The quote is an honest evaluation of the impossibility for the eye to evolve. In the rest of the context Darwin indulges in evidence free speculation.
Science Disproves Evolution
- Thread starter Pahu
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The quote is an honest evaluation of the impossibility for the eye to evolve. In the rest of the context Darwin indulges in evidence free speculation.
M
megaman125
Guest
Whenever atheists quote the Bible and Christians say they're quoting it out of context, the atheist just mocks the Christian response and says it's not valid and continues to quote the Bible out of context.
But yet somehow it's valid for evolutionists to accuse Christians of quoting evolutionists out of context, and supposedly it's valid for them but the same thing isn't valid if Christians try to call out people on quote mining. What a nice pretend world the evolutionists live in, where they can have as many self contradictions and double standards as they want and yet they're still somehow right. Well, they're only right in their own little world. For me, I'll choose to stick with reality.
[video=youtube;PK7P7uZFf5o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o[/video]
D
ddallen
Guest
This is gross generalisation.
1: you are still equating someone who accepts evolution as fact with atheism - Not true - most Christians accept evolution as a fact.
2: You are equating a situation where AvolonQX, rightly points out where a particular quote has been taken out of context to a general statement - all atheists quote the bible out of context - show where, I don't think anyone has misquoted the bible anywhere on this thread.
Quote mining is wrong and should not be used in any argument by any side - it should be pointed out at all times to ensure that your argument is valid.
M
megaman125
Guest
No, actually, I didn't do that. I said atheist in one sentence, then evolutionist in the next. Any equating being done is in your own head. I was just pointing out the behavoir of atheists and evolutionists.
And stop spewing that whole "Christians believe evolution" nonsense. Seriously, you bring that up every page in order to tell us that we should blindly conform and accept evolution without question just because some people that call themseleves Christians do. Can I use that same arguement then? There's atheists that don't accept evolution, therefore you shouldn't either.
Go to any atheist website where they talk about the Bible (like evilbible.com), and you'll see them quote mining the Bible.
M
megaman125
Guest
When read in context, Darwin obviously does not believe that it is impossible for the eye to evolve. So to quote half a paragraph out of context to make it sound like he believes that is dishonest.
The fact that some atheists are intellectually dishonest in their treatment of the Bible, doesn't give creationists free reign to be dishonest in their treatment of science.
The tactics are still dishonest, even if you feel others also engage in them - and your willingness to accept them on your side makes your own lack of commitment to honesty very clear.
Tu quoque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I can guarantee that if someone misquoted a creationist, I would be on the side of those looking to correct the dishonesty - just as I am when someone misquotes a scientist or the Bible. It is disappointing neither you nor Pahu will act with that much integrity.
D
ddallen
Guest
M
megaman125
Guest
All you did was just claim and clammour that it's out of context, just like in that video that mocks Christians.
Given how anti-creationist you are, I highly doubt that.
It's been viewed almost 400,000 times and has 13,000 likes vs 300 dislikes.
Maybe you're nonsensical?
You're pretty much the only one, besides Pahu, that's posting on this thread in
opposition to scientific findings. Maybe you're nonsensical?
Last edited:
M
megaman125
Guest
Therefore it's proof the video must be accurate.
Therefore we should just shut up and accept the religious dogma of evolution without question. How dare we ask for scientific evidence for something that claims to be scientific. Clearly we are way out of line and should just blindly conform like everyone who who keeps telling us that these events from "billions of year ago" are absolute unquestionable truth.
And then it's some big mystery to you guys when we want nothing to do with the relgious dogma of evolution. And because it's worth saying again, I'll say it, I can't wait until this garbage is taken out of schools.
M
megaman125
Guest
Pick any one of those passages your atheist hero is quoting in that video which the video maker is mocking how Christians respond to it. Take your pick and see if you can properly explain the passage in context, of course, that would require you to read the Bible, something the quote miners frequently don't do.
Btw Avalon
Are you going to call out your fellow evolutionist on using an ad populum fallacy and back up your claim that you would honestly call out both sides on fallacies, or was that just all talk to puff up yourself? Here's your chance.
No, I actually provided the context - which immediately showed that (like most of the quote mines from Pahu's post) Darwin is saying the opposite of what the out-of-context quote implies he is saying.
And, yes, I am very strongly anti-Creationist because all of the prominent Creationist authors and commentators (and I would wager I've probably read more Creationist literature than most) engage in this sort of dishonesty, which if they are truly following the footsteps of Christ they should abhor and repudiate. When you start deciding it's appropriate to "lie for Jesus," you have already lost.
First of all, I didn't say I was going to start policing all fallacies used by everyone on these threads; that would be a full-time job. I said that if someone misquoted a creationist I would call it out, just as I call out dishonest or out-of-context Bible quotations and scientific quotations.
Second, I disagree that Ichabod is engaged in an ad populum fallacy. An ad populum argument is a claim that a position is correct because a lot of people believe it. Ichabod indicated that the Youtube video had been watched and "liked" by a lot of people in refutation for your claim that the video was nonsensical; the fact that a lot of people have watched a video and presumably understood it well enough to "like" it is a rebuttal to the argument that the video doesn't make sense, which is what you were claiming.
Third, I'm not sure you quite understand the point of the video. As I understand it, the video is addressing the hypocrisy of some Christians who accept Scriptures they like uncritically without concern for the context, and only care about context when they don't like the prima facie message of the Scripture itself. The video is useful to the extent that it reminds us to examine all Scripture with the same level of scrutiny, and also shows how I can differentiate myself from the methods attacked in this video by providing context and thorough study to every position I take about what God says.
M
megaman125
Guest
So instead of questioning evolution and pointing out the flaws, we should join your side to fight against the Christians then? Brilliant. And quoting evolutionists isn't "lying for Jesus" no matter how much you want to dishonestly spin it that way.
Ah, so you're going to pick and choose which logical fallacies committed by your fellow evolutionists that you're going to call them out on, while touting about how honest and unbiased you are. Yeah, ok.
This is laughably foolish. "An ad populum argument is a claim that a position is correct because a lot of people believe it." And that's exactly what Ichabod did, but of course you would support him, because you're quick to cling to anything that opposes Christians.
The point of the video was to mock and misrepresent Christianity. Not too surprising to me that you would support it.
D
danschance
Guest
Actually, that video is just an attack on the bible and Christianity and those who post it on this site should be banned. The video posts things which no christian acknowledges. The Mosaic laws were fulfilled by Christ 2000 years ago and Christians do not follow the mosaic laws. Even Jews today do not follow the things posted in that video.
It is the same as making fun of English by making a video of the rule of thumb. A man could legally beat his with with a stick if it was no larger than the diameter of his thumb. Or making fun of Hammurabi by saying it is OK to pluck a man's eye out if he caused another man's eye to go blind. Or Make fun of modern day Americans because they at one time tied women to a chair and cast it into water to see if it would float and prove that she is a witch.
So as you can see that video is just another hair brained hit job on Christianity. It is nothing more than myopic contempt with as much intellectualism as a sophomoric hazing of a pleb. Not to mention that video also contains several straw men.
I am going to hit the report button on the person who posted it and let the mods do their job.
No, it's not. Ichabod appealed to the video's popularity to refute the claim that it was nonsensical, not to prove that the claims of the video were accurate. That's not an ad populum fallacy; it is a correct appeal to evidence that is relevant in refuting a claim. The popularity of a position is not evidence that it is true, but it may very well be evidence that it is comprehensible.
That's actually an urban legend; the best-accepted etymology for the "rule of thumb" is just getting a rough measurement of something using your thumb rather than getting an exact measurement. Which is why "rule of thumb" now means "a quick, simple method that may not apply in all cases but is a good first try."