Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [creation_evolution_debate] The 1 Corinthians 15 Example (once again)

Expand Messages
  • Mark L. Bakke
    ... BAKKE Applebot claimed to be very willing to have me post the example once again. After I did so, he has not had a single word to say about it. I think
    Message 1 of 26 , Nov 30, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      >> BAKKE
      >> PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION:
      >> Did Mark Bakke's example misquote of 1 Corinthians 15 and subsequent
      >> bogus defense provide an accurate example of the sort of misquoting
      >> and dishonesty that Laurie Appleton has been accused of and that he
      >> has repeatedly denied?
      >> -----end-----
      >
      > Leon: Yes, and it was excellently done, Bakke! I would only add that
      > a good part of the "Applebot's" chagrin at your exposure of his
      > misquoting technique flows from the fact that he derives his
      > misquotes NOT from an actual reading of the original authors, BUT by
      > way of having used SECONDARY sources, namely OTHER CREATIONISTS, to
      > get his quotations! This is easily inferred from the "Applebot's"
      > abysmal ignorance of evolutionary biology! Had he ACTUALLY read the
      > authors he is so fond of quoting OUT-OF-CONTEXT, he could not escape
      > being MUCH LESS ignorant of evolutionary biology, as he clearly
      > reveals himself to be WHENEVER he relies on his OWN words and
      > thinking (a VERY rare thing with the "Applebot")!

      BAKKE
      Applebot claimed to be very willing to have me post the example once
      again. After I did so, he has not had a single word to say about it. I
      think his silence says quite a bit.
    • Leon Albert, Prof. of Anthropology, ret.
      ... From: tinroad66 To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 5:02 AM Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: The 1
      Message 2 of 26 , Dec 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: tinroad66
        Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 5:02 AM
        Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: The 1 Corinthians 15 Example (once again)


        --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Mark L. Bakke"
        <mlbakke1@b...> wrote:
        >  > Randy
        > > I believe Laurie has missed one valid defense of his position. 
        In
        > > most if not all cases, Laurie has never read the original of the
        > > passages that he quotes.  He is simply cutting and pasting from
        > > secondary sources. 

        Tin:  Not a valid defense.  It is the ethical obligation of the
        person posting the quotes to do so in way that faithfully represents
        the intent of the author.

           Simpleton isn't slowed in the least by little issues like ethics.



        He isn't responsible for mangling the quotes
        > > because someone else did it for him.  I believe he could validly
        > > make the case that he is not being dishonest, he's just being
        stupid.
        >
        > BAKKE
        > Actually, Applebot normally claims that he *does* own the books
        from
        > which he posts his regurgiquotes.  This claim has been proven false
        on
        > many occasions.  He also claims to scan these passages from books
        > borrowed from a local library.  This has also been proven false
        after
        > going to that library's web site and discovering that they don't
        carry
        > some of the books that Applebot has claimed to have borrowed from
        them.
        > Applebot seems to adore being stupid and certainly doesn't care
        about
        > being dishonest.

        Tin:  Right, but is he MORE stupid or MORE dishonest ? Now there's a
        stumper.

        Leon: I'd opt for "MORE stupid." He's too stupid to even recognize his own dishonesty, and to value honesty. He's quite evidently too stupid to even learn what evolution is, let alone science. And, he's also quite evidently too stupid to comprehend his OWN second-hand regurgiquotes, let alone respond to rebuttals of them. His stupidity becomes especially obvious, along with his ignorance, when he tries to express himself in his OWN words. I very strongly suspect that even HE is unconsciously aware of this, and this is WHY he restricts himself almost totally to his second-hand regurgiquoting. He's not SO stupid as to be TOTALLY unaware of his own stupidity and ignorance. His "dishonesty" is just a natural outgrowth of them, as much as it is also inherent in his mode of religious "thinking" as well.
      • Leon Albert, Prof. of Anthropology, ret.
        ... From: Mark L. Bakke To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 8:38 PM Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] The 1
        Message 3 of 26 , Dec 10, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 8:38 PM
          Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] The 1 Corinthians 15 Example (once again)

          >> BAKKE
          >>     PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION:
          >>     Did Mark Bakke's example misquote of 1 Corinthians 15 and subsequent
          >>     bogus defense provide an accurate example of the sort of misquoting
          >>     and dishonesty that Laurie Appleton has been accused of and that he
          >>     has repeatedly denied?
          >>     -----end-----
          >
          >     Leon: Yes, and it was excellently done, Bakke! I would only add that
          >     a good part of the "Applebot's" chagrin at your exposure of his
          >     misquoting technique flows from the fact that he derives his
          >     misquotes NOT from an actual reading of the original authors, BUT by
          >     way of having used SECONDARY sources, namely OTHER CREATIONISTS, to
          >     get his quotations! This is easily inferred from the "Applebot's"
          >     abysmal ignorance of evolutionary biology! Had he ACTUALLY read the
          >     authors he is so fond of quoting OUT-OF-CONTEXT, he could not escape
          >     being MUCH LESS ignorant of evolutionary biology, as he clearly
          >     reveals himself to be WHENEVER he relies on his OWN words and
          >     thinking (a VERY rare thing with the "Applebot")!

          BAKKE
          Applebot claimed to be very willing to have me post the example once
          again.  After I did so, he has not had a single word to say about it.  I
          think his silence says quite a bit.
          Leon: He is also invariably silent with respect any actual DISCUSSION of the material in the quotations that he cites. This obviously flows from his total lack of comprehension of that material. Evidently, ALL that he knows is that the passages have been used by OTHER anti-evolutionists in their polemics against evolution. He couldn't care less about actually comprehending the material. Poor stupid ignorant Laurie.
        • Mark L. Bakke
          ... BAKKE Not only that, but, despite his claims that he draws his regurgiquotes directly from original sources and that he owns many of those books, he has
          Message 4 of 26 , Dec 10, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            > BAKKE
            > Applebot claimed to be very willing to have me post the example once
            > again. After I did so, he has not had a single word to say about
            > it. I think his silence says quite a bit.
            >
            > Leon: He is also invariably silent with respect any actual
            > DISCUSSION of the material in the quotations that he cites. This
            > obviously flows from his total lack of comprehension of that
            > material. Evidently, ALL that he knows is that the passages have
            > been used by OTHER anti-evolutionists in their polemics against
            > evolution. He couldn't care less about actually comprehending the
            > material. Poor stupid ignorant Laurie.

            BAKKE
            Not only that, but, despite his claims that he draws his regurgiquotes
            directly from original sources and that he owns many of those books, he
            has never once been able to quote any material from any of those books
            other than what is in his regurgiquote collection.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.