Changes

Moving on, though, the analysis of the quotes has no context.  The quoter takes "falls notably short of explaining the origin of species," out of context, so I have no way of verifying the quote short of buying the book, which I assume you haven't done.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 09:59, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Moving on, though, the analysis of the quotes has no context.  The quoter takes "falls notably short of explaining the origin of species," out of context, so I have no way of verifying the quote short of buying the book, which I assume you haven't done.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 09:59, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

: The source is a book review of a book that is by someone who is apparently an agnostic, and certainly not someone who works for CMI (Creation Ministries International).  You're shooting the messenger.  Second, CMI (the organisation; you named the web-site) does not profess to be a scientific group.  They profess to be a Christian ministry that employs scientists and does its best to make its articles, etc. scientifically accurate.  Yes, they have an agenda, just as almost everyone does, including atheists like Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott.  But that doesn't mean that their science is faulty, nor that they have ceased to be scientists.  Rather, you are engaging in the [[genetic fallacy]]: finding fault with the source rather than the argument.  As for your quote, it doesn't refute anything I've said, but it's an interesting coincidence that the very person that you've been accused of being a sockpuppet of quoted me that book a few days ago.  But as you're repeating, I'll repeat:  Questioning the source of a claim rather than the claim itself is fallacious.  It is clear that most mainstream journals also have agendas (for evolution, etc.), so do you distrust them also?  I didn't think so.  The fallacy of taking a quote out of context is one of removing it from its context ''in such a way as to change the meaning''.  As you have not read the book, you have no basis for claiming that it is out of context.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:27, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

: The source is a book review of a book that is by someone who is apparently an agnostic, and certainly not someone who works for CMI (Creation Ministries International).  You're shooting the messenger.  Second, CMI (the organisation; you named the web-site) does not profess to be a scientific group.  They profess to be a Christian ministry that employs scientists and does its best to make its articles, etc. scientifically accurate.  Yes, they have an agenda, just as almost everyone does, including atheists like Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott.  But that doesn't mean that their science is faulty, nor that they have ceased to be scientists.  Rather, you are engaging in the [[genetic fallacy]]: finding fault with the source rather than the argument.  As for your quote, it doesn't refute anything I've said, but it's an interesting coincidence that the very person that you've been accused of being a sockpuppet of quoted me that book a few days ago.  But as you're repeating, I'll repeat:  Questioning the source of a claim rather than the claim itself is fallacious.  It is clear that most mainstream journals also have agendas (for evolution, etc.), so do you distrust them also?  I didn't think so.  The fallacy of taking a quote out of context is one of removing it from its context ''in such a way as to change the meaning''.  As you have not read the book, you have no basis for claiming that it is out of context.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:27, 13 March 2008 (EDT)