Missing
February 28, 2005 | 15 Comments
At four a.m. on 80 East
It’s in the nature of the beast
To wonder if there’s something missing
Richard Shindell, Next Best Western
February 28, 2005 | 15 Comments
At four a.m. on 80 East
It’s in the nature of the beast
To wonder if there’s something missing
Richard Shindell, Next Best Western
March 9th, 2005 @ 5:40 pm
Constant Contradictions
“…those trying to discover the origins of life and study the earliest
stages of biological evolution have an uphill quest: Over and over it
happens that a theory or explanation believed to be well established has to
be abandoned or rethought in the light of new findings” (Antonio Lazcano,
professor, National Autonomous University of Mexico and president of the
International Society for the Study of the Origins of Life, “The
Never-Ending Story,” American Scientist vol. 91, no. 5, 2003).
March 9th, 2005 @ 6:57 pm
Yup. That’s a pretty accurate description of how science works, and why science is not a religion. Still no reason to jump to theism.
March 9th, 2005 @ 11:23 pm
JOANIE!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE BACK!!!!!
missed you, buddy…..
by the way, i still say that you are nuts…….
March 10th, 2005 @ 11:22 am
Curious. Here’s another quote from A. Lazcano:
“There is convincing paleontological evidence showing that stromatolite-building phototactic prokaryotes were already in existence 3.5 x 10(9) years ago. Late accretion impacts may have killed off life on our planet as late as 3.8 x 10(9) years ago. This leaves only 300 million years to go from the prebiotic soup to the RNA world and to cyanobacteria. However, 300 million years should be more than sufficient time. All known prebiotic reactions take place in geologically rapid time scales, and very slow prebiotic reactions are not feasible because the intermediate compounds would have been destroyed due to the passage of the entire ocean through deep-sea vents every 10(7) years or in even less time.”
So if you’re looking to Lazcano for help in defending anti-evolution viewpoints, you’re deluding yourself.
March 10th, 2005 @ 11:53 am
Erik:So if you’re looking to Lazcano for help in defending anti-evolution viewpoints, you’re deluding yourself.
What, a creationist is quote mining? Say it ain’t so!
March 10th, 2005 @ 2:44 pm
schemanista — just curious, why is it when a Christian quotes a source in support of an argument you dismiss it as “quote mining” but when an atheist does it you consider it source documentation?
March 10th, 2005 @ 3:20 pm
What is Joanie’s argument here exactly?
Does anyone know? It isn’t very clear.
Maybe she’s just mining quotes.
Oh well.
March 10th, 2005 @ 3:34 pm
From Talk.Origins, a definition of quote mining:
“It is the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, “which superficially appears to support one’s position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored” [3].”
March 10th, 2005 @ 3:34 pm
Link didn’t show for some reason… here it is:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
March 10th, 2005 @ 3:45 pm
So “quote mining” is using quotes out of context. Okay.
March 10th, 2005 @ 3:49 pm
Frank,
It’s quote mining when the quote is given and deliberately omits something, where the omission changes the meaning considerably. In this instance, I’m not sure Joanie was quote mining, but the Lazcano quote could have been presented with the intent to give the impression that biologists themselves think that the study of abiogenesis is a hopeless task, when in fact Lazcano obviously supports the idea. If an atheist were to do this with, say, a Biblical passage, it should in fairness be pointed out. The problem with quite a few creationists is that they continue to misquote even after it is pointed out to them.
March 10th, 2005 @ 4:02 pm
As Erik said, not necessarily just out of context, but also used in a way to make it seem as if the source of the citation supports the argument of the quoter, when in fact the opposite is the case. So, by omitting the context of Lazcano’s remarks, Joanie makes it seem that, as Erik said, he supports the notion that abiogenesis is a useless idea. But, as Erik’s citation shows, the opposite is true. Now, if someone were to post the context of Erik’s citation and show that it actually does not support abiogenesis, then Erik would have been quote mining. But somehow I doubt that will happen.
March 10th, 2005 @ 4:13 pm
Erik — Thanks for elaborating. I’m certainly familiar with the concept of distorting facts and quotes in order to present them as supporting one’s position, I’d just never heard the term “quote mining” until I started visiting RA.
Proper context is, of course, essential in the honest study of anything. I find it amazing that people who have argued a certain point of view, when presented with a proper context to refute their claims, continue to argue their point of view in spite of what they’ve learned.
March 10th, 2005 @ 5:14 pm
Hey!!!!!Eva I still love you too.
March 11th, 2005 @ 11:15 am
Frank,
The admonishment is well-taken. Perhaps from your point of view, the use of Biblical quotes that are brought up from time to time by critics of religion is quote-mining. In the context of the Bible, there are often myriad interpretations of a passage or a story, and indeed, trying to grasp the context itself can be a frustrating task. It is unfortunate that so much written material has not survived.