afdave
Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006
|
DEADMAN HAS RECENTLY BEGUN ACCUSING ME OF QUOTE MINING ... OK, LET'S SEE ABOUT THAT.
My theory is that he has been so thoroughly refuted that he is resorting to unethical techniques to try to discredit me. It is also significant to note that Deadman is one of the leading rule breakers of at least the following two ATBC Board rules ... | Quote | * No obscenity or foul language. There is no need to express a message in vulgar language.
* Messages which insult or attack an individual are not appropriate. As those messages should be regarded as inappropriate, it is also inappropriate to follow up such a message with a reply. Use email for such correspondence, or to register a complaint with the moderator(s). |
After months of getting away with this, Deadman was finally stopped by the moderator. One has to ask the question, "Why does Deadman feel compelled to use insults and attacks?" Are the "facts" of Evolution not powerful enough by themselves to refute Creationism?
After reading the following, one can only conclude that Deadman's definition of "quote mining" must be ...
"Any quote used by a Creationist."
Deadman ... | Quote | Stupid cited this:
“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student have now been ‘debunked.’” Ager, D. V., “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2 (1976), pp. 131-159. Presidential Address, March 5, 1976.
The correct citation is Derek V. Ager. 1976. The nature of the fossil record. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 87:131-160.
This and the other factors mentioned here shows that you didn't READ that paper, you just copied it verbatim from some creationist website ..as it was quote-mined by Gish, originally.
the complete sentence reads: "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been debunked,"
Your quote makes it sound like evolution wholesale has been debunked...further , when the terms for the organisms are removed, it sounds far worse. IN short, you quote-mined. Ager was only talking about the evolution of Ostraea, which is an oyster-like bivalve mollusc, from Gryphaea, another bivalve, and saying that previous interpretations of their relationship have been mistaken. This in no way indicts all of evolution, but it does show quote-mining and how it is perpetuated by shiteheads like AFarceDave. |
In the context in which I gave the quote, there is no difference in meaning if the middle clause is removed (hence no quote mine), especially considering ALL the quotes in the same article as follows ... | Quote |
Ager, D. V., “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2 (1976), pp. 131-159. Presidential Address, March 5, 1976. (Derek Ager was a president of the British Geological Association)
p. 132
“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student ... have now been ‘debunked.’”
p. 132
“We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation.”
p. 133
“The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.” |
As I explained before, I have discovered that when I copy a quote from a CD source and place it into Notepad before posting (how I do most of my posts), Notepad strangely removes elipses (...). There is an elipsis in my source where this middle clause is. You can see that Notepad did this by noting that there are two spaces between "student" and "have now been debunked" in my original quote. Notepad inserted a space for an elipsis. I have manually reinserted the elipsis above.
Furthermore, infidels.org makes a false statement regarding this supposed quote mine here ... | Quote |
Ager was only talking about the evolution of Ostraea, which is oyster-like bivalve molluscs, from Gryphaea, another bivalve, and saying that previous interpretations of their relationship have been mistaken.
http://www.infidels.org/library....n2.html |
No, he was not. He was referring to evolution stories which have now been debunked, from from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei. This is quite clear from the 4 Ager quotes I gave. Then there is another quote from Ager which confirms it even more.
| Quote |
"One thing which has struck me very forcibly through they years is that most of the classic evolutionary lineages of my student days, such as Ostrea-Gryphaea and Zaphrentis delanouei, have long since lost their scientific respectability, and in spite of the plethora of palaeontological information we now have available, there seems to be very little to put in their place. In twenty years’ work on the Mesozoic Brachiopoda, I have found plenty of relationships, but few if any evolving lineages." (Ager, D., The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, 1981, p. 20) |
Now I am completely mystified as to how Russell or Deadman or anybody else can pretend that Derek Ager believes that the fossil record supports the notion of gradual evolution when he makes multiple clear statements like this ...
“The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
How much more clear can you get, guys? Can you explain how this is not clear to you?
This quote, with or without the middle clause, and the other quotes given with it overwhelmingly support my contention that the fossil record DOES NOT support the notion of gradual evolution. NO QUOTE MINE.
******************************************************
Deadman... | Quote | For instance, you quote-mined the Encyclopedia Britannica to shore up your weak claims on "Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish" see: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=20346
Your "explanation" was this: Quote
Faid- The quote I used from EB has the same meaning whether you include the context or not. This is not a dishonest quote mine. Let me say this about the Portuguese thing and many similar items ... You scientists are so detail oriented (a good thing in many contexts) that you sometimes get hung up on my generalizations. Saying that 'Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish' is a GENERALIZATION, like 'The sky is blue' or 'the grass is green.' You could legitimately argue that those two statements are not accurate, but who would be so obnoxious as to do so? |
No quote mine. Here is the full quote and it supports my point the same with or without the context ... | Quote | Portuguese Português. Romance language spoken in Portugal, Brazil, and Portuguese colonial and formerly colonial territories. Galician, spoken in northwestern Spain, is a dialect of Portuguese. Written materials in Portuguese date from a property agreement of the late 12th century, and literary works appeared in the 13th and 14th centuries.
Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon. Dialectal variation within the country is not great, but Brazilian Portuguese varies from European Portuguese in several respects, including several sound changes and some differences in verb conjugation and syntax; for example, object pronouns occur before the verb in Brazilian Portuguese, as in Spanish, but after the verb in standard Portuguese. The four major dialect groups of Portuguese are Northern Portuguese, or Galician, Central Portuguese, Southern Portuguese (including the dialect of Lisbon), and Insular Portuguese (including Brazilian and Madeiran). Portuguese is often mutually intelligible with Spanish despite differences in phonology, grammar, and vocabulary.
Portuguese language. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 17, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9061011 |
This was originally posted as part of an essay supporting my statement that "Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French." I made a casual reference to this fact and was immediately attacked with a vicious ad hominem. So I responded with my essay and made an irrefutable case. Anyone wishing to see the entire essay, send me a PM or click here http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....st=1050
As anyone can see, the context does nothing to change the meaning of the part in bold, which is what I originally quoted.
NO QUOTE MINE.
***********************************************************************
| Quote | Another example of your use of quote-mining can be seen here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27081 http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27270 Where you used a faked quote by R.H. Rastall to claim that geologists were "arguing in a circle" This is the quote you used, Liar:
“It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain”
The FULL citation is found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part5.html and includes these words: " ."Nevertheless the arguments are perfectly conclusive. This apparent paradox will disappear in the light of a little further consideration, when the necessary limitations have been introduced..." |
Wanna quote the whole thing, huh? OK let's ... | Quote |
[The Law of Organic Evolution.]
The second great law is that organisms, regarded from the broadest biological standpoint, have developed throughout the history of the world in a certain definite order of progression from the less organized to the more organized types, from lower to higher forms of life. This of course is a mere bald statement of the general principle of evolution. From it follows the great generalization first stated by William Smith, that the ages of strata can be determined by means of their included fossils. [2]
It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.
Nevertheless the arguments are perfectly conclusive. (Emphasis added) This apparent paradox will disappear in the light of a little further consideration, when the necessary limitations have been introduced. The true solution of the problem lies in the combination of the two laws above stated, taking into account the actual spatial distribution of the fossil remains, which is not haphazard, but controlled by definite laws. It is possible to a very large extent to determine the order of superposition and succession of the strata without any reference at all to their fossils. When the fossils in their turn are correlated with this succession they are found to occur in a certain definite order, and no other. Consequently, when the purely physical evidence of superposition cannot be applied, as for example to the strata of two widely separated regions, it is safe to take the fossils as a guide; this follows from the fact that when both kinds of evidence are available there is never any contradiction between them; consequently, in the limited number of cases where only one line of evidence is available, it alone may be taken as proof.
Taking all these facts into consideration, then, it has been found possible to construct a history of the earth, at any rate from the times when conditions became comparable with what they are now. ... |
So what the author is saying is "I know we are arguing in a circle, but it's OK. Trust me. It's really OK." He goes on ... | Quote | | It is possible to a very large extent to determine the order of superposition and succession of the strata without any reference at all to their fossils. |
Mmmm hmmm ... by radiometric "dating" of layers which contain volcanic ash. But don't forget to tell them that the "dating" is "calibrated" by fossils, such as in the case at Koobi Fora where the initial date of 230 million years was "calibrated" down to 2.6 million years because of mammal fossils. See the full story here which summarizes the various reports found in Science.http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp
| Quote | | When the fossils in their turn are correlated with this succession they are found to occur in a certain definite order, and no other. |
Oh really? How come "out of order" fossils are the rule, not the exception?
| Quote | | this follows from the fact that when both kinds of evidence are available there is never any contradiction between them; |
Of course there is no contradiction when you operate like they did at Koobi Fora!
| Quote | | Taking all these facts into consideration, then, it has been found possible to construct a history of the earth, |
Yes, when we have circular reasoning, we can make up any fairy tale we like about the history of the earth. Isn't it wonderful??!!
So there is no getting around the fact that this author admits to Circular Reasoning ... he just tries to justify why it's OK ( ?? Go figure !! )
NO QUOTE MINE.
***********************************************************************
Deadman... | Quote | This also contains Dave quotemining by saying "I thought sedimentary rocks could not be dated radiometrically ... Deadman told me that this is true of the GC layers that contain fossils. But this article says you CAN date sedimentary layers radiometrically."
after I told you to quit using that quote-mined lie about me. Which you then CONTINUED to use 3 more times. [URL=http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27092 |
I'm confused about your position, Deadman. Do you, or do you not believe the sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon can be dated radiometrically? Please explain exactly what you really believe.
***********************************************************************
| Quote | | You used a quote from H.S. Gladwin, a former stockbroker who is not an archaeologist, not a dendro expert, but had a long history of being a crank that thought african PYGMIES populated the Americas, despised dendro in general and was NINETY THREE when he wrote the cited article in which he claims three things: (1)bristlecone and (2)juniper dendrochronology is unreliable and (3)deciduous trees can't be used for dendro. Was this a faked quote? Yes. Especially since it was well known even at the time that deciduous trees CAN be used. |
You call him a crank because he is a creationist. But then, you think ALL creationists are cranks. You also are not a dendro expert, yet you claim that you know more than Gladwin. Here's my expert, Plant Physiologist Don Batten, PhD, and he agrees that dendrochronology is unreliable http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp
***********************************************
Deadman... | Quote | | This reflects a particular KIND of quote-mining...the citation of claims from decades ago that have no validity....like your claims on sedimentation behind a dam being "proof" that layered varves can be created in a short span of time....like your citation of a Corps of Engineers paper on the Mississippi done in 1948 or whatever it was ... |
Layered varves CAN be created in a short time span. They are not a valid means of proving Deep Time as you try to do.
As for old quotes, sometimes these are used ON PURPOSE to show just how long ago a certain fact was known. For example, the Mississippi River Commission knew in 1945 (!! ) something you SHOULD have also known long ago, but you don't because your eyes are closed. They knew that incised meanders require non-resistant banks (i.e. soft sediments). | Quote | | "Much study has been devoted to the subject of the mechanics of meandering rivers, since it involves engineering problems of considerable importance. In particular, extensive model tests have demonstrated that the phenomenon of meandering is associated only with non-resistant banks." (Joseph F. Friedkin: "A Laboratory Study of the Meanderings of Alluvial Rivers," Vicksburg, U.S. Waterways Experiment Station, Mississippi River Commission, 1945.) |
This quote gives excellent support to the creationist contention that the Grand Canyon was carved WHILE SEDIMENTS WERE SOFT during the receding phase of the Flood of Noah. A modern day example of a great flood carving a huge canyon like the Grand Canyon is the Great Missoula Flood which carved the Palouse canyon. Read the fascinating story about how a lone geologist, Harlan Bretz, was ridiculed for 40 years for saying that the Palouse Canyon was formed catastrophically. But he didn't give up and finally mainstream geologists believed him. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1209missoula.asp
Deadman ... | Quote | | like your dated claims on radiometrics, |
What dated claims on radiometrics? I used the latest research to support my statements. My key reference was the 2005 RATE Book, vol. 2.
Deadman... | Quote | | like your dated claims drawn from the "world book" |
Oh yes, I thought it was very funny and very revealing and damaging to ToE that in 1978, World Book confirmed the aforementioned circularity of fossils dating rocks and rocks dating fossils ... | Quote | Welles, Samuel Paul, “Fossils,” World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 7 (1978), p. 364. Welles was Research Associate, Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley.
“Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie.”
Welles, Samuel Paul, “Paleontology,” World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 15 (1978), p. 85.
“Paleontology (the study of fossils) is important in the study of geology. The age of rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them.”
|
Someone must have pointed out to Mr. Welles how silly this looked because in the 1993 version of World Book, the "Fossil" article now says "Paleontologists determine how old a fossil is by measuring the radioactive isotopes in the rocks that contain the fossil" ... which, as I have demonstrated in my threads here is not accurate. The truth about the situation was contained in the 1978 article, but paleontologists have added the "sugar coating" of RM "dating" to their work so that their lie will be swallowed more easily by unsuspecting students. The sentence in the "Paleontology" article is essentially unchanged.
***********************************
--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com
|
