RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: AFDave Rebuts Bogus Quote Mine Charges, Is Deadman out of ideas for refuting me?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,02:46   

DEADMAN HAS RECENTLY BEGUN ACCUSING ME OF QUOTE MINING ... OK, LET'S SEE ABOUT THAT.

My theory is that he has been so thoroughly refuted that he is resorting to unethical techniques to try to discredit me.  It is also significant to note that Deadman is one of the leading rule breakers of at least the following two ATBC Board rules ...    
Quote
* No obscenity or foul language. There is no need to express a message in vulgar language.
* Messages which insult or attack an individual are not appropriate. As those messages should be regarded as inappropriate, it is also inappropriate to follow up such a message with a reply. Use email for such correspondence, or to register a complaint with the moderator(s).
After months of getting away with this, Deadman was finally stopped by the moderator.  One has to ask the question, "Why does Deadman feel compelled to use insults and attacks?"  Are the "facts" of Evolution not powerful enough by themselves to refute Creationism?

After reading the following, one can only conclude that Deadman's definition of "quote mining" must be ...

"Any quote used by a Creationist."

Deadman ...    
Quote
Stupid cited this:
“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student have now been ‘debunked.’” Ager, D. V., “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2 (1976), pp. 131-159. Presidential Address, March 5, 1976.

The correct citation is Derek V. Ager. 1976. The nature of the fossil record. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 87:131-160.

This and the other factors mentioned here shows that you didn't READ that paper, you just copied it verbatim from some creationist website ..as it was quote-mined by Gish, originally.

the complete sentence reads: "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been debunked,"

Your quote makes it sound like evolution wholesale has been debunked...further , when the terms for the organisms are removed, it sounds far worse. IN short, you quote-mined.  Ager was only talking about the evolution of Ostraea, which is an oyster-like bivalve mollusc, from Gryphaea, another bivalve, and saying that previous interpretations of their relationship have been mistaken. This in no way indicts all of evolution, but it does show quote-mining and how it is perpetuated by shiteheads like AFarceDave.

In the context in which I gave the quote, there is no difference in meaning if the middle clause is removed (hence no quote mine), especially considering ALL the quotes in the same article as follows ...        
Quote

Ager, D. V., “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2 (1976), pp. 131-159. Presidential Address, March 5, 1976. (Derek Ager was a president of the British Geological Association)
p. 132
“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student ... have now been ‘debunked.’”
p. 132
“We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation.”
p. 133
“The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”

As I explained before, I have discovered that when I copy a quote from a CD source and place it into Notepad before posting (how I do most of my posts), Notepad strangely removes elipses (...).  There is an elipsis in my source where this middle clause is.  You can see that Notepad did this by noting that there are two spaces between "student" and "have now been debunked" in my original quote.  Notepad inserted a space for an elipsis. I have manually reinserted the elipsis above.

Furthermore, infidels.org makes a false statement regarding this supposed quote mine here ...          
Quote

Ager was only talking about the evolution of Ostraea, which is oyster-like bivalve molluscs, from Gryphaea, another bivalve, and saying that previous interpretations of their relationship have been mistaken.
http://www.infidels.org/library....n2.html

No, he was not.  He was referring to evolution stories which have now been debunked, from from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei.  This is quite clear from the 4 Ager quotes I gave.  Then there is another quote from Ager which confirms it even more.

       
Quote
 
"One thing which has struck me very forcibly through they years is that most of the classic evolutionary lineages of my student days, such as Ostrea-Gryphaea and Zaphrentis delanouei, have long since lost their scientific respectability, and in spite of the plethora of palaeontological information we now have available, there seems to be very little to put in their place. In twenty years’ work on the Mesozoic Brachiopoda, I have found plenty of relationships, but few if any evolving lineages." (Ager, D., The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, 1981, p. 20)


Now I am completely mystified as to how Russell or Deadman or anybody else can pretend that Derek Ager believes that the fossil record supports the notion of gradual evolution when he makes multiple clear statements like this ...

“The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”

How much more clear can you get, guys?  Can you explain how this is not clear to you?

This quote, with or without the middle clause, and the other quotes given with it overwhelmingly support my contention that the fossil record DOES NOT support the notion of gradual evolution.  NO QUOTE MINE.

******************************************************

Deadman...      
Quote
For instance, you quote-mined the Encyclopedia Britannica to shore up your weak claims on "Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish" see: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=20346

Your "explanation" was this:     Quote  
Faid- The quote I used from EB has the same meaning whether you include the context or not. This is not a dishonest quote mine. Let me say this about the Portuguese thing and many similar items ... You scientists are so detail oriented (a good thing in many contexts) that you sometimes get hung up on my generalizations. Saying that 'Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish' is a GENERALIZATION, like 'The sky is blue' or 'the grass is green.' You could legitimately argue that those two statements are not accurate, but who would be so obnoxious as to do so?

No quote mine.  Here is the full quote and it supports my point the same with or without the context ...      
Quote
Portuguese  Português.   Romance language spoken in Portugal, Brazil, and Portuguese colonial and formerly colonial territories. Galician, spoken in northwestern Spain, is a dialect of Portuguese. Written materials in Portuguese date from a property agreement of the late 12th century, and literary works appeared in the 13th and 14th centuries.
Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon. Dialectal variation within the country is not great, but Brazilian Portuguese varies from European Portuguese in several respects, including several sound changes and some differences in verb conjugation and syntax; for example, object pronouns occur before the verb in Brazilian Portuguese, as in Spanish, but after the verb in standard Portuguese. The four major dialect groups of Portuguese are Northern Portuguese, or Galician, Central Portuguese, Southern Portuguese (including the dialect of Lisbon), and Insular Portuguese (including Brazilian and Madeiran). Portuguese is often mutually intelligible with Spanish despite differences in phonology, grammar, and vocabulary.
Portuguese language. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 17, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9061011

This was originally posted as part of an essay supporting my statement that "Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French."  I made a casual reference to this fact and was immediately attacked with a vicious ad hominem.  So I responded with my essay and made an irrefutable case.  Anyone wishing to see the entire essay, send me a PM or click here http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....st=1050

As anyone can see, the context does nothing to change the meaning of the part in bold, which is what I originally quoted.

NO QUOTE MINE.

***********************************************************************
     
Quote
Another example of your use of quote-mining can be seen here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27081 http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27270  Where you used a faked quote by R.H. Rastall to claim that geologists were "arguing in a circle"  This is the quote you used, Liar:
“It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain”
The FULL citation is found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part5.html and includes these words: " ."Nevertheless the arguments are perfectly conclusive. This apparent paradox will disappear in the light of a little further consideration, when the necessary limitations have been introduced..."

Wanna quote the whole thing, huh?  OK let's ...      
Quote

[The Law of Organic Evolution.]

The second great law is that organisms, regarded from the broadest biological standpoint, have developed throughout the history of the world in a certain definite order of progression from the less organized to the more organized types, from lower to higher forms of life. This of course is a mere bald statement of the general principle of evolution. From it follows the great generalization first stated by William Smith, that the ages of strata can be determined by means of their included fossils. [2]

It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.

Nevertheless the arguments are perfectly conclusive. (Emphasis added) This apparent paradox will disappear in the light of a little further consideration, when the necessary limitations have been introduced. The true solution of the problem lies in the combination of the two laws above stated, taking into account the actual spatial distribution of the fossil remains, which is not haphazard, but controlled by definite laws. It is possible to a very large extent to determine the order of superposition and succession of the strata without any reference at all to their fossils. When the fossils in their turn are correlated with this succession they are found to occur in a certain definite order, and no other. Consequently, when the purely physical evidence of superposition cannot be applied, as for example to the strata of two widely separated regions, it is safe to take the fossils as a guide; this follows from the fact that when both kinds of evidence are available there is never any contradiction between them; consequently, in the limited number of cases where only one line of evidence is available, it alone may be taken as proof.

Taking all these facts into consideration, then, it has been found possible to construct a history of the earth, at any rate from the times when conditions became comparable with what they are now. ...
So what the author is saying is "I know we are arguing in a circle, but it's OK.  Trust me.  It's really OK." He goes on ...      
Quote
It is possible to a very large extent to determine the order of superposition and succession of the strata without any reference at all to their fossils.
Mmmm hmmm ... by radiometric "dating" of layers which contain volcanic ash.  But don't forget to tell them that the "dating" is "calibrated" by fossils, such as in the case at Koobi Fora where the initial date of 230 million years was "calibrated" down to 2.6 million years because of mammal fossils.  See the full story here which summarizes the various reports found in Science.http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp

   
Quote
When the fossils in their turn are correlated with this succession they are found to occur in a certain definite order, and no other.
Oh really?  How come "out of order" fossils are the rule, not the exception?
   
Quote
this follows from the fact that when both kinds of evidence are available there is never any contradiction between them;
Of course there is no contradiction when you operate like they did at Koobi Fora!
   
Quote
Taking all these facts into consideration, then, it has been found possible to construct a history of the earth,
Yes, when we have circular reasoning, we can make up any fairy tale we like about the history of the earth.  Isn't it wonderful??!!

So there is no getting around the fact that this author admits to Circular Reasoning ... he just tries to justify why it's OK ( ??  Go figure !! )

NO QUOTE MINE.

***********************************************************************
Deadman...      
Quote
This also contains Dave quotemining by saying  "I thought sedimentary rocks could not be dated radiometrically ... Deadman told me that this is true of the GC layers that contain fossils. But this article says you CAN date sedimentary layers radiometrically."
after I told you to quit using that quote-mined lie about me. Which you then CONTINUED to use 3 more times. [URL=http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27092
I'm confused about your position, Deadman.  Do you, or do you not believe the sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon can be dated radiometrically?  Please explain exactly what you really believe.

***********************************************************************
     
Quote
You used a quote from H.S. Gladwin, a former stockbroker who is not an archaeologist, not a dendro expert, but had a long history of being a crank that thought african PYGMIES populated the Americas, despised dendro in general and was NINETY THREE when he wrote the cited article in which he claims three things: (1)bristlecone and (2)juniper dendrochronology is unreliable and (3)deciduous trees can't be used for dendro. Was this a faked quote? Yes. Especially since it was well known even at the time that deciduous trees CAN be used.

You call him a crank because he is a creationist.  But then, you think ALL creationists are cranks.  You also are not a dendro expert, yet you claim that you know more than Gladwin.  Here's my expert, Plant Physiologist Don Batten, PhD, and he agrees that dendrochronology is unreliable http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp

***********************************************

Deadman...      
Quote
This reflects a particular KIND of quote-mining...the citation of claims from decades ago that have no validity....like your claims on sedimentation behind a dam being "proof" that layered varves can be created in a short span of time....like your citation of a Corps of Engineers paper on the Mississippi done in 1948 or whatever it was ...
Layered varves CAN be created in a short time span.  They are not a valid means of proving Deep Time as you try to do.  

As for old quotes, sometimes these are used ON PURPOSE to show just how long ago a certain fact was known.  For example, the Mississippi River Commission knew in 1945 (!! ) something you SHOULD have also known long ago, but you don't because your eyes are closed.  They knew that incised meanders require non-resistant banks (i.e. soft sediments).        
Quote
"Much study has been devoted to the subject of the mechanics of meandering rivers, since it involves engineering problems of considerable importance.  In particular, extensive model tests         have demonstrated that the phenomenon of meandering is associated only with non-resistant banks."  (Joseph F. Friedkin: "A Laboratory Study of the Meanderings of Alluvial Rivers," Vicksburg, U.S. Waterways Experiment Station, Mississippi River Commission, 1945.)
This quote gives excellent support to the creationist contention that the Grand Canyon was carved WHILE SEDIMENTS WERE SOFT during the receding phase of the Flood of Noah.  A modern day example of a great flood carving a huge canyon like the Grand Canyon is the Great Missoula Flood which carved the Palouse canyon.  Read the fascinating story about how a lone geologist, Harlan Bretz, was ridiculed for 40 years for saying that the Palouse Canyon was formed catastrophically.  But he didn't give up and finally mainstream geologists believed him.  http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1209missoula.asp

Deadman ...      
Quote
like your dated claims on radiometrics,
What dated claims on radiometrics?  I used the latest research to support my statements.  My key reference was the 2005 RATE Book, vol. 2.  

Deadman...      
Quote
like your dated claims drawn from the "world book"
Oh yes, I thought it was very funny and very revealing and damaging to ToE that in 1978, World Book confirmed the aforementioned circularity of fossils dating rocks and rocks dating fossils ...      
Quote
Welles, Samuel Paul, “Fossils,” World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 7 (1978), p. 364. Welles was Research Associate, Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley.
“Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie.”

Welles, Samuel Paul, “Paleontology,” World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 15 (1978), p. 85.
“Paleontology (the study of fossils) is important in the study of geology. The age of rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them.”

Someone must have pointed out to Mr. Welles how silly this looked because in the 1993 version of World Book, the "Fossil" article now says "Paleontologists determine how old a fossil is by measuring the radioactive isotopes in the rocks that contain the fossil" ... which, as I have demonstrated in my threads here is not accurate.  The truth about the situation was contained in the 1978 article, but paleontologists have added the "sugar coating" of RM "dating" to their work so that their lie will be swallowed more easily by unsuspecting students.  The sentence in the "Paleontology" article is essentially unchanged.  

***********************************

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,02:55   

Deadman ...    
Quote
like your ancient claims on MULTIPLE topics that relied on books written in the 1940's, or even earlier. Yeah, that's quote-mining, too.
I generally use old sources when I want to show the understanding of a particular topic AT THAT TIME.  This is not quote mining.

*********************************************************************
Deadman ...      
Quote
You cited a quote where you claimed the pope "slammed" evolution...and he didn't...again, selectively twisting words to suit your purposes. This was your citation:     Quote  
Vatican: pope slams evolution 'Accounts about Man don't add up without God' says pontiff (ANSA) - Regensburg, September 12 - Pope Benedict XVI on Monday issued his strongest criticism yet of evolutionary theory, calling it "unreasonable" . Speaking to a 300,000-strong crowd in this German city, the former theological watchdog said that, according to such theories derived from Charles Darwin's work, the universe is "the random result of evolution and therefore, at bottom, something unreasonable" .

The actual quote doesn't mention either Darwin or any slam on evolution at all.
I didn't say it mentions Darwin.  And YES, it DOES slam evolution, quite clearly ... here's what the Pope actually said ...      
Quote
We believe in God. This is a fundamental decision on our part. But is such a thing still possible today? Is it reasonable? From the Enlightenment on, science, at least in part  [Darwin et. al.], has applied itself to seeking an explanation of the world in which God would be unnecessary. And if this were so, he would also become unnecessary in our lives. But whenever the attempt seemed to be nearing something is missing from the equation! When God is subtracted, something doesn't add up for man, the world, the whole vast universe. [IOW the explanation of the world without God doesn't add up ... the Pope is slamming Evolution, friends ... if you can't see it, you are blind.] So we end up with two alternatives. What came first? Creative Reason, the Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, yet somehow brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless. [IOW ToE is meaningless and unreasonable] As Christians, we say "I believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and
earth - I believe in the Creator Spirit. We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason."                    http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=94805


Looks like ANSA was accurate to me ...

NO QUOTE MINE.

***********************************************************************

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,03:25   

Dave, you have been decisively refuted on every point you have raised.
You have quote mined and lied about quote mining and now you try to bluster your way through with more lies.
You have nothing left but your fundamental (and fundamentalist) dishonesty.
Any interested party can read either, or both, of the monstrous (in size and sheer volume of single-sourced idiocy) threads devoted to your meaningless assertions.
Any interested party who does so will come way shaking their head in disbelief at your brazen chutzpah in now starting another thread that side-steps the issues, seeks to drown the main points in verbiage, and casts aspersions on the integrity of your moral superiors [hint: any moral being is morally superior to you, based on an evaluation of your 2 main threads previously reference].
Attempting to reason with you is to engage with a party totally unequipped to begin.  But attermpting to discuss with you is like attempting to hold a discussion with a fart -- mistargetted and odious.
You are a profoundly evil and deeply disturbed human being.  Seek professional help.
Portuguese is not a mixture of French and Latin.
Transitional fossils exist.
The simple facts of genetics refute your quote-mined nonsense.
The simple facts of physics and chemistry refute your nonsense.
The simple facts of reality refute virtually everything you present.
no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

  
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,03:29   

Oh, and you have run like a whipped dog from every fact you can't quote-mine a response to.
You have run like a whipped puppy from every counter-argument raised against you.
The most mature and substantial response you have ever mounted has been "nyah nyah nyah I don't believe you "

Pfeh.
A pox on you and all your kind.

Shirley Knott

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,03:47   

Shirley...
Quote
You have quote mined and lied about quote mining and now you try to bluster your way through with more lies.
No bluster.  Just a solid rebuttal with evidence as plain as day for all to see.  Please explain in detail why YOU think these examples are quote mines.
Quote
Portuguese is not a mixture of French and Latin.
Very good, Shirley.  I agree. That's not what I claimed.  You're so mad that you can't even type what you mean.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,03:49   

In Dave's defense, I don't believe he is mentally capable of understanding the referenced material that he quotes.  He reads "much more controversial" as "consensus".  He thinks "Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei" is a reference to every species that has ever existed.  And despite having been explicitly and repeatedly told that "gradualism" is not synonomous with "evolution", he continues to conflate the two terms.

He's not dishonest.  He's insane.  We have spent these past months arguing with a madman.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
huwp



Posts: 172
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,03:50   

<<disengaging lurk mode>>

-stands back and applauds Shirley Knott-

Well said.

As a long-time lurker I can only applaud the patience and, on the whole, courtesy of those of you who debunk and otherwise deal with the nonsense peddled by AFD and his ilk, despite enormous provocation at times.  You do us all a great service and I have learned shed loads of very interesting stuff; whereas AFD's turgid, smugly arrogant posts are terminally boring and hopelessly wrong.

Thank you all - it is appreciated.

<<re-engaging lurk mode>>

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,04:06   

Improvius...
Quote
He reads "much more controversial" as "consensus".  
Really?  Where?

Improvius ... please explain to our audience how in the world you think the fossil record supports gradualism in the light of all the Ager quotes I gave.

Evolution by gradualism, evolution by "punq eq", evolution by saltation, evolution by voo-doo ... it does not matter HOW you try to tell your fairy tale, Improv ... it is not convincing.

Improv...
Quote
He's not dishonest.  He's insane.  We have spent these past months arguing with a madman.
The perennial technique of those who have no idea how to refute me on a factual basis.  Another violation of ATBC rules.  Note that Steve Story, the moderator here, recently pointed out how poor a strategy this is and how bad it makes ToE advocates look.  Yet Improv and others have no other choice ...they have no facts ... so they continue the ad hominems.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,04:11   

Here's another one to add to your list, Dave: you ripping off and quotemining again. This is what pissed you off so much that you had to create another thread, knowing you were caught (once again) red-handed.  

Quote
Deadman ... what makes you think the Egyptians lived prior to 2350 BC?  More of your speculation?  Putting the overlapping chronologies end to end?  Ignoring the facts that the Egyptians ...
1) had no era from which to date events
2) did not distinguish between sole reigns and joint reigns of father and son
3) never gave the duration of a dynasty, and
4) did not designate contemporary dynasties
...possibly??

Take Dave's list of objections. Notice he didn't cite any source. Remove the numbers.
( the Egyptians  had no era from which to date events  did not distinguish between sole reigns and joint reigns of father and son  never gave the duration of a dynasty  did not designate contemporary dynasties)

Run it through a search engine. Guess what singular result you get?
A .pdf citing a quotemine.
Conclusion: Dave not only quotemined, but plagiarized as well.
The .pdf is an excerpt of a book entitled " All Through the Ages" by Christine Miller, published by a Christian vanity press located at  http://www.nothingnewpress.com/atta.shtml . This is what Christine Miller cites:
Quote
”The greatest obstacle to the establishment of a regular Egyptian chronology is the circumstance that the Egyptians themselves never had any chronology at all,” reports Mr. M. Mariette, the former Director of the Service of Conservation of the Antiquities of Egypt, the British Museum. The Egyptians did not enter into computations of time; they were without the chronological idea, save in a few instances. Chronology is, upon the monuments, almost non-existant. The Egyptians had no era from which to date events. They did not distinguish between the years of a sole reign and those of joint reigns of father and son. They never gave the duration of a dynasty. They did not designate contemporary dynasties. Hence the uncertainty of dates in Egyptian history."

As I said, you can run that list through a search engine and you will find only ONE source. Christine Miller.
The quote from the .pdf lists Dave's objections in the precise order, using the same wording. Now, what are the odds of that NOT being deliberate, and that it "just happened " to emerge from Dave in the EXACT wording and order? Note Also that Miller didn't even get it right...the guy's name was Auguste Mariette

Oh, Yeahhhhhh...BUSTED AGAIN.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,04:17   

Quote
Evolution by gradualism, evolution by "punq eq", evolution by saltation ... it does not matter HOW you try to tell your fairy tale, Improv ... it is not convincing.


And here's the crux of the problem right here.  What Dave doesn't seem to realize, or is unwilling to realize because otherwise he'd recognize why his quotes don't say what he desperately (almost pathologically) needs them to say.  There are now and have been in the past legitimate scientific debates as to exactly how evolution happened, and you have mentioned three of those above (I've taken the liberty of removing your facetious call to "voo-doo" from the quote for the purpose of this post).  However, here's the interesting thing.  Even though at various times people have come down in each of those camps, none of them have denied the underlying tennant that evolution HAS HAPPENED.

There's the important part right there.  None of them disagree with evolution, they just may disagree on the processes that got us to the point we are today.  You've presented quotes where people express their doubts about various other schools of evolutionary thought, and have interpretted them as an attempt to cast doubt on all of evolution, and such is simply not the case.

You have, therefore, taken quotes and, by removing them from their context and provided an incorrect interpretation, attempted to make them say something that they don't.  Do you know what that defines?

And there's the problem.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,04:26   

Okay, I know the exact work of Mariette's that this came from. Although Christine Miller doesn't list a source, I know where SHE got it from. I know you will NOT find that particular quote anywhere else on the web, not even creationist sites use it, mainly because they use OTHER quotemines on this issue of Egyptian chronology.
Dave said he "heard" it. Then used it. With the wording exactly the same as the quotemined bit by Christine Miller. The funny part is Miller just screwed it all up, too.  " MR. M. Mariette." ( so it can't be "monsieur")  The actual name of the guy was AUGUSTE Mariette...and when did he live? why, he DIED in 1881. http://www.uwm.edu/Course/egypt/0100/discoverersB.html
This has to be the DEEPEST OLDEST QUOTEMINE YET FROM DAVE.

Dave didn't "hear" it in his little circle of friends...that quote is as obscure as they get, and originally written in French. He didn't read it at some creationist site...they don't use it...to confirm this yourself, run any part of it through a search engine.

The creationist books don't use it, so far as I know...or maybe Dave can point to where it IS used? I bet he can't.

The conclusion? He took it and got caught and is now frantically trying to rehabilitate his "image" as a lawyer would say. He simply trawled the web, found a pdf quote, used it and tried to hide it.
That's quotemining...perpetuating a quotmine ...plagiarism (THEFT). Any other questions, Dave?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,04:31   

Quote (deadman @ ,)
Now, what are the odds of that NOT being deliberate, and that it "just happened " to emerge from Dave in the EXACT wording and order?

That's not evidence of common ancestry of those words, it's evidence of a common designer! Obviously Dave wrote those words the first time and he's only repeating them now. ;)

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,04:35   

thurdl...
Quote
Even though at various times people have come down in each of those camps, none of them have denied the underlying tennant that evolution HAS HAPPENED.
This is patently false.  There are now hundreds (probably thousands) of PhD level scientists who reject Darwinian Evolution and the list is growing.  All you have to do is reference the lists at AIG, ICR and DI.  It is true that the various authors that I have quoted probably still believe in Evolution, but their quotes create big problems for ToE nonetheless.

Deadman...
Quote
Here's another one to add to your list, Dave: you ripping off and quotemining again. This is what pissed you off so much that you had to create another thread, knowing you were caught (once again) red-handed.
No quote mining.  I have already agreed several times with you that your source quite possibly is correct.  I did not have a reference which is why I posted it without one.  I may wind up agreeing with you about your 3150 BC date for the founding of Egypt.

*********************************

And the reason I made a new thread is to show the world the multitude of your vacuous accusations of quote mining.

You have tried to accuse me so many times and failed.

Why have you tried so many times lately?

Are you "out of ammunition"?  No facts with which to refute me so you have to resort to empty quote mining accusations?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,04:40   

They're not accusations to anyone who is sane and knows the definition of quotemining. I gave it to you before. Here it is again:
Quote mining is looking through large amounts of material for quotes that can be taken out of context or otherwise distorted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining .

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,04:44   

Quote
All you have to do is reference the lists at AIG, ICR and DI.


Project Steve anyone?

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,04:46   

Quote
There are now hundreds (probably thousands) of PhD level scientists who reject Darwinian Evolution

Care to cite a more exact number? I doubt there's any list of more than just "hundreds"...

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,04:47   

Quote
No quote mining.  I have already agreed several times with you that your source quite possibly is correct.  I did not have a reference which is why I posted it without one.

Er, no, you got caught and THEN said ONCE that it "might be correct" while at the same time claiming it is not a quotemine. It is available only at that one pdf on the net. You took it. You didn't say where you took it from. You altered it, putting in numbering. You presented it as your own. This is also plagiarism.
You trawl the internet looking for both arguments and quotes you can use. You don't have personal reference material, you use online material almost exclusivley. You take quotes that you find and use them out of context, or you strip them of essential parts

(by the way, you want me to believe **your** version of notepad strips out ellipses? BWAHAHAHA).

This is quotemining, baby. DEAL WITH IT

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,04:54   

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,09:35)
Deadman...  
Quote
Here's another one to add to your list, Dave: you ripping off and quotemining again. This is what pissed you off so much that you had to create another thread, knowing you were caught (once again) red-handed.
No quote mining.  I have already agreed several times with you that your source quite possibly is correct.  I did not have a reference which is why I posted it without one.  I may wind up agreeing with you about your 3150 BC date for the founding of Egypt.

Let's clarify here, Dave. Are you saying that the passage cited by Deadman, which you reproduced verbatim (without citation) came to you in a dream? Or that you reproduced the passage from memory, and that you can remember it word-for-word, and in the order of its source, but you can't remember the source?  Please explain.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,04:56   

IMPORTANT BREAKING NEWS!

Sun rises in the East!

Ocean found to be wet and salty!

AFDave caught lying, quote-mining, and plagiarizing again!

...no film at 11.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,05:06   

Quote
We believe in God. This is a fundamental decision on our part. But is such a thing still possible today? Is it reasonable? From the Enlightenment on, science, at least in part  [Darwin et. al.],


By the way, Dave, you should learn this...when an article recounting a speech OR a written passage uses square brackets (braces), that means the writer RECOUNTING the piece..is INSERTING information. This is a STANDARD rule. That means that the words "Darwin et. al." were not in the original speech. GOT IT?

Here's another funny part of your "explanation" on the Pope's speech...the link you gave to the supposed text you "cited" isn't correct. You gave : http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=94805 , which is an eucharist homily that doesn't mention anything about evolution or Darwin.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,05:11   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 18 2006,10:40)
They're not accusations to anyone who is sane and knows the definition of quotemining.

Does anyone else notice a pattern of deterioration in the rationality of Dave's posts?  I think he took a sharp dive somewhere in the isochron discussions.  I started seeing some outright bizarre posts ("God is like Hitler") in the past few weeks.  And now he just seems to be posting random mined quotes and illogical, defensive rants.  I can't tell if he's losing it or if he's simply run out of material.  Either way, I don't see much point in addressing him further unless he brings in something new (like discussing baraminology or responding to any of the other obstacles he's crashed into).

Right now, it's like trying to debate someone who insists that the sky is made of barbecue sauce ("if you can't taste it, you are blind!").

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,05:23   

Here's another example. You cited Gladwin on dendro. Gladwin made specific claims on dendrochronology, all of which were untrue. I gave you a mountain of citations on how deciduous trees were used, and have been used and continue to be used, contrary to Gladwin. I showed how his claims on conifers were wrong. I showed how he was a crank who was not an archaeologist and not a dendrologist. Your response is that this is NOT a quote mine?
Then you offer up "Dr." Don Batten again as defense, despite me pointing out on 4 separate occasions that Batten was working with farmed trees in New Zealand ( Pinus radiata) and didn't MENTION that part. He also cited two instances out of hundreds of thousands in which a dendro paper was withdrawn. That's it. That's the sum of it.
BUT YOU STILL USED THE CLAIMS OF A CRANK NON-DENDROLOGIST, WHO HAD STATED FACTUAL UNTRUTHS. And you did it knowingly.

Then you say this, most amusingly:  
Quote
 You also are not a dendro expert, yet you claim that you know more than Gladwin.  


This sounds amazingly like you claiming to know what fields of archaeology I have worked in. YOU are claiming to KNOW that I have no expertise or am NOT expert in analyzing dendro cores? Taking them? Sequencing? Gosh, you think there's a SEPARATE degree for dendro in archaeology?

This is exactly like your claims to "know" my religious views...like your claim to "know" that I had never worked with jungle tribes....like your claim to "know" that I "didn't care about kids" .

You're a sick man, Davey-boy.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,05:25   

Deadman...  
Quote
By the way, Dave, you should learn this...when an article recounting a speech OR a written passage uses square brackets (braces), that means the writer RECOUNTING the piece..is INSERTING information. This is a STANDARD rule. That means that the words "Darwin et. al." were not in the original speech. GOT IT?
Why do you suppose that I DID put it in square brackets?   Because I know that rule.  Because I am honest and want people to know that I inserted that information.  And it is ironic that you, of all people, who have been smacked down by the moderator for rule violations, want to now tell me about rules. Did you not know that rule before?  

I guess this means that you DIDN'T know this rule before and you erroneously thought I was trying to say that the info in brackets was in the speech.  

You are having a really tough time trying to paint a black picture of me aren't you, Deadman?

Are you going to mention the Lynn Margulis quote?  Are you going to mention how truly honest I am and how I immediately retracted that quote as soon as it was pointed out that it did not support the idea I thought it did?  Truly honest people DO retract their statements when they make a mistake.  Why don't you?

And did you tell everyone how quickly I retracted the one about the UK study?

And I think these are the only two that were truly misused quotes.  So out of all the many quotes I have given, I made a mistake on two of them ... and I immediately admitted it and retracted them.

And your ethics are so low you call ME dishonest.

Another interesting accusation we could mention is the Dawkins quote ... many people didn't even read what I said so they thought I was saying Dawkins is now a Creationist!!!  So they yelled "Quotemine!  Quotemine!!"  In reality, all I was pointing out was that he recognized the huge gaps in the fossil record ... and that this delights creationists.

Jim Wynne ... no dreams.  I simply remember hearing of these problems somewhere ... possibly in a lecture and they stuck in my mind.  I freely admit that they could be mistaken as I make no pretense of being an authority on ancient Egypt.  But I am working to fix that!  Maybe you and Deadman can help me become an expert on ancient Egypt!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Artist in trainig



Posts: 12
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,05:29   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 18 2006,09:56)
IMPORTANT BREAKING NEWS!

Sun rises in the East!

Ocean found to be wet and salty!

AFDave caught lying, quote-mining, and plagiarizing again!

...no film at 11.

M*A*S*H reference?

As an occasional lurker, might I point out that perhaps Dave meant that the 1st quote was telling because it was taken out of context? His point (although dishonest at first because he did not go on to say that the author did not agree with the position) might have been that even a geologist realized that it was circular reasoning, and that after admitting circular reasoning, the author went on to deny his claim?

I think, in the interest of hearing him out you might want to hold him to lower standards than you might hold an educated person because he clearly doesn't understand his errors.

Dave, you can still be with God without denying reality. In fact, if you step back and simply walk with God, you might find that there is no need to construct an alternate reality to support him.

Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,05:32   

I don't care about any other quotes than the ones I mentioned as being quote-mines. And they are. IT is irrelevant to me how you attempt to excuse yourself. You knew better, you stated in the beginning of your original thread that you would avoid this. You have not, in fact, you wallowed in it.

And most importantly, I don't see you even coming close to refuting what I said about plagiarizing/quotemining Christine Miller. You didn't hear it in a lecture. You stole it word-for-word online

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,05:32   

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,10:25)
Jim Wynne ... no dreams.  I simply remember hearing of these problems somewhere ... possibly in a lecture and they stuck in my mind.  I freely admit that they could be mistaken as I make no pretense of being an authority on ancient Egypt.  But I am working to fix that!  Maybe you and Deadman can help me become an expert on ancient Egypt!

Don't change the subject. Answer the question: are you saying that you "...simply remember hearing of these problems..." and remember them verbatim, and can cite them from memory without paraphrasing? Is that your testimony?

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,05:33   

Deadman ... I'd put Don Batten up against you any day ...  
Quote
Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)
Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood (from long-dead trees) using carbon-14 dating.

by Don Batten, Ph.D.

Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, were dated in 1957 by counting tree rings at 4,723 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straight-forward approach to Biblical chronology.

However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. It’s important to remember that we have limited data, and new discoveries have often overturned previous ‘hard facts’.

Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp


Would you like to see if I can arrange a conference call with him?  We can record it and post the transcript here.

What do you say?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,05:40   

I say that you'll have to do better than that to refute dendrology and the issues of quotemining against you. Answer what Jim_Wynne asked.

And the issue is you claiming to KNOW that I had no expertise in dendro. I can deal with Batten anyday, and I have, showing that his objections are both selective and erroneous, given that his "study" on pines was on FARMED pines in a non-seasonal environment. Now, answer Jim...answer about the Christine Miller bit and answer HOW you claim to KNOW that I did no expert work in dendro...I'd like to hear ALL that.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,05:44   

Jim Wynne...  
Quote
Don't change the subject. Answer the question: are you saying that you "...simply remember hearing of these problems..." and remember them verbatim
You apparently do not know the meaning of the word "verbatim."  Go back and compare what I said to what Deadman's quote said.  And I am having fun once again watching your desperate attempts to find anything ... any tiny thing however small ... to try to make me look like a liar.

Trust me, Jim ... it's been tried many times before ... people have tried to speculate about my career, my church, my dad and my work at Kids4Truth.com ... all unsuccessfully.  It's pretty funny how many silly rabbit trails people can go down in their desperate attempts to discredit me.

The fact remains that I tell the truth ... I'm telling the truth in this case and I have in every other case.

And I'm telling you the truth when I say that ToE is in trouble ... you should try reading the Bible and AIG for a while and get a breath of fresh air.

Deadman ...
Quote
And the issue is you claiming to KNOW that I had no expertise in dendro.
OK. So your a dendro expert.  I may be wrong about you.  Prove it.  Let's do a conference call with Don Batten and settle it.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,05:48   

Quote
Don't change the subject. Answer the question: are you saying that you "...simply remember hearing of these problems..." and remember them verbatim


I dunno Jim.  It's possible that he remembers the exact quotes.  After all, Dave spent his entire childhood memorizing Bible quotes.  Too bad he was never taught to read for content.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,05:50   

Quote
I'm confused about your position, Deadman.  Do you, or do you not believe the sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon can be dated radiometrically?  Please explain exactly what you really believe.


This was your response to me saying HERE...that I had asked you FIVE TIMES to quit using this claim --that I had somehow said "sedimentary layers cannot be dated"

I answered this FIVE TIMES, each time saying in increasingly irate terms, for you to STOP using it, and in fact, you were GIVEN multiple instances of HOW to date sedimentary rocks...NOW YOU FORGET THAT? after it was discussed for WEEKS?

Oh, yeah, you're totally dishonest.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,05:54   

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,10:06)
Improv...
Quote
He's not dishonest.  He's insane.  We have spent these past months arguing with a madman.
The perennial technique of those who have no idea how to refute me on a factual basis.  Another violation of ATBC rules.  Note that Steve Story, the moderator here, recently pointed out how poor a strategy this is and how bad it makes ToE advocates look.  Yet Improv and others have no other choice ...they have no facts ... so they continue the ad hominems.

No, I was complaining about virulent insults. Questioning AFDave's sanity is not an insult or an ad hominym, it's an open question.

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,05:57   

DEADMAN, ARE YOU GOING TO BE ETHICAL AND RETRACT YOU CLAIMS OF QUOTE MINING?  OR ARE YOU GOING TO SCURRY UNDER THE RUG AND HOPE NO ONE CARES?

What about Infidels.org?  Are you going to confront them with their error?

I don't see your answer yet about this quote by Ager ...
Quote
“The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
How can you persist in saying that the fossil record supports gradual evolution with quotes like these?

How about your LIE that I quote mined the EB quote in the Portuguese debate?

How about your LIE about the R H Rastall quote?

How about your obfuscation regarding dating of sedimentary layers in the Grand Canyon?  You would like impressionable young students who happen to come here to be led to believe that these layers can be dated radiometrically, wouldn't you?  Shame!

What about Incised Meanders?  Now that you understand my point, will you retract your false statements?

How about those quotes in World Book in 1978?  Pretty telling aren't they?

You're busted, Deadman, for all the world to see!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,06:02   

when you answer to the quotemines you used, you will find out what I think. This is not about me using quotemines...it is about you.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,06:14   

There is no reason for this new thread. Everybody back to AFDave's UPDATED 2 thread.

   
  34 replies since Oct. 18 2006,02:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]