|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
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? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: I'm not sure if this is on-topic, but... I must agree, that this is too often the case. I think that is one of Bill Birkeland's strengths - His backing his statements with links to references. I really don't think this is the place to revive the "star" debates. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
In support of my use of quotes, I’ll provide quotes!!! Your own quotes refute you, don't you think?
quote: If you have the direct evidence, then why do you need the authority? Either quotation from authority is redundant (you have the direct evidence) or else it's invalid (the authority is making a statement without evidence to support it). In either case there's no use in making appeals to authority. Quotes from authorities can be illustrative, but they're never definitive. If the authority states that something is true, skip that part. Just show us the evidence that led them to that conclusion. I won't even start on the cirularity of using an argument from authority to defend arguments from authority. [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-26-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Sure. Even experts are allowed to be wrong once in a while. I think that YECs do have a tendency to be more accepting of authority and maybe (kind of) expect everyone else be the same. Hence, we see all of those quotes from evolutionists that appear to refute evolution. These are the most egregious examples of quote mining. The one that comes to mind is the quote from Jack Horner that makes it appear he believes a global flood deposited the dinosaur bones. THe ellided quote is about 4 sentences long, but Horner's actual statements were probably about a page in length. I think that any time someone uses a quote to support a point that is clearly not held by the author of the quote it is a gross misrepresentation and an unethical act.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Nope. For example, even if we accept your logic without question (which we shouldn’t), your argument would refute the author of the web page, who is not me. But there are problems with your offerings that prevent us from even getting that far.
quote: quote: Sloppy statement (you’ve possibly also created a false dichotomy with your next point - we’ll have to wait for you to clear up your sloppy statements to tell). The material doesn't say you - the person doing the quoting - has to have direct evidence, despite what your use of "you" in that statement (and some of your others too) suggest. So that we can discuss this more accurately, let me help you out by correcting your statements some, to more accurately reflect the original authors' point. If direct evidence is available (even if only in principle), then why does anyone need the authority? One reason the authority would be needed is to convey the direct evidence to us. For example, each person here can ask himself/herself the following. Do you believe that there is such a thing as an electron? I hope so. Have you ever actually seen an electron? Nope. Then why do you believe that electrons exist? Because many competent authorities on atomic structure have told us they exist. Appeal to authority. Now, is there direct evidence that electrons exist? Yep. Have you ever actually produced this evidence yourself? Nopeyou rely upon competent authorities in the field to inform us of the direct evidence for electrons exists. Do you believe that your cells contain DNA? I hope so. Have you ever actually seen actual DNA in your cells? Nope. Then why do you believe that it is there? Because many competent authorities on cellular biology have told us it is. Appeal to authority. Is there direct evidence that actual DNA is in human cells? Yep. Have you every actually produced this evidence yourself? Nopeyou rely upon competent authorities in the field to tell you that the direct evidence exists. PS: Any refutations to the above logic cannot themselves rely upon authority. For example, one can’t claim to have produced direct evidence of the existence of electrons by rubbing a balloon on his/her hair and then sticking the balloon to the wall. All that shows is that the balloon sticks to the wall. In other words, the person would still be relying upon authority for the underlying explanation of the observation: the experiment fails the needed test.
quote: More sloppy language, and possibly invalid logic too. Who needs to have the evidence switches: first it is you, then it is basically anyone. If we keep the criterion consistent, such that the authority is the one who has to have the direct evidence (obviously the web page I quoted didn’t mean the person doing the quoting needed the direct evidence himself/herself), then the first one isn’t redundant: it’s simply conveying information.
quote: So please convince us that your cells contain DNA!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
Next point..."Creationists" aren't the only ones who quote others. Below we see Darwin and Dawkins and several other mainstream scientists doing it too.
(The quotes of others are highlighted with bold).
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-27-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
A quick search of Crashfrog's posts - looking at just one of the thread's s/he's posted in recently - turned up several instances of him/her relying upon authority in his/her arguments.
http://EvC Forum: Can Chromosome Counts Change? -->EvC Forum: Can Chromosome Counts Change? http://EvC Forum: Can Chromosome Counts Change? -->EvC Forum: Can Chromosome Counts Change? http://EvC Forum: Can Chromosome Counts Change? -->EvC Forum: Can Chromosome Counts Change? http://EvC Forum: Can Chromosome Counts Change? -->EvC Forum: Can Chromosome Counts Change? http://EvC Forum: Can Chromosome Counts Change? -->EvC Forum: Can Chromosome Counts Change? Crashfrog cannot, without directly contradicting his/her own claim, assert that we can't rely upon information we know only from having it conveyed to us by competent authorities in the field. I have also shown that mainstream scientists - including Dawkins and Darwin - quote others. So Crashfrog: 1)The act of quoting scientists itself is not illegitimate (unless you are going to "convict" just about everyone, including Dawkins and Darwin). 2) In our arguments, it is not illegitimate to rely upon information we know because competent authorities in the field have conveyed it to us and others (unless you are going to directly contradict yourself). Neither act is illegitimate. Now, if we are using information that we know because competent authorities in the field have told us, which is legitimate, and we want to quote them stating such, which is also legitimate, then what's the problem? There is none. In fact, there are benefits. First, the person is showing that he/she is not making unsupported assertions or offering his/her own personal opinion. Second, it shows the exact wording that the person's argument is based on, allowing the other side to scrutinize the support and point out potential problems that arose when going from scientist->argument. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-27-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I agree with what you are saying DNA. The tricky part is when someone tries to mess with a quote from someone else to make it appear to say something that the "quotee" disagrees with (that is quote mining).
You do have to have your last point though:
Second, it shows the exact wording that the person's argument is based on, allowing the other side to scrutinize the support and point out potential problems that arose when going from scientist->argument.
The closer one gets to the original research the better. But only up to a point. Obviously if we always went that far a lot of us would be unable to understand the supplied material anyway. [This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-27-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, quoting out of context or otherwise misrepresenting the original author's statements is illegitimate...but doesn't apply to me. In this thread, I have been accused of a being a Creationist and of a presenting notoriously misleading quotes, without any support.
quote: I’ve asked the accuser — Mr Hambre - to back up his charge against me, but he hasn’t. Why? Because the two charges are bogus. I am not a Creationist nor am I guilty of presenting notoriously misleading quotes. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-27-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
DNAunion writes: No experiment to date has demonstrated that undirected, non-biological chemistry alone can generate biological information of the kind needed for a "simple" RNA self-replicator. There is more to life than just chemistry; there is also information processing. This type of assertion (you made it in the "Abiogenesis" thread) is typical of creationists. You're not the first guy to come down the pike singing the praises of DNA's 'information'-processing prowess, amigo. Very few of DNA's fanatical cheering section seem content to marvel at the near-miraculous properties of this wonder of biochemistry. We have every reason to believe the reason you're still beating the dead horse of 'INFORMATION' is that you want to ascribe magic properties to DNA that (all together now) can't conceivably be accounted for by Darwinian evolution. I think every quote you've offered concerning 'information in DNA' derives from sources that would not agree that DNA has properties that call into question the standard evolutionary explanation for the complexity of life on Earth. Since your latest post quotes Richard Dawkins asserting that DNA contains information, I feel justified in calling your methods absolutely disingenuous. If, of course, I am guilty of misrepresenting your position concerning Darwinism, by all means set me straight. If you are, in fact, merely appreciating the wonders of Nature and have no anti-Darwinist agenda, I apologize and I stand corrected. But I recognize the gambit and I'm sure I'm not alone. I await your response. ------------------The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall [This message has been edited by MrHambre, 12-27-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4751 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
I may be off on your perception and accuracy of your impression; here are some (non-gospel) thoughts:
Lately I've lurked webs containing 'Big Daddy?', Creationwise, Primordial Soup comics, etc. (You can google these). These seem to be (comic) 'posters', primarily. Their range of quoting and/or slandering is perhaps the same level as Evo's, methinks. I.e., I'm looking at one poster that shows a janitor sweeping under a rug called "ANOMALIES" (Primordial Soup). Another poster shows a confused looking geek stating, "I BELIEVE there was a big bang", "I BELIEVE we came from apes" ...etc., etc. As for EvC 'posts' (here) by creationists not cohering to all points and/or not pointing to many links ... this seems a true and valid impression. Some ideas as to why it is so: Many YECs focus more on the Bible and would gleefully link you therein (i.e., myself as a YEC); I hate being bogged down in debates. The vanity and vexation is great. Yet there have been a very few high strung YEC-geeks here that might have given a lot of seemingly pertinent point by point discourses with references (i.e., Peter Borg might have). I myself (a YEC) used to give a few links but no one read them. But a real problem with YECs (myself included) is that their YEC hypotheses (like those of mega-TOEist's) can never really reach the theory level via traditional scientific method. This is not to say that micro-evolutionism has ever failed as a valid theory. Respectfully Jack, Evo's are guilty of the same thing, relying on one another's outside authority, half-baked conclusions, half-truths, opinions of stupid scientists, and supposedly brilliant geeks ... who all somehow became foolish empiricists of elusive quantum matter, optics, and space-time continuums, deep things which defy materialistic pressumptions. In other words my study of our deep origins must account for these deep things. A man's conclusions must remain speculative (i.e., hypothetical at best) by either camp (YEC or Evo). Otherwise that man is a liar, empirically speaking. Now, I admit: dogmatically speculating (lying from an empirical perspective) at times to support my faith-biases. The YEC strawman, Jack, is very real. A strawman (if there really be such a thing) seems essentially to be a dogmatic hypothesis-theory-conclusion that seeks data to support it. Both camps at present have their strawman stablished: The Evo with his Mega-Evo scheme, the YEC with his Mega-Christian scheme. Both purport their strawman as fact. Both are liars (you and I) when we denote our strawman empirically real. Yet, when I, a YEC, give any homage to my deity (e.g., on my face in prayer, praising, singing, meditating, complaining, crying, dying, regenerating in the Christ, etc.), I am blatantly lying against all naturalistic and empirical reality. Thus it is extremely vexing for me, a YEC, to answer every trite point of the empiricist, knowing full well it damages my time spent in 'holiness'. Hope this gives you some idea of one YEC's dilemma, Jack (and others).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: No, it’s typical of people who state facts. Or do you know of any experiment that has been performed to date using undirected, non-biological chemistry alone that counters my statement? Didn’t think so.
quote: You’re confused. The statement of mine you quoted above deals with RNA, not DNA, and with the RNA being one of the first self-replicators, not with it being found in today’s cellular life. Abiogenesis and current cellular life are two very different subjects. So far you have failed in your attempt to demonstrate that I am a Creationist (which you can’t do, since I’m not one), and have STILL not provided any support for your claim that I provided notoriously misleading quotes. In fact, after reading the rest of your post, you still don’t.
quote: Loaded phrasing - melodramatic word choices used in an attempt to sway readers (instead of sticking to reason).
quote: Flat out wrong. 1) I’m an evolutionist. I accept that all extant life forms descended from a single common ancestor over billions of years by undirected evolution. 2) I made it perfectly clear that I was not making statements about HOW the information in DNA got there, just that it WAS there.
quote: Agreed, and I never stated or implied otherwise. Your imagination is running wild.
quote: Why? Because you don’t like me for some reason? Great logic. Fact is, Dawkins does state that DNA contains information in his 2003 book, just as I said. I did not misrepresent him.
quote: See above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
DNAunion claims:
quote:And the only thing of which I accused you was quoting the words of people who would probably disagree with the conclusions you are using their words to support. You think Dawkins and Loewenstein are good enough to quote when they use the word 'information.' I'm sure you'll have no reason to quote either when he talks about the nature and origin of this 'information.' I recall in The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins took great pains to outline a plausible scenario whereby genetic 'information' evolved from crude replicatory systems through the usual mutation-selection process. Like I said, you quote the author as an authority when it fits your aims and ignore his words when it doesn't. Since you quoted and answered every word of my last post except the part where I accused you of having an anti-Darwinist agenda, it's clear you don't want to come clean. I gather that you think undirected Darwinian evolution is incapable of producing the 'information' processing system that DNA represents for you. If you are using Dawkins's words to lend credence to such an assertion, then you are guilty as charged. ------------------The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall [This message has been edited by MrHambre, 12-28-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: False. You also accused me of being a Creationist, which is flat out wrong.
quote: The argument I was making was that DNA contains information, nothing more: not how it got there, and especially not that it got there by some supernatural agent.all of which was abundantly clear from my statements in the two threads about DNA information. So your position must be that the author’s I quoted don’t believe DNA contains information? You’re wrongthey do. Of course the alternative is that you are being obstinate, refusing to listen to reason, and are still letting your imagination run wild, causing you to draw completely wacky conclusions.
quote: Can you read? My argument had nothing to do with HOW information got into the DNA of extant life forms, just that it IS there (contrary to Crashfrog’s and Peter’s misguided assertions that it wasn’t). You are being very dishonest here Mr Hambre. Please grow up.
quote: Read my lipsmy argument had NOTHING to do with HOW the information we see in DNA today got there, just that it IS there. Since what you are addressing is completely irrelevant to the point I was making, a fact that shows us all your dishonesty, there is no reason whatsoever that I should have quoted the authors on such things: I needed to support MY position, not some position you are trying to stuff into my mouth.
quote: Grow up. I stated this:
quote: See, I had already addressed the point, showing a lack of an anti-Darwinist agenda.
quote: Can you read? How warped are you?
quote: Which I am not, as I have made clear. THE ONLY PERSON GUILTY OF GROSS MISREPRESENTATION HERE IS YOU, MR HAMBRE!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
DNAunion writes: Read my lipsmy argument had NOTHING to do with HOW the information we see in DNA today got there, just that it IS there. And by any chance would you agree with Dawkins and Loewenstein that all this wonderful 'information' evolved through RM&NS? Or how did it, uh, 'get there'? ------------------The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: So far (1) you've completely failed to support either of the two charges you made against me in this thread, (2) you've ignored, several times, my statements that show your charges to be wrong, and now (3) you're trying to change the subject completely. You lose.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024