Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8960 total)
44 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Faith, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle (9 members, 35 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,634 Year: 1,382/23,288 Month: 1,382/1,851 Week: 22/484 Day: 22/93 Hour: 2/4

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Fine tuning/ programming
Member (Idle past 2216 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009

Message 104 of 123 (536474)
11-23-2009 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Pauline
11-23-2009 9:26 AM

Re: We have a definition
I think I need to point this out, you first wrote this about Darwin (message 89):

Dr.Sing writes:

Anyway, foremost IDsts may think one thing about the heart or eye and so on and you might expect me to just follow their footsteps but the fact that Darwin himself said this: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." is indicative of how unsure of his own theory he was.

Percy answered you by using Darwin's full quote and saying (message 90):

Percy writes:

Once you see the full quote it becomes apparent that Darwin's thinking process as he wrote this was, "I have such an excellent response to this objection that I shall raise it myself!"

You then answer this (message 91):

Dr.Sing writes:

Exactly, and his "excellent response" is based on his own assumptions. And its the same old "mutation and selection" answer.

What intrigues me though is how Darwin chooses to ignore the origin of life question. And in this case, he doesn't care to investigate the origin of light sensitive cells. He says... yeah we observe simpler light sensitive cells in lower forms, these evolved, and now I present to you the perfect and complex human eye. What does he expect his readers to do? Each form their own idea of how life began??

In short, you first affirmed that Darwin was unsure of his theory by quote mining him. When Percy proves you wrong, you ignore that he did just that and goes on as if you never quote mined Darwin in the first place. You then proceed to completely change the subject with abiogenesis.
It seems that you are Christian, so how would you call what you just did?
I felt the need to point it out because in my experience, using such techniques often renders the discussion useless and if you persist in this, the thread is as good as closed in my eyes. I read those threads to be better informed, not to be misinformed and lied to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Pauline, posted 11-23-2009 9:26 AM Pauline has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020