Alas, poor Ohio .... EvC related news

Well, with so much in store for the guy who overturns evolution, why wouldn't you think we all would be so eager to do it? Which we await with bated breath. We're not so eager, of course, that we're going to do bad science, and throw away a good theory that could be made better. But when the next theory comes along, good scientists are going to be on the bandwagon, provided it's good theory.

There is no "undeniable sense of design" in everything. There's an undeniable sense that things work just about as well as we would expect if they had evolved according to the theory. That's because ID isn't science, it's pseudo-intellectual claptrap. The scientists you're talking about are smart enough to realize that a similarity to design, or an appearance of design, is not at all the same as being designed, especially in the absence of any known designer.

Is that the best you have, Dark Star? Pathetic.Remember these rules? They're the forum rules, which you agreed to when you signed up. They state, in part:

quote:

---

Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions.

---

Yeah, yeah. Heard it. Unfortunately for you, ten times as many agree that evolution is an accurate history of life on Earth, and that's only if you count the ones named "Steve."Here's a hint, DS. Science isn't a popularity contest. Positions stand or fall on evidence, not on numbers. Why don't you try again, only this time, without the logical fallacy ad populum, ok? So you said, but it'd be nice if you had some evidence.

I realize how easily one could come to this conclusion, but I personally find it rather hollow to insist that someone is trying to distort your message when your own, undistorted posts appear unchanged earlier in the thread.How can Rrhain hope to confuse or prevaricate when the actual record perfectly records exactly what you posted? How could he pull one over on anyone when they could just go back and look at what you said?Nobody's going to rely on Rrhain's quotes to find out what your said, DS. They're going to go back to your post. We don't quote from messages to preserve their exact layout and meaning; we quote to aid thread readability and to make the context of our posts clear.But it's impossible to take someone's quotes out of context in the very thread in which they first appeared. It's up to you but personally I felt Rrhain's post deserved a better response.

Maybe he just doesn't understand the context in which you offered a quote that apparently, says the opposite of what you were arguing.BTW your new posting style isn't working well. Black text on a blue background? I read EvC on my laptop and unless my face is exactly perpendicular to the screen, I can't see a damn thing you've written.What was so bad about the default white text on blue? Well, I've been reading his posts far longer than I've been reading yours, and that doesn't sound like the Rrhain I've been reading.

Well, you're probably right about that, since there's no such thing as "macro-evolution", any more than there's a distinction between "micro-walking" and "macro-walking."Evolution is a result, not a process. When you let the mechanisms of evolution run for a short time, you get what might be called "micro-evolution." When you let them run for a long time, you get what might be called "macro-evolution."Where does micro become macro? You might as well ask when short becomes long. (There's a pun there, isn't there?)

Right, in that the present is the end of all actions in the past.

No, I meant what I wrote. Evolution is the result of ongoing processes.But it's idiotic to suggest that you can't get results until the very end of the process. The mechanisms of evolution don't end until life does; evolution is the continuing result of those processes.Look, it's like saying "the process of macro-walking". There's no such thing. It's macro-walking when you walk to the next county, and micro-walking when you walk to the store.Walking to the next county and walking to the store are results; they're where you wind up. It's the process of walking that takes you there, and it's the same process in each case. The only difference is the results of the process. Yeah, DS, what the fuck? Do you have a deep emnity towards readability or something? Your new style is a marginal improvement, but what's wrong with the original color scheme?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-16-2004 10:20 PM

No apologies necessary. I was hardly clear myself, and I'm sorry for posting with the tone I did - I was in a hurry. It wasn't my intent to be so brusque.

"Dark Star", huh? You sure you didn't mean to put "Brown Starfish"?

No, this is a chocolate starfish.

I'm glad to know you have such faith in me. Unfortunately I'm not so optimistic about your ability to actually address rebuttals to your arguments.

We're not yet at the point where you know how to assess scientific evidence in regards to theory; so providing the evidence at this point would be fruitless. Pearls before swine, if you will.At such point as you've proven yourself ameinable to honest debate and possessing of an open and rational mind, the evidence will be forthcoming. But you're asking us to set forth a banquet when you've made it abundantly clear you're not hungry.

There are no other known processes that can account for the construction.

Creationism is hardly "the Christian doctrine about origins." For instance, the Catholic doctrine about origins is "the scientific theory of evolution is an accurate explanation of the development of species on Earth, and of man's physical form." What about all the religions that Creationism contradicts? Doesn't it violate their rights about separation?I know a religion that says that meat is bad. If the cafeteria serves meat - even if I abstain - isn't it saying that meat is not bad, and contradicting my religion? We'd better get rid of schools altogether to be safe.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-29-2004 02:41 AM