Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
I haven't contacted the good doctor, but these nice professors from the University of Witwatersrand and the University of Botswana have. Evidently, Mr. Hovind would prefer not to risk his nest egg.
Maybe they could try Ben Stein?
From the article, regarding Mr. Hovind's response: "The rest of the response was a list of quotations (at least two of them, including Stephen Jay Gould, entirely out of context) about evolution being nonsense." Looks like "Dr." Hovind has been cribbing from medved?
Yes, that might be, but teeth are a distinguishing characteristic used to identify membership in a group.
I'll keep reading.
A camel doesn't look much like an elk, either, but there you are.
Of course, Pensacola is also home to a campus of Liberty Bible College ...
Given that a "kind" is about as unscientific a taxon as you can get, I wouldn't pursue this much further either.
For evolutionists, there is no possible rational response to the overwhelming case these collections of quotes make other than say to themselves "Gee, how did I ever believe in anything like that?" and cease being evolutionists. Obviously nobody should hold their breath waiting for that to happen, and one may therefore anticipate that their response will be irrational. They won't disappoint you; the basic response of the evolutionists on the net to anybody attempting to quote any of these lists of quotes on discussion groups has always been that each and every one of the scientists being quoted is being quoted out of context, that the gist of what they were trying to say has been inverted in each and every case, and that the person posting such a thing is therefore a liar. That's precisely what this dolt using the penname "Cracker" is claiming.
In real life, the full context of each of these quotes is basically irrelevant despite the rest of the page in most cases giving reasons why the author remains an evolutionist.
It's as if a general was trying to get a picture of what was happening on the front and were to debrief a number of lieutenants and sergeants and each one said something like "Well sir, we took a lot of casualties this morning and really got our butts kicked, but overall things are proceeding ok and I'm sure we're gonna win..."
"Cracker" would insist that the data be interpreted as meaning that the general had no problems; in real life the general would be insane to assume anything other than that he had a major problem on his hands.
Then, of course, there's always the ultimate evolutionist quote, taken from an interview with the famous evolutionist Jeffrey Dahmer:
"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing..."
Come on; Make my day, "Cracker": tell me how Dahmer really believed in evolution, and how I'm a liar for quoting him out of context!"
I don't have to. Dahmer is not an evolutionary biologist, has not studied the discipline, and to my knowledge has not kept up on the last few years of research.
Strangely enough, that's the newest quote you've yet offered. I guess that's a step forward, in some bizarre and twisted sense...
In actual fact, guys like Dahmer, Hitler, and Stalin were real evolutionists in that they actually lived their lives in accordance with evolutionist logic and precepts and according to the evolutionist notion that "survival of the fittest" is the only moral law in nature. The people you'd call evolutionists, in contrast, are basically just a bunch of yuppie nerds using evoluitionism as a kind of an ideological fashion statement.
So let me get this straight. Do you trust the words of a man convicted of killing and eating several different people? And you believe those words to be absolute truth? Does this mean you advocate the skinning and eating of people then?
I guess, by that note, the actions and words of that Yates fella where he used his religion to drive his wife nuts means that people shouldn't worship the Bible, eh? Or the writings of the Christians of the US in the 1860's, using the bible as justification to keep slavery intact.
What about the writings of the Bible itself, where it says that it is ok to kill the household of those you are at war with and rape their women? I think there are several dozen quotes I could easily take from the bible and use them as justification for all sorts of unsavory acts. I guess that means we should ban all Christianity as well, eh?
Give me a break, quote mining is the last ditch act of a person who can't come up with any better arguments. That's a good sign of how much trouble your intellectually bankrupt arguments are in.
Yes, you're really on to something. As we all know, Charles Darwin himself, in his later years, ran amok through the streets of London and was known as "Jack the Ripper." That ol' eeevilooshin will do it every time.
Don't count on it; his subroutine is probably just down for maintenance.
It's as if a general was trying to get a picture of what was happening on the front and were to debrief a number of lieutenants and sergeants and each one said something like "Well sir, we took a lot of casualties this morning and really got our butts kicked, but overall things are proceeding ok and I'm sure we're gonna win..."
I like the analogy and agree with it. To me, a problem creationists have is not explaining the context of quotes and giving the impression the quotee does not support evolution or has serious problems with it. I see creationists using the quote to show there is a problem with a certain area of evolution. But evolutionists see it as an attack on the entire theory. In summary, creationists need to better document the quote and evolutionists need thicker skin.
Between the dishonesty and the extreme selectivity, you have what amounts to a lie. The overall picture is that evolutionists think that evolution is the answer to the diversity of life and that they have evidence for it. Creationist quote salads are an exercise in making photo-micrographs of specks on a whitewashed wall and then claiming that the wall is black.
If you are going to rely on Dahmer, Hitler, and Stalin for a definition and explanation of evolution, you are seriously in need of help. Their misbegotten beliefs are no more representative of evolution than Torquemada and Jim Jones are representative of Christianity.
Whatsamatter, "Cracker"? Cat got your tongue??
No, lunch did.
...Assorted personal attacks and mindless analogies omitted...
A quote is not an argument. An argument consists of a proposition (or claim), followed by evidence (a warrant). Your quotes are frequently bereft of both.
The only thing the quotes attempt is an Arugment From Authority. But the argument from authority is at best only persuasive, and even then requires that the authority be an expert on the subject at hand, that their opinions be reflective of the current state of knowledge on the subject, and that the quoted material be a fair statement of their opinions. Again, your quotes have few if any of these attributes.
Your quotes are all more than 14 years old. They are unsourced or unqualified in may cases, and are from individuals whose expertise lies outside the fields they are commenting on. And, in the few cases where you cite recognized luminaries in the fields, as in Darwin and Gould, you do so OUT OF CONTEXT. Did you not read the lengthy discussion by Gould, posted by Vade at #1146, wherein Gould directly contradicts your assertions and clarifies the quote you use? Or perhaps #1198, where Gould is again explained?
When the author of your quote states that he is being quoted out of context, and explains himself, I think you have a far larger burden to meet if you are going to continue to cite him for support of your crazy Saturnian theories.
Thus far, you have not responded to Gould's defense, you have not produced any recent quotes, you have not produced anything current from ANY major peer-reviewed scientific journal in support of your obscure lunacy, and then you suggest that I am not willing to defend myself? My good man, your chutzpah is amazing. Delusional, even.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.