Creationist quotes and citations reflects a greater level of academic dishonesty

I will comment on a couple of those that caught my eye.Almeyda, "quote mining" is a form of lying. The people who selected thos quotes (obviously it wasn't you; you haven't read the sources) purposefully chose them to not accurately reflect the views of the speaker. You are lying by not telling us where you really got those quotes, and you are propagating lies by posting those quotes. This is actualy a pastiche of sentences from two people; the first is a distorted version of a quote from Jean Rostand, and the second and third from Bouonoure.Rostand actually wrote "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults." but he also wrote "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution."Bounoure was actually arguing against excessive discussion of the mechanics of evolution, not evolution itself.See Cretinism or Evilution? No. 3: More Out of Context Quotations of French ScientistsA classic mined quote. Gould is a major proponent of evolution by puncuated equilibrium, and this sentence is just part of his discussion of puncutaed equilibrium versus gradualism. See Quote 50.

Been done. {changed in edit} CREATIONIST QUOTES.This message has been edited by JonF, 05-22-2004 07:35 PM

You don't have the slightest idea whether they are taken out of context or not. As I pointed out, at least one is not even a quote from one person. No, some of them are evolutionists speaking out on small issues within the theory, some are not evolutionists, and some are just plain made up. No, a very few of them have the same degrees, but none of them have any relevant scientific achievements or awards or prizes, and the vast majority of them have no scientific achievements, awards, or prizes. Ah, a famous source of lies. See The Revised Quote Book:: Looking at how Creationists Quote Evolutionists.

There's many versions online. The first edition, another first edition (part of The writings of Charles Darwin on the web), the sixth edition, another sixth edition, the sixth edition in one text file, and undoubtedly more.

Not in biology. There are a few, a very very few, scientists in fields outside of biology who don't accept evolution, and since their work has nothing to do with evolution, their contrafactual beliefs don't interfere. Similarly, the very very few geologists who don't accept an old Earth and actually do geology use old Earth in their scientific work ... because a young Earth doesn't work.Most of that page consists of irrelevancies, especially the list of scientists who beleived in God. Belief in God is very different from belief in the peculiar interpretation of the Bible promulgated by YECs. Yeah, that discrimination against cranks and crackpots is the pits, isn't it? It would be ever so much better if any loon that came up with a hypothesis were allowed to teach it, even if the evidence contradicts it.Creation "science" had its day. It was the dominant "theory", but it was abandoned because it just doesn't fit the facts. Claims about being scientific, lists of people with degrees, whatever AIG says ... young Earth creationism just doesn't fit the facts.

Yes, and they all used the methodological naturalism that YECs discard and decry in order to found those branches of science. They never considered any possibility that God intervened to prevent the scientific method from reaching the correct answers. Unsupported assertion. Does not follow from the premise.

Implying you have not seen the former?