Saturday, February 14, 2009

You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think

 
Here's a video of Pat Robertson and Ray Comfort—two of the best secret weapons on the atheism side. Just watch this video to see why.




[Hat Tip: Friendly Atheist]

38 comments :

  1. Somebody get this guy a rubber room. Aacchh that was painful to listen to.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That video was so embarrassing; I am embarrassed by and for Pat Robertson and Ray Comfort. They were so obviously dishonest. The interviewer tried to make those very polite young people look stupid and especially targeted the young man with the question about god and then cut the young man off mid answer.

    There is so much about this video and Pat Robertson and Ray Comfort's conversation that is dishonest. They go from Darwin, "a very bitter man," to the behaviour of young people today by being dishonest and tracing a path from Darwin to atheists and leaving out 150 years scientific of evidence.

    Comfort says 1 in 4 professors in universities is agnostic or an atheist. The best answer to that is only 1 in 4? That is not enough; Universities need more agnostic or an atheist professors.

    Robertson and Ray Comfort are almost as embarrassing, as Kathy Shaidle who was a guest on The Agenda on Feb. 13. She appeared drunk or stoned on some cheap drugs; her comments on Barack Obama were disgusting and TVO should be ashamed to have Shaidle on any show it produces.

    http://atheistbus.ca/

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow. Always a male first huh? I had to turn it off halfway. It pains me to try and understand how their minds work. Or don't as the case may be. They just live in this world of straw.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's a fascinating insight into the mentality of fundamentalism. What particularly disgusts me about Ray Comfort is that on the surface he purports to want to engage with atheists and have a rational debate - in fact he has a whole web site (raycomfortfood.blogspot.com) set up for this purpose. Yet his understanding of science, evolution and atheism is little developed than that of a first-grader. But he pretends that he has all of these great arguments against atheism when they are nothing but easily demolished strawmen (he fact all of his arguments are laugh-out-loud ridiculous). But when you do blow them down, he refuses to acknowledge that he was ever wrong, because he has such utter contempt for atheists there is no way he is ever going to listen to their side.

    Perhaps he has success reaching the gullible but he certainly is no match for the average atheist. From what I can gather on his blog at least a couple of on-the-fence agnostics have been persuaded to become atheists simply of Comfort's ridiculous arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Don't underestimate Comfort. His goal isn't to sway the evolutionist. It's to keep the flock in the fold, and he is very effective in doing that. To the faithful he speaks with authority and is not intimidated by science. The flock is reassured when an intelligent sounding person such as Comfort ridicules evolution and says "God did it."

    ReplyDelete
  6. It scares me that he actually believes the prattle he's going on with. How can he actually believe we think that evolution happened to an individual which then made them another species? No! It's an ongoing process within a population. It's religion that tries pulling magic tricks, not evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  7. We have to keep religion!!! Comfort points out the only reason he even remotely considers being moral (except for bearing false witness) is fear of invisible big daddy. If we atheists succeed the world will become less moral, because douchebags like these two will no longer have their crutch.

    ReplyDelete
  8. KTaylor says,

    Perhaps he has success reaching the gullible ...

    But he had great success converting Kirk Cameron—see the banana video.

    Oh, wait a minute, that was your point, wasn't it? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry, I only lasted until Pat came on to intro Bananaman. I don't think I could endure a full nine minutes of that level of smug stupid.

    Comfort's victims there look like average folks who probably dimly recall their high school or frosh-survey-course biology, but aren't really familiar with the issue. Any one of the t.o regulars from the old days could see through those questions and shred the interviewer.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Evolution is crazy...people don't think very deeply [about it]."
    sez the guy just arguing that males and females had to have evolved separately in dogs and mice. That's as far as I could get.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I laughed and laughed until I realized it wasn't a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  12. sez the guy just arguing that males and females had to have evolved separately in dogs and mice. That's as far as I could get.

    Well, he believes that because his (and Kirk Cameron's for that matter) understanding of speciation is that you have a lineage of non-dog giving birth to non-dog, which then gives birth to non-dog, which then gives birth to non-dog, etc.....then in one generation, a pair of breeding non-dogs, pops out a severely mutated offspring which is a dog -- a totally different species! But wait, where is the member of the opposite sex for this first dog!? *GASP* I've poked a hole in EVILution!

    ReplyDelete
  13. "In the beginning, there was nothing - that's crazy talk!" But "in the beginning was the word"? Now that makes sense!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I love this video! Ray Comfort is surely one of the great intellectuals of our time.

    ReplyDelete
  15. ktaylor writes: Yet his understanding of science, evolution and atheism is little developed [beyond] than that of a first-grader. But he pretends that he has all of these great arguments against atheism when they are nothing but easily demolished strawmen (he fact all of his arguments are laugh-out-loud ridiculous). But when you do blow them down, he refuses to acknowledge that he was ever wrong, because he has such utter contempt for atheists there is no way he is ever going to listen to their side.

    This is exactly the same pattern I see at other creationist blogs, etc. (e.g. talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz). My impression is that it isn't really about listening to others' arguments to them really, but a form of rhetorical self-justification of their own position. (I guess that is a fancy way of saying that they like the sound of their own words?)

    Placebo wrote His goal isn't to sway the evolutionist. It's to keep the flock in the fold, and he is very effective in doing that. To the faithful he speaks with authority and is not intimidated by science. The flock is reassured when an intelligent sounding person such as Comfort ridicules evolution and says "God did it."

    I once briefly corresponded with a Catholic priest, about an issue on his blog. He openly told me that he automatically accepted comments in favour of his position, deleted comments against his position if he didn't have a response to them, and accepted comments against his view only if he felt he could rebut them. He wouldn't publish these opposing views until he had "mediated" as to how to rebut them and had interspersed his defence within the original poster's comment. His defence in doing this was that he was "defending his flock". You as easily read that he as controlling what "his flock" read, as so to control them. As you are also saying of Comfort, this strikes me as being deceitful to his followers.

    Incidentally, the priest's replies were full of straw-man arguments and incidents of placing words in others' mouths. I had naïvely thought priests might be better educated, and more open to reason, but the main thing he seemed to be better at was quoting scripture. His arguments certainly weren't very impressive and seemed dishonest to me.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "150 years scientific of evidence"

    What evidence? The jokes on you. 150 years of science and you still have no proof. Evidence that evolution is a hoax is all you have!

    ReplyDelete
  17. "150 years of science and you still have no proof"

    You forgot to mention that this is as opposed to stunning and massive evidence for the existence of God

    ReplyDelete
  18. I came into this video after reading the comments. I expected stupidity and frailty of argument, but the man actually made valid points. Going back and reading the comments again, I see where each person did one of the following; took something and ran off in a different direction with it, or said that it was painful... Sure, its painful when someone assaults your base thoughts of "truth" with another version of the "truth". If you buy something, don't you want to know about its maker? So why would you buy Darwinism without knowing about Darwin... so the fact that he was bitter at God about the loss of his child might have some weight for him going out and making up something that would be totally against God. And this, by the way, is just an observation from one of the atheist professors he mentions... Me(an atheist). If you are wise, you will learn what your enemy is about. Don't dismiss it, learn about it and do your own research, but I warn you for every thing that says there is evidence of "this" there will be others showing evidence for "that"... so study well, and consider your sources. The truth is life changing and sometimes unsettling, but it is the truth that you can use to make a solid foundation for your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." George Wald, Evolutionist & winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize winner for physiology...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Is not Darwinism an atheist ideology? Harvard Geneticist Richard Lewontin very honestly admitted:
    "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door"

    ReplyDelete
  21. Reader: Does your Atheism rest & rely much on Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theory?
    "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."
    (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Troll: No, and quotes from some authority aren't arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  23. No Eamon, you're exactly right. But, not being a geneticist, a paleontologist, a physicist or a Astrophysicist would leave my observations & comments open to the comment that: 'You don't know what you're talking about'. Therefore I prefer to reference to authorities who should. In the last few years it's been interesting to observe an increasing number of evolutionary scientists who are honest enough to admit to both the paucity of evidence & to the improbability of life originating from non-life...

    ReplyDelete
  24. We shall all stand before a holy and just God and give account for our lives. And you won't be able to say "no-one told me". He offers salvation in his Son. And you will have to say, "I was told this, but I didn't want it".

    As long as you are content to live with the consequences, there is no problem here.

    So, enjoy feeling smugly smarter while it lasts.

    Oh, and you do know that the Bible says that arrogant pride -- hubris -- is the fatal sin that blinds our eyes to the truth of God, right?

    This site, like most atheist sites, is a site for atheists to prop themselves up and reinforce their prideful arrogance -- which is warned against in the Bible. As such, this site itself is evidence for the truth of the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Interesting to put these two scientists quotes together:

    "The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of special creation."
    (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)



    "A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."
    (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dear Cornwall Troll: The only thing interesting is the psychology that would make someone reappear on a thread seven months later to engage in the same tactics that failed last time.

    And with respect to your previous comment of November: it's a pity that you have decided to forego learning anything about science, preferring to rely for your opinion on cherry-picked quotes about a subject you admit you do not understand. I also am not a professional scientist; nonetheless I have managed to acquire a basic grasp of evolution -- more than enough to conclude that the creationists are either lying or willfully ignorant. A number of other regular commenters here can say the same.

    I feel sorry for you that you have neglected the opportunity to educate yourself. You're missing a wonderful experience.

    ReplyDelete
  27. It would appear from your comments Eamon that a nerve may just have been touched? Perhaps, (if you haven't already), read John C Lennox, "God's Undertaker. Has Science buried God".... and then tell me, that you're still a rock-solid Atheist. Of course, I except, after reading it you may still be like George Wald the Evolutionary Scientist, (who I respect for his naked honesty, who famously said: "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.) Notice, he did not WANT to believe...for so many it's the same is it not? Best wishes, from the Cornish Troll.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Mark O'Bryne,

    Your supposed quote of George Wald is a complete fabrication. It's part of a quote mining tactic that's been employed by creationists of all kinds for over fifty years.

    It's also called "lying for Jesus."

    A brief search of the internet would have enlightened you but, in order to even think of doing such a search, you have to realize in the first place that no real scientist could ever say what you attribute to George Wald.

    The Dunning-Kruger Effect applies here.

    For those who are interested in truth (i.e. non-creationists), the Wald quote is #57 in the Quote Mine Project on TalkOrigins.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Mark the Cornwall Troll tries and fails to demonstrate his awesome mid-reading powers: It would appear from your comments Eamon that a nerve may just have been touched?

    Only perhaps the irritation that intelligent, honest and informed people (that's me) tend to feel when faced with the obstinate failure of fools and propagandists (that's you and your creationist brethren and mentors) to recognize their folly and mendacity. No doubt that's a character flaw on my part -- but not nearly as serious as the ones you display.

    Look, Mark: leaving aside the scientific issues, your whole mode of argument is a non-starter. Cherry-picked quotes (even when accurate, which yours was not) from supposed authorities simply are not evidence. Even if you can show that Wald, or Sagan, or Einstein or whomever indeed did reject evolution, that only makes me want to understand their reasons. They might be right, or wrong -- but that case has to be made on its merits.

    You, however, have already announced your intention to remain in ignorance of the subject itself, relying instead on the fallacious Argument From Authority (and you can't even do that right!). You silly child: go and educate yourself, and maybe someday you'll be ready to play with the big kids.

    ReplyDelete
  30. To Eamon, Larry and other readers...if I've misquoted Wald, I give you my sincere, full and unreserved apology - but other scientists quoted previously here (saying much the same thing) I believe you'll find are accurate: Harvard Geneticist Richard Lewontin:

    "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door"

    Now, the reason I proffer these and similar quotes is not to try (as Eamon supposes), to submit them as evidence from some form of Creationist perspective - but to demonstrate that there are many scientists (Evolutionary-Atheistic scientists through & through) who are not at all convinced by the constructs from their own camp and are honest enough to admit to having 'a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism'.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Now Eamon, you’re undoubtedly right – I’m an ignorant, unlearned, and to you (a self-professed intelligent man), nothing more than...... how did you articulate it, ‘a silly child’. Keep writing - I love it!

    Now, help me out here ....you know, big Kid educating the silly child ....

    OK, I’ll drop the sarcasm now.

    Seriously Eamon, help me understand something I was reading a few months ago. There’s been much in recent years publicized in regards to the phenomenal fine-tuning of the Universe. And, for life to exist as we know it here on the planet, a rich supply of carbon is required - carbon being formed either by combining 3 helium nuclei, or combining nuclei of helium & beryllium. Sir Fred Hoyle, found for this to occur, the nuclear ground state energy levels have to be fine tuned with respect to each other – the phenomenon called ‘resonance’. Now, I’m sure you will correct me if I’m wrong (no sarcasm intended)– as I understand it, a 1% variation either way would mean that the Universe as we know it would be unable to sustain life?

    Where does this level of fine tuning originate? Is it all pure chance? Fred Hoyle I believe admitted that nothing had shaken his atheism more than this finding. (Although I can’t find a quote to substantiate that). But Hoyle wrote:
    “Would you not say to yourself, Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question”.
    Eamon, do you believe this is just happenstance?

    ReplyDelete
  32. First installment of a comment whose content breaks Blogger's 4K upper limit...

    sez mark o'byrne: "Now, the reason I proffer these and similar quotes is not to try (as Eamon supposes), to submit them as evidence from some form of Creationist perspective - but to demonstrate that there are many scientists (Evolutionary-Atheistic scientists through & through) who are not at all convinced by the constructs from their own camp and are honest enough to admit to having 'a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism'."

    You have, indeed, stated the intended purpose of those see-even-Darwinists-don't-believe-Darwinism quotes like the one you provided. The problem is, those see-even-Darwinists-don't-believe-Darwinism quotes do not accurately represent the views of the people from whose writings they were extracted! It's called 'quote mining', because the process of extracting a deceptively 'pro-Creationism' quote from a science-friendly source is not unlike the process of extracting pure metal from a buried vein of ore.

    If you don't understand just how wrong it is to engage in quote-mining, allow me to illustrate with a sho'-nuff quotation from the King James Bible: "There is no God." What's that you say, Mark--you don't believe the KJV could possibly deny God's existence? Well, it does. And it doesn't just do it once, it does it no less than twelve times, from Deuteronomy 32:39 to Psalms 14:1 to Isaiah 45:21 and then some! Seriously, Mark: How can you believe in God when your own Bible says that you're flat-out wrong to believe in God?

    That was a rhetorical question, of course, but the real answer to said question would be, "Hey, dude, get real; you took that phrase out of its proper context!" For instance, here's the text of Psalms 14:1, with the quote in italics: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." And here's the full text of Deuteronomy 32:39, italics likewise: "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." Pretty damned dishonest to present the KJV quote "there is no God" as if it genuinely were valid evidence that the Bible contradicts one of the fundamental tenets of Christian belief, eh, Mark?

    People like you--the proverbial 'Creationist in the street'--may, perhaps, be forgiven for taking these mined quotes at face value; after all, you're only guilty assuming that a person you trust (namely, the person who provided you with a mined quote) wouldn't actively deceive you. But those Creationists who actually read what scientists have to say, and select with surgical precision just those few words which, when presented in isolation, utterly and totally without their proper context, make the victim of their quote-mining falsely appear to be denouncing evolution? The miners of those quotes are false witnesses, such as God condemns in the Ninth Commandment. They are liars, plain and simple. And given the fact that God has a lake of fire waiting in the afterlife for false witnesses, the miners of those quotes are, exactly and literally, damned liars. Or at least, that's what they are according to the Christian belief system they profess to be adherents of...

    ReplyDelete
  33. Second and last installment of said overly-long comment...

    It's like this, Mark: When you present mined 'anti-evolutionary' quotes as if they're evidence that real scientists really do doubt evolution--for that matter, when you present mined 'anti-evolutionary' quotes as anything at all other than evidence of Creationist deceit--you demonstrate one of two things: Either you are utterly clueless about what the victim of your quote-mining was really trying to say, or else you are a (literally) damned liar. Either way, whether you're an actively deceptive false witness or 'merely' grossly ignorant, your presentation of mined 'anti-evolutionary' quotes demonstrates that nothing you have to say about evolution is worth the electrons it would take to tear apart in a comment to a blogpost. As well, Mark, your use of mined 'anti-evolutionary' quotesdemonstrates that you are either unable or unwilling to check the accuracy of the material you present.

    Let me sum it up for you, Mark: When you present mined 'anti-evolutionary' quotes as if they're evidence that real scientists really do doubt evolution, the most favorable interpretation which can be put on that presentation is that you're extremely ignorant and extremely lazy.

    That is why real scientists dismiss Creationism, Mark. Not because of real scientists' 'atheistic presuppositions', but because of Creationists' massive ignorance, equally massive sloth, and sheer, raw, deceit. And if you Creationists don't like being treated like lazy, ignorant liars, you can damn well stop acting like lazy, ignorant liars.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Greetings Cubist.

    I entirely agree with you. You make, of course, a very valid point - you demonstrate; a text taken from its context becomes a pretext as in the Biblical quote used.

    There is however, a major difference. This was not a 4 word quote or a one-liner wrenched out of the context of the position Lewontin holds. There is no unfair misrepresentation of Lewontin’s position. He set out to clearly establish his position (and that of others) using measured unambiguous language calculated to convey his philosophic stance. ‘Mining’ is entirely unnecessary - the substance lies on the surface in a substantive quote 4000% longer than the example you use. If you and I can’t express, and people are unable to deduce, in 160+ words our meaning in some aspect, then language & dialogue cease to have real meaning. Richard Lewontin makes his position abundantly clear.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Mark O'Byrne offers a quotation from Dick Lewontin and says,

    Now, the reason I proffer these and similar quotes is not to try (as Eamon supposes), to submit them as evidence from some form of Creationist perspective - but to demonstrate that there are many scientists (Evolutionary-Atheistic scientists through & through) who are not at all convinced by the constructs from their own camp and are honest enough to admit to having 'a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism'.

    The quotation he refers to is from a review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. It was published in the New York Times Book Reviews in 1997 [Billions and Billions of Demons].

    Sagan was addressing the issue of public perception of science. As Lewontin writes,

    With great perception, Sagan sees that there is an impediment to the popular credibility of scientific claims about the world, an impediment that is almost invisible to most scientists. Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face.

    If that's the case then why do scientists accept these claims in spite of the fact that they seem silly? It's because, according to Sagan and Lewontin, we value materialist explanations over appeals to demons.

    That's the context of the quotation that Mark posted.

    In a later comment (above) Mark defends his quotation of Lewontin although I suspect he's never read the entire review—that explains why he didn't include the reference.

    What's the point? Lewontin isn't saying anything extremely radical although I, and many others, disagree with his emphasis. Science does reject magic and superstition as the basis of explanations. I think it's because these explanations have a very poor track record in contrast to materialist explanations and not because we arbitrarily adopt an absolute commitment to materialism.

    I still don't get Mark's point. He showed us that he'll believe anything the creationist quote miners produce. That indicates his bias against science. Now he finds a couple of scientists Sagan and Lewontin, who say that superstition has no place in science.

    Does this mean that scientists are as illogical and stupid as creationists? Is that the point?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hi Larry
    Re: George Wald’s comments used. Whilst I used your link (#57 in the Quote Mine Project on TalkOrigins) I also thought I would undertake some further investigations. So far all I’ve found is that there is some dispute over which year and issue is actually being quoted.

    There are times, maybe unwisely, that we trust others’ quotes - interestingly, I notice even Kazmer Ujvarosy the evolutionist in the American Chronicle of March 11, 2009, uses exactly the same quote as I did, as he argues for a 3rd possibility to the origin of life ie ‘life is everlasting, immortal, without origin’.

    It’s not always those accused of ‘quote mining’ who apparently get it wrong. I will continue to ‘dig’ some more (not ‘mine’) – and until I find to the contrary, my unreserved apology still stands!

    http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/94014

    ReplyDelete
  37. sez the cornwall creationist: "This was not a 4 word quote or a one-liner wrenched out of the context of the position Lewontin holds. There is no unfair misrepresentation of Lewontin’s position. He set out to clearly establish his position (and that of others) using measured unambiguous language calculated to convey his philosophic stance. ‘Mining’ is entirely unnecessary - the substance lies on the surface in a substantive quote 4000% longer than the example you use. If you and I can’t express, and people are unable to deduce, in 160+ words our meaning in some aspect, then language & dialogue cease to have real meaning. Richard Lewontin makes his position abundantly clear."
    It's not a question of how many words are involved in the quote-mine. Rather, it's a question of whether or not the quote-mined words, however many or few they happen to be, provide an accurate portrayal of whatever it was that the victim of the quote-mining was really trying to say. It's a question of the content of the original text, and no amount of word-counting will ever get you to that content. Are you seriously arguing that counting the number of words in a quote is, in and of itself, sufficient to refute a charge of quote-mining, Mark? I would hope not, because if so, that argument is so colossally bogus that your use of it would brand you as either a clinical moron, or a victim of exceptionally poor 'education', or a grossly deceitful person, or some combination of the above.
    The first rule of holes is, "when you're in one, stop digging!" I suggest you obey that rule, Mark. I mean... seriously... golly-gee, how could a quotation that's [insert number here] whole words long possibly misrepresent the original author's intent, Mark?
    Stop bearing false witness, Mark. If you are indeed a sincerely believing Christian, you know that God has a lake of fire waiting for false witnesses in the afterlife. If you don't mind burning for all eternity, then hey, have fun -- continue to be just as 'honest' as Creationists, as a group, have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be, and God's got you covered. As well, the Father of Lies will surely appreciate all the deceit you've been committing on his behalf.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I couldn't resist a thought for your day from a Professor of Mathematical Physics:

    “When I began my career as a cosmologist some 20 yrs ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”

    Frank Tipler; Professor of Mathematical Physics, Tipler, F.J. 1994. 'The Physics Of Immortality'. New York, Doubleday,

    ReplyDelete