Re: Two connected evidences
- Hi Daniel,
You wrote, "I'm...eager to hear about the inaccuracies."
Creationists have established a well-known history of their nefarious ways, giving themselves their well-deserved reputation of scientific illiteracy; willingness - no, *eagerness* - to make things up, based on ignorance, and promote them as fact; and defiance against the correction of error (i.e., dishonesty). The misrepresentation of out-of-context quotes is merely one example of of this kind of behavior, and this kind of dishonest quote-mining is standard fare with creationist rhetoric.
Here are a few examples...
Famous Creationist Quote Mining
The Quote Mine Project - Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines
Cretinism or Evilution? No. 3 - The Revised Quote Book
Quotations and Misquotations
Creationist Arguments: Misquotes
Missing Supernova Remnants as Evidence of a Young Universe? - A Case of Fabrication
A Creationist Blog Quote Mines Peer Reviewed Research about Protein Evolution
Good grief, but I despise the Discovery Institute
The creationist quote-mining reflex
Von Neumann, Berlinski, and evolution: Who's the hooter?
Two Things that Don't Go Together: Michael Egnor and Intellectual Integrity
Dr. Michael Egnor: Neurosurgeon, Stony Brook Faculty, and all around Dishonest Twit
A new (mis)take on an old paper
On (very) rare occasions young earth creationists will actually acknowledge and correct (only the most excruciatingly obvious) errors. But, more often than not, the way this happens is that the young earth creationist does not openly and explicitly correct the error (which would be instructive to those who pay any attention to him, by letting them know that the claim/argument he has made is wrong, and he has admitted it's wrong) but merely becomes silent about it (or if it's in writing, say, on a web page, it just *quietly* gets edited out and disappears from the web page). Two specific examples of this I'm familiar with (personal history) is when Apologetics Press quietly deleted their moon dust argument for the moon being young, and their promotion of the "fishing reel in stone" hoax.
- Todd Greene
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "bucksburg" <bucksburg@...> wrote:
> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@ wrote:
> > I guess you've never heard of:
> > Laurie Appleton
> > Michael Tong
> > Dan Carlton
> You are right, I'm not familiar with any of these names. But that's not the point. The point is that I asked Rick/Ray if he had confronted the errant publishers with this information. I'm waiting for an answer tho that question.
> > There is also the "Revised Quote Book" which is well known to contain dozens of out-of-context quotes that have been used by YEC for decades.<
> Well, I'm here, eager to hear about the inaccuracies. Especially I'd like to see the conversations with the YEC authors who refused to retract them.
> Daniel Buck
- Hey, Todd, I was hoping you would drop by! Now that I have
a decent internet connection I see you've been busy elsewhere.
(I hope you like my dog.)
> Well, to be honest, he's fighting a lost battle.Well, yeah, but in that context I wasn't speaking strictly of
> Lost over two hundred years ago. ;-)
geology... I was thinking more along the lines of Acts 5:39.
Are you familiar with the book I linked in that last message?
Title: History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
Author: Andrew Dickson White
There's some pretty good stuff in it, including a chapter on
astronomy. As I understand it, White's method of "conflict
thesis" is rather outdated in terms of historiography -- but
then again, so is creationism itself. It's pretty amazing to
see all these same excuses from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries
still parading around the internet as modern creation science.
Here's something from Chapter 7, about archaeology:
| In the last years of the sixteenth century Michael Mercati
| tried to prove that the "thunder-stones" were weapons or
| implements of early races of men; but from some cause his
| book was not published until the following century, when
| other thinkers had begun to take up the same idea, and
| then it had to contend with a theory far more accordant
| with theologic modes of reasoning in science. This was
| the theory of the learned Tollius, who in 1649 told the
| world that these chipped or smoothed stones were
| "generated in the sky by a fulgurous exhalation conglobed
| in a cloud by the circumposed humour."
| But about the beginning of the eighteenth century a fact
| of great importance was quietly established. In the year
| 1715 a large pointed weapon of black flint was found in
| contact with the bones of an elephant, in a gravel bed near
| Gray's Inn Lane, in London. The world in general paid no
| heed to this: if the attention of theologians was called
| to it, they dismissed it summarily with a reference to the
| Deluge of Noah; but the specimen was labelled, the
| circumstances regarding it were recorded, and both specimen
| and record carefully preserved.
Uh oh. I can see where *this* is going...
"Conglobed in a cloud by the circumposed humour" is pretty
humorous in itself!
And this book was published in 1896 -- the year radioactivity
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism