statements?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
1. I do some quote mining simply because my counterparts tend to bury themselves in their own ideological graves by their own words. When a kid lies, he comes up with all kinds of alibies to cover. I find this true with evos and some of whom I contend with here in town. This is not to imply that evos here in town are deliberatly lying, but that their false premise requires what I consider to be similar to alibies. Imo, this worked to my advantage in debate and for the prevalence of truth in the young sun thread as I contended with Nosy Ned and Eta.
2. When contending for truth in subjects one is not well versed one must mine quote in order to support one's ideological position. 3. Evos are remiss often in supporting statements and, imo, would do well for the advancement of factual truth to back up some of their own statements with documentation, rather than expecting us all to accept some specific statements at face value, as if they are the authority they consider themselves to be. Imo, Eta, in the young sun thread is a good example. He contends that you begin counting sun age at main sequence initiation rather than at sun birth/protostar sequence, (supported by Nosy Ned), the former, which, as I see it, is the minority view among his own constituents. [This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-24-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
I doubt many of you even know when an appeal to authority is legitimate and when it’s not. In support of my use of quotes, I’ll provide quotes!!!
quote: quote: quote: [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-24-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
He contends that you begin counting sun age at main sequence initiation rather than at sun birth/protostar sequence,
And, of course, the universal use of the acronym ZAMS - Zero-Age Main Sequence - couldn't possibly support what Eta says. He only does astrophysics for a living, after all, Buz.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Thank you DNA, I agree with you. However, even knowledgable appropriate authority is trumped by facts and sound thinking. But when you have not other basis then a consensus of qualified experts does make sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
And, of course, the universal use of the acronym ZAMS - Zero-Age Main Sequence - couldn't possibly support what Eta says. He only does astrophysics for a living, after all, Buz. .........But had he brought forth authoritative sources from other qualified persons/organizations besides himself to refute authoritatve sources which I brought forth which were sources from evolutionists, it might have enforced his own position. After all, his own biased position was necessary to refute my biased position that an existing star regardless of whether it was created or evolved would show a far greater appearance of age than a few thousands of years, even if for no other reason than the fact that it exists as a fully formed star. [This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-25-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024