Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote...
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 32 of 43 (498197)
02-09-2009 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by traste
02-09-2009 1:07 AM


Re: Links and Voids
quote:
In your argument it can be understood that evolution is proved fact.Wow!despite of the important dispute among top evolutionary scientist about whether chemical evolution could have taken place?
If you choose to revive a thread that is more than FOUR YEARS old you could at least try to read and understand it before doing so. The only evolution under discussion is the evolution of humans and any arguments over chemical evolution are completely irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by traste, posted 02-09-2009 1:07 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by traste, posted 02-09-2009 3:36 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 34 of 43 (498222)
02-09-2009 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by traste
02-09-2009 3:36 AM


Re: Links and Voids
quote:
Irrelevant?
To this discussion which is all about a quote relating to human evolution, chemical evolution is a complete and utter irrelevance.
quote:
So do you mean some scientist are arguing absurdly because some of them are arguing from the stand point of chemical evolution?
I don't see any such arguments in this thread.
quote:
For example Dean kenyon former supporter of evolution say that it is completely implausible that unassisted energy and matter organized theirselves.
And how is this relevant to this thread ?
quote:
Is his argument irrelevant?
It doesn't seem to be. It has nothing to do with Milton's use of Pilbeam's work.
quote:
And can you give enough reason to show that discussing about whether chemical evolution could have taken place is irrelevant?
This thread is about RIchard Milton's alleged misuse of a quote from Pilbeam. Pilbeam was discussing human ancestry and referred to a fossil "void" which (at least at the time) covered a period from 4 to 8 million years ago. THere is nothing to do with chemical evolution there.
So come on, just what IS the relevance of chemical evolution to this discussion, which YOU chose to revive ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by traste, posted 02-09-2009 3:36 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by traste, posted 02-09-2009 4:05 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 36 of 43 (498232)
02-09-2009 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by traste
02-09-2009 4:05 AM


Re: Links and Voids
quote:
Opppss!Sorry if I misunderstood the thread,
Did you actually read the OP ? Or even note the dates ?
quote:
but why not consider all topics of evolution?
We do, on the appropriate threads.
quote:
Is there still argument againts evolution if it has been established as truth?
I'll give just a brief answer here because it is not on topic.
"Evolution" written without modifiers usually means "biological evolution" and there is no doubt that it occurs and that it explains a good deal of the diversity of life on Earth. Probably all of it. Chemical evolution is really a separate subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by traste, posted 02-09-2009 4:05 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by traste, posted 02-09-2009 9:55 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 39 by traste, posted 02-09-2009 10:03 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 40 of 43 (498383)
02-10-2009 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by traste
02-09-2009 9:55 PM


Re: Links and Voids
a) I don't intend to discuss that here.
b) I certainly don't intend to discuss it here with somebody who misrepresents even the short answer that I already gave.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by traste, posted 02-09-2009 9:55 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 7:34 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024