Replies

Ahhh, quote-mining. A very important arrow in the creationist's quiver. The fact that creationist scholarship almost always turns out to be nothing more than quote mining evolutionist scientists, and the stunning fact that almost all these quotes always turn out to be out of context (sometimes wildly out of context!) is one more reason why I continue arguing in these threads.

Such naïve use of quotes, innocently borrowed no doubt from a godly source you trust, and believing you have something with which to smite the godless mainstream theory of biology. Dig deeper, incindiary. CLICK HERE & don't stop until you've found the real stories behind each of those quotes that sounded so convincing. When you discover that they're utterly cynical Clintonian truth-twisting games being played on you, hopefully you'll feel like I did when I discovered that all ten of the Hollywood Ten really were Communist cadre.

Well of course you're going to say something like that... your theory is under attack. Although I don't know how you can sit here and deny that the fossil evidence for transitional forms is incredibly weak. Even Darwin admitted that.

BTW, this one is my favorite...

"The Fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

Psalm 14:1

;-)

Jenny, I have read through a few of these...ahem...misquotes, and you evolutionists are dead wrong to think that the quotes are taken out of context. Nowhere in what i have read so far on this page,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/misquotes.html
shows me that creationists have taken out of context anything. They may not have used the entire paragraph, but the meaning of the entire paragraph still points out what the creationists said the quote said!

Walter Brown, in his book In the Beginning, says: "Eugene Dubois conceded forty years after he discovered Java "man" that it was just a large gibbon." In support of this statement, Brown gives the following quote: "Pithecanthropus [Java man] was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons ..." Eugene Dubois, "On the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java and Pithecanthropus Erectus," Man, Vol. 37, January 1937, p. 4.

However Dubois' complete sentence was as follows: "Pithecanthropus was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons, however superior to the gibbons on account of its exceedingly large brain volume and distinguished at the same time by its faculty of assuming an erect attitude and gait."

se do not sound like the words of a man who is dismissing Java Man as a mere ape that had nothing to do with human evolution. Indeed, Dubois, an exceptionally stubborn man, never ceased to believe that Java Man was a primitive human ancestor.

What is the problem here?? DuBois clearly said "Pithecanthropus was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons, and if DuBois said it is not a man, why the arguement about it being a large Gibbon at all? It is not man, it is a large ape like creature, a Gibbon, the evidence was just a skull cap with a femur found 100 yards down stream with no evidence to tie it to the skull cap of this large Gibbon and the founder said it himself!!

I am going to look some more, I saw some earlier on this page, and you guys are really stretching things with the mis-quote statements, I have yet to see a point refuted made by the creationist point by including more of the evolutionist's paragraph!