nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 268:
Line 268: + + + + + + +
→Quote Mining: Quotes are correct.
A review by Gert Korthof </i>[http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm]</ref>.
A review by Gert Korthof </i>[http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm]</ref>.
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
:He does not define "unprejudiced" as "someone who's never heard of evolution and the science behind it" (although I might agree that someone who ''has'' heard of it is therefore "prejudiced" :-) ). "unprejudiced" is a synonym for "unbiased". He is simply saying that if we look at the ''evidence'', without imposing personal views (such as evolution) on the evidence, the ''evidence'' favours special creation. He doesn't pose a hypothetical question; he makes a point about how an unbiased person would see the evidence, and that evolutionists need to have answers to such objections, but that actually answering such objections will prove difficult (i.e. implying that there is no good answer). In summary, the quote is not out of context at all, but accurately conveys the point he is making.
:I don't believe that he is saying that tropical plants do provide support. Rather, he seems to be saying that temperate plants do ''not'' provide support, and evolutionists should therefore look to tropical plants in the hope of finding support there.
:Mark Ridley has not been misquoted, despite the desperate attempts of anticreationists who seemingly can't understand what they are reading. Talk.Origins' extended quote shows that Ridley is an evolutionist who believes that evidence for evolution exists, but who admits that such evidence does not come from the fossil record. [[Young Earth Creationism|This article]] quotes the part about the fossil record not providing evidence, and in doing so is not misquoting nor quoting out of context.
:In fact, this is a classic example of why I give anti-creationist claims of creationists quoting out of context no credibility.
:There have been previous claims of Denton changing his mind, which he subsequently denied, so I'd be a bit wary on this one. And the linked article (review) indicates that it is the reviewer who thinks that Denton changed his mind, not an admission of such by Denton himself. Also, I've always understood Denton to be an evolutionist who was game enough to admit that the evidence wasn't there to support evolution. If he has now found what he considers to be sufficient evidence, that doesn't mean that he is "now an evolutionist" in the sense of having just become one.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:08, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
==Conflict of Interest?==
==Conflict of Interest?==