100
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 131:
Line 131: + + +
→Not How the Term is Used
::::: Yes it is. Why else would evolutionists bother to objecting to being quoted if those quotes are used in an accurate and informative way? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 10:02, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
::::: Yes it is. Why else would evolutionists bother to objecting to being quoted if those quotes are used in an accurate and informative way? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 10:02, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Because they don't like that their statements can be used to support creationism. Although I've never been totally comfortable with Andy's version of this article, on that particular point I will agree with him, as I've often seen it myself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Because they don't like that their statements can be used to support creationism. Although I've never been totally comfortable with Andy's version of this article, on that particular point I will agree with him, as I've often seen it myself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Well that's... completely reasonable. If you don't support something yet someone uses your words in a way that contradicts that sentiment, would you not be a little annoyed? Indeed, I have witnessed (for I used to be active in the evolution/creationism debate before I realized that God must have been displeased with such a waste of energy) evolutionists cry foul when they are found to have said something that is legitimately contradictory, yet to say that this is the underlying impetus behind the terms origins and its current use is sillier than most 9/11 conspiracy theories and assumes much bad faith on your part.
Indeed, would you like me to actually /ask/ a published evolutionary scientist (any field, I care not) why they are against quote mining? I guarantee you it will be because they find the practice deceitful and misleading.