Jump to content


Photo

What Is The "scientific" Theory Of Evolution....?


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#101 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 08 February 2016 - 08:54 AM

...but I was asking about piasan's charge, not popoi. 

 

 

Yes, I know.

 

 

 Shall I conclude that your answer means he didn't even try?

 

 

Yes



#102 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 08 February 2016 - 12:28 PM

Yes, I know.

 

 

 

Yes

 

Gotcha. Or should I say, 'Got'im!'? ;)



#103 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 69
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 09 February 2016 - 10:42 AM

 

Say, did our resident professor come up with proof of his charge that you 'quote mined'? Did he even try? If so then give me the post # please. Thanks.

... I was asking about piasan's charge, not popoi. Where did piasan quote you making a quote-mined statement by proving with the full context of the article in question? Shall I conclude that your answer means he didn't even try? 

Yes

That is not true.

 
Documentation of your Gibbs quote mine dates back to at least last April in the Second Law of Thermodynamics discussion.   The below quote should provide a link to the post.

 

I'm pretty sure there were other places I documented this particular quote mine as well.

 

At the time of your complaint,  I saw no need to again document what had already been shown by direct quotes contradictory to your claim from the article itself.  Instead, I pointed out that the documentation was within a post or two of the one you quoted.

 

You also insisted that I file a formal complaint with list management.  Again, I remind you, I'm not some 19 year old recruit you can push around.  Nor am I some kind of errand boy whose job is to provide you with what you "want."   If you think there is a basis for a complaint, file it yourself.

 

Should you decide to discuss whether or not it was a quote mine, I suggest you take the matter to Mike W's "Quote Mine" thread which, I believe, was started by him as a result of your "demand" I document what I had already documented.  

 

For some reason, no creationist seemed willing to discuss if lifting a comment from the introduction of an experimental report while ignoring statements in the abstract preceding the intro; immediately following the quote in the introduction; in the body of the paper; and in the discussion of the conclusions is a quote mine.

 

There  was also a quote-mine from Einstein you used in the "One Way Speed of Light" discussion.



#104 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 09 February 2016 - 01:19 PM

 

 

Documentation of your Gibbs quote mine ...

 

 

 

:burp:

 

Yes, and Anna Nicole married for Love and Pol Pot was her florist.   We need some "COW BELL".  :kaffeetrinker:

 

 

IMHO all this Unsupported Blather is just a juvenile diversion employed to take attention away from your trainwreck science acumen, the least of which (Your Hypothesis :get_a_clue:)....which has been documented throughout this forum, ad nauseam.

 

If you (or anyone) need the "Links", just ask.

 

 

regards



#105 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,447 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 February 2016 - 01:49 PM

 

 

Piasan: Should you decide to discuss whether or not it was a quote mine, I suggest you take the matter to Mike W's "Quote Mine" thread which, I believe, was started by him as a result of your "demand" I document what I had already documented.  

 

Actually I had written that post out a number of weeks before You and Enoch had discussed quote-mining because sometimes on discussion boards I have noticed that quote-mining, if used as an accusation, can be a bit of a red-herring/generalization. So it triggered me to post the topic.

 

I agree there can be a valid accusation of quote-mining but I am also aware that it can also be used by a fair amount of evolutionists, to take away any focus from consequential, tacit admissions. So it can be used ambigiously.

 

What I'm saying is that if I go to a heavily evolutionist forum and I quote something of relevance and it is NOT a quote mine, there is still nevertheless, a 99% chance that I will be accused of quote-mining anyway. So my musings were more general, I don't know much about the dispute between you and Enoch to be honest, pertaining to any particular quote.

 

Can we never quote anything then? I imagine your answer would be, as an honest evolution, "yes you can" but I hope you can understand that if I went and quoted something at an evo-forum, the chances of the words, "quote-mine" being used by them, are so strong I would be willing to bet money that they would accuse me of it.



#106 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 69
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 09 February 2016 - 01:57 PM

IMHO all this Unsupported Blather is just a juvenile diversion employed to take attention away from your trainwreck science acumen, the least of which (Your Hypothesis :get_a_clue:)....which has been documented throughout this forum, ad nauseam.

Failure to address the actual quote mine noted.

 

IMHO, your posts consist of little more than insults (ad hominems, logical fallacy), well poisoning (logical fallacy), regurgiquotes and frequent quote mines that have no place in a civil discussion group.....  which have been documented throughout this forum ad nauseam.....

 

So I guess my opinion of you is only slightly lower than yours of me.



#107 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 69
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 09 February 2016 - 02:04 PM

Actually I had written that post out a number of weeks before You and Enoch had discussed quote-mining because sometimes on discussion boards I have noticed that quote-mining, if used as an accusation, can be a bit of a red-herring/generalization. So it triggered me to post the topic.

OK... the timing was coincidental.

 

This particular example is pretty cut-and-dried.  The quote lifted from the introduction of the research paper describing the results of an experiment was in direct opposition to:

1)  A statement made in the abstract.

2)  A statement immediately following the citation.

3)  A statement in the body of the paper describing that the reaction had taken place (which would be impossible if the Gibbs argument held true).

4)  A statement in the discussion at the end of the paper saying the "PERCEIVED" problem did not exist.

 

At some point, all of these disagreements with the contents of the paper and results of the experiment become a quote mine.

 

I agree there can be a valid accusation of quote-mining but I am also aware that it can also be used by a fair amount of evolutionists, to take away any focus from consequential, tacit admissions. So it can be used ambigiously.

There is no ambiguity here...

 

 

Can we never quote anything then? I imagine your answer would be, as an honest evolution, "yes you can" but I hope you can understand that if I went and quoted something at an evo-forum, the chances of the words, "quote-mine" being used by them, are so strong I would be willing to bet money that they would accuse me of it.

Of course you can.

 

However, when the quote is taken out of context of the paper as a whole, there are some serious issues with the integrity of the one producing the quote.



#108 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,447 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 February 2016 - 03:15 PM

I will let you an Enoch debate that issue. My interest in quote-mining is purely academic.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users