Please provide evolutionist misquotes of creationists!

In "What is Creation Science?", by Henry Morris and Gary Parker, we can read the following:

quote:

---

Question: "Isn't it unethical for creationists, in order to support their arguments, to quote evolutionists out of context?"

​

Answer: [...]With only rare exceptions, however, creationists always are meticulously careful to quote accurately and in context. Evolutionists have apparently searched creationist writings looking for such exceptions and, out of hundreds or thousands of quotes which have been used, have been able to find only two or three which they have been able to interpret as misleading. Even these, if carefully studied, in full light of their own contexts, will be found to be quite fair and accurate in their representation of the situation under discussion. On the other hand, evolutionists frequently quote creationist writings badly out of context. [...]In any case, evolutionists much more frequently and more flagrantly quote creationists out of context than creationists do evolutionists.

---

In one of my [...]'s, Morris/Parker handwave a couple of examples of the "types" of misquotes that supposedly appear "frequently" in anti-creationist writings - but give no specific citations.I know of too many creationist misquotes already - ironically, more than a few from Morris and Parker themselves, even more ironically, in the same book as the above quote - but don't recall ever having a specific discussion of any single "flagrant" misquote by an anti-creationist writer.So...anyone know of any? Have any creationists made a point of documenting these "frequent" and "flagrant" misquotes and out-of-context quotes?I don't much care about random internet posters who misquote. Off-the-cuff misquotes by the general public aren't interesting from either side. I mean the evolutionary analogs of Morris and Parker and Gish, et al. You know: Dawkins? Gould? Eldridge? Futuyama? Ruse? People who make it a point to write books about evolution and/or against creationism; people who are recognized leaders or experts among mainstream science folks. Heck, I'll even be interested in Talk Origins articles (note, NOT Talk Origins posts).C'mon creationists, "Bring 'em on". I know there must be something out there, and if they are "frequent" and "flagrant" as Morris and Parker claim, they should be pretty easy to find.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 09-22-2003]

lol, Morris and Parker were really shooting blanks with that book. I am emberrassed (despite my agnosticism on the subject of the AOE) at the still messed-up status of current YECist research. What is "Creation science" they ask? Is there even a straight-forward answer in it? Explanation seemed pretty ambiguous to me. I felt as if I were raped of my dignity after reading the section on geology.In spite of the scientific incompetance exemplified by the Morris and Parker book, I can recall at least one out of context quote in Joseph Meerts 'Depths of the Oceans' article:THE DEPTHS OF THE OCEANSIn it he asserts:

quote:

---

The bottom figure comes close to approximating today's sea level profile, but the result is only a mathematical trick⁹.

---

Where the figure he refers to illustrates predicted seafloor topography from a, "flood model generated by increasing diffusivity by a factor of 10⁵." The out-of-context quote is in his note #9 where he states:

quote:

---

Thermal diffusivity is related to how far/fast heat is transported. Extreme values of diffusion required to generate the thermal profile shown in Figure 3 indicate that convection is vigorous and therefore the conduction equations are no longer valid. In essence, the equations will give an answer that is physically impossible. In fact, Baumgardner in defending his model on another attack, Baumgardner admits:

​

quote:

---

Baumgardner: If these critics had read my papers carefully, they would have learned that a low thermal diffusivity actually aids the runaway mechanism. Whether or not the runaway occurs at all depends on a competition between heat production due to deformation and heat loss due to thermal diffusion. Low, rather than high, thermal diffusivity assists this process"

---

---

--The problem is that Baumgardner was not refering to the heat transfer and the systematic cooling of the oceanic lithosphere, but was refering to the thermal diffusivity of mantle rock. Thermal diffusivity is a material property and as far as I know, I don't believe Baumgardner has raised it to a significantly unreasonable value. Heat transfer and the cooling of the oceanic lithosphere is not postulated to have been cooled conductively (thermal diffusivity is only directly relevant in conductive heat-transfer equations) but from by hydrothermal circulation. I would explain further, but I think that is adequate for pointing out the quote.I havent spoken to Joseph Meert about this at all, and i'm not saying this is sloppy science by him either; the quote is just meaningless in regards to the significance Meert assigns to it in his note.--If I am wrong on this, please give your input.[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-22-2003]

I don't want this topic to get lost right away before more people get a chance to see it, so I'm bumping it.And thanks TC for your reply!

Hi Zhimbo!I think you need examples of the types of misquotes you're looking for. This link has been posted here before, and of course the quotes are fabricated, but I think it gives good flavor for what you likely have in mind: --Percy

OK, one more bump, for all to see...