The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

33% God wrote: »

Quote mining is despicable, you wouldn't be pleased were it done to you.

It has been done to him in the past day or two and he was none to pleased

"ironically, ALL of the cold hard indisputable evidence supports [] Evolution" - JC

"I have written thousands of posts giving BOTH evidence for [] Evolution / Abiogenesis." - JC

"We don't want Creation Science to be classed as science" - JC

33% God wrote: »

I have a question for you though, or for any other person who does not believe in the fact of evolution. How do you reconcile the fact that we have observed, numerous times, cases of speciation both in labs and in nature, with your rejection of evolution?

They generally believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution, which is of course like saying that you can walk to your next door neighbours house but walking to a house around the corner is completely impossible. The process for both is exactly the same, the only difference is time scale

And then you add a lot of random smilies and leading and trailing dots to add extra weight to your points.

It also helps to keep saying that the odds of a protein spontaneously forming are 10^123/1 (or something like that) even though no one has ever claimed that such a thing happened

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They generally believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution, which is of course like saying that you can walk to your next door neighbours house but walking to a house around the corner is completely impossible. The process for both is exactly the same, the only difference is time scale

And then you add a lot of random smilies and leading and trailing dots to add extra weight to your points.

Well I believe in marco gravity, but not micro gravity :eek::D

33% God

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It has been done to him in the past day or two and he was none to pleased

"ironically, ALL of the cold hard indisputable evidence supports [] Evolution" - JC

"I have written thousands of posts giving BOTH evidence for [] Evolution / Abiogenesis." - JC

"We don't want Creation Science to be classed as science" - JC


They generally believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution, which is of course like saying that you can walk to your next door neighbours house but walking to a house around the corner is completely impossible. The process for both is exactly the same, the only difference is time scale

And then you add a lot of random smilies and leading and trailing dots to add extra weight to your points.

It also helps to keep saying that the odds of a protein spontaneously forming are 10^123/1 (or something like that) even though no one has ever claimed that such a thing happened

I know, I've been arguing with creationists for a long time

Although they cannot claim that the formation of a new species, as we have seen happen a number of times, is simply micro-evolution. It clearly is not.

Sam Vimes

33% God wrote: »

I know, I've been arguing with creationists for a long time

Although they cannot claim that the formation of a new species, as we have seen happen a number of times, is simply micro-evolution. It clearly is not.

Oh you'd be surprised what a creationist can say

They've already been shown an example of industrial chicken farms that produced several new species. They just said "they're still chickens". As Malty_T says they'll accept nothing less than a crocoduck and if we showed them one they'd come up with some other deliberately impossible and ridiculous standard of "evidence" that we must meet. Mere irrefutable proof means nothing when their perception of the bible disagrees with your proof

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The Dawkins quote isn't even about aspects of evolution. It's about a gap in his writings and you are using the quote to suggest that there is a gap even though the purpose of the book you got it from is to close that gap, the gap in his writings, not any gap in evolution

....OK so let's examine your allegation of misrepresentation ... and we will start with the quote from Prof Dawkins in my sig which reads as follows:-

"Looking back at those books, I realised that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out, and that this was a serious gap that I needed to close." Prof Richard Dawkins Page 1 of the Preface to 'The Greatest Show on Earth'

Please note the following:-

1. The quote is fully referenced so that anybody can check its veracity to the original sentence in the book - as well as checking it's meaning in it's full context by reading around the sentence as well.

2. The quote is an exact quote of every word in the full sentence - no more and no less.
BTW it is valid to abridge, clarify, combine or make emphasis in quotes, provided the original meaning of the author isn't lost and it is clear that the original writing is abridged, clarified, combined or emphasised - but, in any event none of this is the case with this quote.

So let us look at the chosen quote itself to see if it is truncated or otherwise 'engineered' to mean something different to what the author actually said within the context of the paragraph that he was writing:-

Here is the paragraph with the quoted sentence within it:-

"Looking back at those books, I realised that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out, and that this was a serious gap that I needed to close." The year 2009 seemed like a good time, it being the bicentennial year of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of On the Origin of Species. Not surprisingly, the same thoughts occurred to others, and the year has seen some excellent volumes, most notably Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. My highly favourable review of his book in the Times Literary Supplement is reproduced at http://richarddawkins.net/article,3594,Heat-the-Hornet,RichardDawkins."

So the sentence is saying that Prof Dawkins believes that nowhere in any of his previous books has he explicitly set out the evidence for Evolution and indeed he appears to indicate that other evolutionists believe the same to be true about their own writings and the need to provide explicit evidence for evolution - because in the next sentence he says that "the same thoughts occurred to others"!!!!

He then goes on to conclude that he needed to close this gap - with the implication that he intended to do so in what follows in the rest of the book.
Again, my quote doesn't in any way take away from this conclusion.

So where is there any 'misrepresentation' by me in this quote ?
The quote says that Prof Dawkins believes that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out in any of Prof Dawkins previous books - and that is what he seems to be actually saying when you read this sentence within the entire Preface - or on it's own in my sig!!!


The importance of the quote is obvious - because it is a frank admission by one of the leading proponents of Darwinian Evolution that he hasn't explicitly set out the evidence for evolution in any of his previous books about evolution!!!

This is a very important admission from Prof Dawkins ... as I am arguing that there is no explicit evidence for evolution ... and this admission from a leading evolutionist, who has written extensively on the subject, is certainly favouring my case!!!

It also raises the question of how many books must Prof Dawkins write before he actually gets around to 'heart of the matter' by giving us the explicit evidence for evolution ... which in turn, leads to the reasonable hypothesis that the reason he didn't give us this evidence already is because it doesn't exist!!!
All of these questions (which flow from this quote) may be very uncomfortable for Evolutionists ... as eximplified by your emotional reactions including disblief that my quote really is a true refection of what Prof Dawkins actually said!!!!

Unfortunately for the 'Evolutonist Cause' it is exactly (in both the letter and the meaning) what he said....
....and your emotional outbursts don't in any way invalidate the legitimacy or the truthfulness of the quote - which is indeed true to the sentiments expressed by Prof Dawkins.

This then leads us on to the question of whether Prof Dawkins did actually 'fill the gap' and did provided explicit evidence for evolution in the book?
I have read it and I don't believe he did - but I am open to correction on this belief - if anybody can provide the evidence!!!!

I will look at my other quotes later - but let's stick with this quote and have your reaction to what I have just said.

Turtwig

The book begins with :

The evidence for evolution grows by the day and never been stronger. At the same time, paradoxically, ill informed opposition is also stronger than I can remember. This book is my personal summary of the evidence that the 'theory' of evolution is actually a fact - as incontrovertible a fact as any science.

Dawkins never mentioned the evidence in his prior books because they dealt with the results from the theory itself which he, like many others, assumed most people regarded as a fact. Kind of like the way people accept gravity and electromagnetism - no ridiculous objections to the evidence needed there.
It is at times like this though that I am grateful to the proponents of ID if it wasn't for those guys I probably never would have found out what a fascinating field biology is.

wolfsbane

33% God wrote: »

Quote mining is despicable, you wouldn't be pleased were it done to you.

I have a question for you though, or for any other person who does not believe in the fact of evolution. How do you reconcile the fact that we have observed, numerous times, cases of speciation both in labs and in nature, with your rejection of evolution?

Er, you confuse speciation with evolution.

If you insist it is evolution, then creationist are evolutionists and evolutionists are creationists! But since there is a disagreement, evolution in our debates should be understood as the transition of organisms over time into other organisms - ape to man; dinosaur to bird; 'goo to you'. Not modifications to beak types in birds or loss of wings in insects.

When you show flies changed into non-flies, then you will have a case for evolution.

33% God

wolfsbane wrote: »

Er, you confuse speciation with evolution.

If you insist it is evolution, then creationist are evolutionists and evolutionists are creationists! But since there is a disagreement, evolution in our debates should be understood as the transition of organisms over time into other organisms - ape to man; dinosaur to bird; 'goo to you'. Not modifications to beak types in birds or loss of wings in insects.

When you show flies changed into non-flies, then you will have a case for evolution.

No. I mean the specific formation of a new species from an old one, to the extent where the new species can no longer form fertile offspring with the old species.
The transition of organisms into the organisms is exactly what I am talking about, just not the ridiculous leaps you seem to want.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

So the sentence is saying that Prof Dawkins believes that nowhere in any of his previous books has he explicitly set out the evidence for Evolution and indeed he appears to indicate that other evolutionists believe the same to be true about their own writings as well as the need to address this issue - in the next sentence where he says that "the same thoughts occurred to others"!!!!

He then goes on to conclude that he needed to close this gap - with the implication that he intended to do so in what follows in the rest of the book.
Again, my quote doesn't in any way take away from this conclusion.

The part in bold is wrong. The same thought occurred to others about his books, not about their own. The evidence for evolution is of course unequivocally laid out in thousands of books

J C wrote: »

The importance of the quote is obvious - because it is a frank admission by one of the leading proponents of Darwinian Evolution that he hasn't explicitly set out the evidence for evolution in any of his previous books about evolution!!!

You have missed the point. He is saying that he didn't lay out the evidence for evolution in the same way that someone who writes a book about Ireland doesn't spend the entire book trying to prove that Ireland exists. He thought it would be safe to write a book about evolution because he didn't think that anyone seriously doubted it. He has since realised that there are an increasing number of people who unfortunately refuse to acknowledge irrefutable facts because they would have to admit that their book is wrong if they did, so he decided to do the equivalent of trying to prove that Ireland exists to satisfy people like yourself

wolfsbane

33% God wrote: »

No. I mean the specific formation of a new species from an old one, to the extent where the new species can no longer form fertile offspring with the old species.
The transition of organisms into the organisms is exactly what I am talking about, just not the ridiculous leaps you seem to want.

You equate the inability to cross-breed with a change of organism.

A spider that cannot breed with another type of spider is still a spider. The genetic change did not make it a non-spider. Your assumption that it could go on to become the master-race of the universe is part of your ideology, not science.

Creationists have no trouble with speciation - indeed, they insist on it:
Speedy species surprise
http://creation.com/speedy-species-surprise

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

Er, you confuse speciation with evolution.

If you insist it is evolution, then creationist are evolutionists and evolutionists are creationists! But since there is a disagreement, evolution in our debates should be understood as the transition of organisms over time into other organisms - ape to man; dinosaur to bird; 'goo to you'. Not modifications to beak types in birds or loss of wings in insects.

When you show flies changed into non-flies, then you will have a case for evolution.

Er, you confuse species with genus.

But the bigger problem here is that the theory does not say that this happens. Again, you fail to understand. At no point, throughout all history, will anything give birth to anything that doesn't look an awful lot like it. It is only when you compare something with its great, great (etc.) ancestors or descendants that any change is noticeable. Multiply this by an even greater factor and you'll start to see ape-like-creature to man; dinosaur to bird; etc.

When you show flies changed into non-flies, then you will have broken evolution.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Er, you confuse speciation with evolution.

If you insist it is evolution, then creationist are evolutionists and evolutionists are creationists! But since there is a disagreement, evolution in our debates should be understood as the transition of organisms over time into other organisms - ape to man; dinosaur to bird; 'goo to you'. Not modifications to beak types in birds or loss of wings in insects.

Wow, there isn't a part of that that makes sense

"transition of organisms over time into other organisms"?

What possible definition of "organism" are you using there?

wolfsbane wrote: »

When you show flies changed into non-flies, then you will have a case for evolution.

"Fly" is not a biological classification, it is a lose English classification. You might as be asking when has evolution ever shown a ba-lamb transform into a mo-cow. This kind of barn yard nonsense that you and JC do really just highlights how silly and childish the "science" behind Creationism is, you guys don't even bother to try and classify animals in any meaningful way because that would force you to recognise evolution. :rolleyes:

It has been demonstrated to you many times before the transition of one kind of biological life into a significantly different form of biological life through evolution, often with massive structural differences.

For example a single cell species evolving into a multi-celled species due to environmental pressure.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

The book begins with :



Dawkins never mentioned the evidence in his prior books because they dealt with the results from the theory itself which he, like many others, assumed most people regarded as a fact. Kind of like the way people accept gravity and electromagnetism - no ridiculous objections to the evidence needed there.
It is at times like this though that I am grateful to the proponents of ID if it wasn't for those guys I probably never would have found out what a fascinating field biology is.

...this isn't what we are discussing ... the point at issue is that accusation that my quote somehow 'misrepresented' what Prof Dawkins said.

...you can reach your conclusion above from the quote or indeed from the entire book... while I can reach a different conclusion ... and we will both have to eventually cite evidence to support our case ... and that is how a debate proceeds.

...what is unacceptable is to accuse somebody of 'misrepresentation' when they have fairly and accurately quoted somebody else.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...this isn't what we are discussing ... the point at issue is that my quote somehow 'misrepresented' what Prof Dawkins said.

This is exactly what we were discussing your quotation (and subsequent comment) implies that Dawkins, having mentioned no evidence for evolution, had none. I replied, stating that he had plenty; he just assumed it was as clear as day when he was righting his first few books.

Now, would you mind explaining the one's from 'The Blind Watchmaker'?

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Er, you confuse speciation with evolution.

If you insist it is evolution, then creationist are evolutionists and evolutionists are creationists! But since there is a disagreement, evolution in our debates should be understood as the transition of organisms over time into other organisms - ape to man; dinosaur to bird; 'goo to you'. Not modifications to beak types in birds or loss of wings in insects.

When you show flies changed into non-flies, then you will have a case for evolution.

I don't understand the difference between the two. An animal is completely defined by its DNA so if you acknowledge that enough of it can change to create a variant of a species, why can't enough change to change to a new species? That's like saying that on a dice it's only possible to get a 3 or a 4 and it's impossible to get 1, 2, 5 or 6. What's the difference?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The part in bold is wrong. The same thought occurred to others about his books, not about their own. The evidence for evolution is of course unequivocally laid out in thousands of books

The title of Jerry Coyne's Book 'Why Evolution is True' indicates that this book is another attempt to lay out explicit evidence for evolution as well ... so it DOES seem that many different evolutionists thought that it was important to do so ... evolutionists may say this was because the issue has become confused/challenged in recent years ... creationists are quite entitled to claim it is because the evidence doesn't exist ... especially when these books DON'T actually provide any explicit evidence for 'Molecules to Man' Evolution!!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You have missed the point. He is saying that he didn't lay out the evidence for evolution in the same way that someone who writes a book about Ireland doesn't spend the entire book trying to prove that Ireland exists. He thought it would be safe to write a book about evolution because he didn't think that anyone seriously doubted it. He has since realised that there are an increasing number of people who unfortunately refuse to acknowledge irrefutable facts because they would have to admit that their book is wrong if they did, so he decided to do the equivalent of trying to prove that Ireland exists to satisfy people like yourself

...that is a reasonable interpretation of the quote ... but if Ireland was some kind of mythical island like 'Tir na N'óg' then you would need to start by providing explicit evidence for it's existence ... and if you hadn't ... and then didn't ... people would be skeptical that any such evidence existed at all!!!

...either way the quote would still be a truthful and accurate reflection of the writings of the author!!!

...what people chose to read into it is their own business ... but if it is something irrational (like evolution being true) then it can be challenged by the appliance of science and logic!!!!

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

I will look at my other quotes later - but let's stick with this quote and have your reaction to what I have just said.

It's bull.

The quote in your sig does not state that Dawkins is referring only to his own books - it reads as though he's talking about all books on evolution, and that he is arrogantly taking it upon himself to set out the evidence for evolution where no-one else has. Obviously that is not true. That is why the preceding paragraph, not the following one, is necessary for context.

Here it is:

"The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype offered an unfamiliar vision of the familiar theory of natural selection, but they didn't discuss the evidence for evolution itself. My next three books, in their different ways, sought to identify, and dissolve, the main barriers to understanding. These books, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden and (my favourite of the three) Climbing Mount Improbable, answered questions like, 'what is the use of half an eye?' 'What is the use of half a wing?' 'How can natural selection work, given that most mutations have negative effects?' Once again, however, these three books, although they cleared away stumbling blocks, did not present the actual evidence that evolution is a fact. My largest book, The Ancestor's Tale, laid out the full course of the history of life, as a sort of ancestor-seeking Chaucerian pilgrimage going backwards in time, but it again assumed that evolution is true.
"Looking back on these books, I realized that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out, and this was a serious gap that I needed to close."

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

the title of Jery Coynes Book 'Why Evolution is True' indicates that this book is another attempt to lay out explicit evidence for evolution as well ... so it DOES seem that many different evolutionists thought that it was important to do so ... evolutionists may say this was because the issue has become confused/challenged in recent years ... creationists are quite entitled to claim it is because the evidence doesn't exist ... especially when these books DON'T actually provide any explicit evidence for 'Molecules to Man' Evolution!!!!

The reason no one has come out with evolution as you understand it is that you don't understand evolution. What you want them to prove to you isn't how it happens

J C wrote: »

...that is a reasonable interpretation of the quote ... but if Ireland was some kind of mythical island like 'Tir na N'óg' then you would need to start providing explicit evidence for it's existence

But Ireland is not mythical like Tir na N'og and neither is evolution, it's an observable fact. Creationism on the other hand was debunked about 150 years ago

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

This is exactly what we were discussing your quotation (and subsequent comment) implies that Dawkins, having mentioned no evidence for evolution, had none. I replied, stating that he had plenty; he just assumed it was as clear as day when he was righting his first few books.

Now, would you mind explaining the one's from 'The Blind Watchmaker'?

...you are confusing the validity of a truthfully presented quote (which is the case with the quotes in my sig) ... and the follow-on conclusions reached about them ... which depends on the point of view of the beholder!!!!

...but ultimately whatever conclusions are reached are challengable by science and logic ... and when it is done with evolution ... it collapses every time!!!

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't understand the difference between the two. An animal is completely defined by its DNA so if you acknowledge that enough of it can change to create a variant of a species, why can't enough change to change to a new species?

They can change into new species, in fact Creationist requires this to happen on a pretty ridiculous time scale, with new species appearing every few months after the landing of the Ark. We are talking lions mutating into house cats within a few generations (for some strange unexplained reason all this rapid evolution has stopped)

What they can't do is change into a new "kind"

What is a "kind" you say? Well it works like this, you go down to the barn yard and you say "That is a duck, that is a horse, that is a cat, and that is a dog"

Well done, you have now got as far as any Creationist ever has at actually defining "kinds".

So a "horse" may evolve into many different species of "horse" (often within only a few years) but it can never evolve into something other than a "horse"

See, simple.

A "fly" (no no, don't try and classify that any further, yes there are thousands of species of flies) can never evolve into something other than "a fly", because "a fly" is a "kind", and the Bible says that Noah put 2 of every "kind" of animal on the Ark.

Now, if you are thinking to yourself that all that is the dumbest thing you have ever heard you probably have a long career ahead of you in biology or medicine.

If on the other hand all that actually seemed to make sense to you I suggest you write to the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis straight away as they will probably give you a job :P

33% God

wolfsbane wrote: »

You equate the inability to cross-breed with a change of organism.

Ya, because that's the definition of a species.

A spider that cannot breed with another type of spider is still a spider. The genetic change did not make it a non-spider. Your assumption that it could go on to become the master-race of the universe is part of your ideology, not science.

...What? Where did I mention anything about master race. You're constructing strawmen here and it really isn't doing your argument any good.
I am simply saying that we have observed one species evolving from another. That is all. That is all I have ever claimed. I am speaking here about the fact of evolution, not the theory of evolution by natural selection.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

This is exactly what we were discussing your quotation (and subsequent comment) implies that Dawkins, having mentioned no evidence for evolution, had none. I replied, stating that he had plenty; he just assumed it was as clear as day when he was righting his first few books.

...you are also confusing the validity of a truthfully presented quote (which is the case with the quotes in my sig) ... and the follow-on conclusions reached about them ... which depends on the point of view of the beholder!!!!

...but ultimately whatever conclusions are reached are challengable by science and logic ... and when it is done with evolution ... it collapses every time!!!

Malty_T wrote: »

Now, would you mind explaining the one's from 'The Blind Watchmaker'?

...here are the quotes and my comments (which admittedly and naturally reflect my point of view on the origins issue).

In this case some of the quotes are compounded for brevity, but they all truthfully reflect the writings of the author

Please provide your comments on my comments, if you so wish.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62477391&postcount=18051

33% God

J C wrote: »

...you are confusing the validity of a truthfully presented quote (which is the case with the quotes in my sig) ... and the follow-on conclusions reached about them ... which depends on the point of view of the beholder!!!!

...but ultimately whatever conclusions are reached are challengable by science and logic ... and when is done with evolution ... it collapses every time!!!

...here are the quotes and my comments (which admittedly and naturally reflect my point of view on the origins issue).

In this case some of the quotes are compounded for brevity, but they all truthfully reflect the writings of the author

Please provide your comments on my comments, if you so wish.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62477391&postcount=18051

Oh shut up. You are not truthfully representing anything. Taking a quote out of context, which is exactly what you are doing, is as bad as making the quote up. You are misrepresenting the views of these people to further your own agenda, and adding "follow on conclusions" which you have absolutely no right to do.
You are dishonest.

Zombrex

33% God wrote: »

You are not truthfully representing anything.

JC meet 33% God, 33% God this is JC

Welcome to 1208 pages ago :P

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

It's bull.

The quote in your sig does not state that Dawkins is referring only to his own books - it reads as though he's talking about all books on evolution, and that he is arrogantly taking it upon himself to set out the evidence for evolution where no-one else has. Obviously that is not true. That is why the preceding paragraph, not the following one, is necessary for context.

Here it is:

"The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype offered an unfamiliar vision of the familiar theory of natural selection, but they didn't discuss the evidence for evolution itself. My next three books, in their different ways, sought to identify, and dissolve, the main barriers to understanding. These books, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden and (my favourite of the three) Climbing Mount Improbable, answered questions like, 'what is the use of half an eye?' 'What is the use of half a wing?' 'How can natural selection work, given that most mutations have negative effects?' Once again, however, these three books, although they cleared away stumbling blocks, did not present the actual evidence that evolution is a fact. My largest book, The Ancestor's Tale, laid out the full course of the history of life, as a sort of ancestor-seeking Chaucerian pilgrimage going backwards in time, but it again assumed that evolution is true.
"Looking back on these books, I realized that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out, and this was a serious gap that I needed to close."

...I suppose every quote has some limitations ... even if I quoted the entire book somebody could still argue that a biopic of the author would be needed to provide a full context for the book. There is no end to such 'contextual' arguments.

Everybody accepts that a one sentence quote is necessarily limited in the informaton it provides and nobody is claiming that it comprehensively represents all of the views of the author ... but a well chosen quote can illustrate critical aspects to the topic being discussed ... and it is especially relevant when the quote supports some point which the opposition are making in the debate!!!!

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

JC meet 33% God, 33% God this is JC

Welcome to 1208 pages ago :P

...where is the other 67%????:):D

:eek:

33% God

J C wrote: »

...I suppose every quote has some limitations ... even if I quoted the entire book somebody could still argue that a biopic of the author would be needed to provide a full context for the book. There is no end to such 'contextual' arguments.

Everybody accepts that a one sentence quote is necessarily limited in the informaton it provides and nobody is claiming that it comprehensively represents all of the views of the author ... but a well chosen quote can illustrate critical aspects to the topic being discussed ... and it is especially relevant when the quote supports some point which the opposition are making in the debate!!!!

A nice sentence quote is only useful when it represents the wider context, your's do not in any way do that. They are in fact deliberately taken to distort the message.
I could take individual quotes from the bible and make it out to be a horrible book, but when taken in context those quotes would not mean nearly the same thing.

33% God

J C wrote: »

...where is the other 67%????:):D

:eek:

My other 67% is human, but still awesome.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...I suppose every quote has some limitations ... even if I quoted the entire book somebody could still argue that a biopic of the author would be needed to provide a full context for the book. There is no end to such 'contextual' arguments.

Everybody accepts that a one sentence quote is necessarily limited in the informaton it provides and nobody is claiming that it comprehensively represents all of the views of the author ... but a well chosen quote can illustrate critical aspects to the topic being discussed ... and it is especially relevant when the quote supports some point which the opposition are making in the debate!!!!

JC,

It is both dishonest and disrespectful to quote out of context, end of!
You can take a two word or three word quote as long as it clearly represents the viewpoint and argument being made by the person whom you are quoting. Misrepresentation of another's view is perhaps the lowest form of debating.:(

J C

33% God wrote: »

Oh shut up. You are not truthfully representing anything. Taking a quote out of context, which is exactly what you are doing, is as bad as making the quote up. You are misrepresenting the views of these people to further your own agenda, and adding "follow on conclusions" which you have absolutely no right to do.
You are dishonest.

..like I have said, every quote has some limitations ... even if I quoted the entire book somebody could still argue that a biopic of the author would be needed to provide a full context for the book. There is no end to such 'contextual' arguments.

....the quotes are legitimate ... and if my comments are incorrect please point out any errors!!!:)