Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
26 online now:
DrJones*, jar, Tanypteryx (3 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,865 Year: 16,901/19,786 Month: 1,026/2,598 Week: 272/251 Day: 43/58 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Critique of the "Evolution Essay" A GREAT DEBATE S1WC and anglagard ONLY
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20119
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 7 of 100 (328666)
07-03-2006 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by jtofgc
07-03-2006 7:07 PM


run and hide creationist
maybe someone should email the author ...

The 'author' pieced together a bunch of mis-information with an argument from incredulity, and did no checking for veracity while labelling his work the "truth" ...

When he was challenged with real facts that contradicted his "work" he ran away to hide from the reality rather than admit to any errors or make any corrections. He hasn't been seen in a while: too dangerous.

He will rationalize this some way so that he is the 'victor' of the debate, and will continue to push his mis-information and falsehoods on other sites.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jtofgc, posted 07-03-2006 7:07 PM jtofgc has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20119
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 11 of 100 (347513)
09-08-2006 7:52 AM


Bump for "Someone who cares"
From Message 138

Actually, reread my essay on evolution there. I did make a few rewordings to make it more proper, just recently.

Here's your chance to show that what you wrote is not full of misrepresentations and falsehoods.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2006 8:52 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20119
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 12 of 100 (347628)
09-08-2006 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
09-08-2006 7:52 AM


Error still there -- no surprise eh? Creatortionistas are like that.
From the "essay" after he has made a "few rewordings to make it more proper" -- it still says:

"Someone who cares" with no basis on facts writes:

Lucy’s inner ear structure, skull structure, and other bones show that she was most likely related to the pygmy chimpanzee. She did not even walk like humans do. When a knee joint for one find of Lucy was requested, they found one more than about 200 feet lower in the earth and about two miles away from the rest of her! [5] How could that joint have possibly belonged to that particular Lucy find?

It has been pointed out to "Someone who cares" that this is not the truth and that the knee joint was not combined into the Lucy skeleton as part of that find.

He has NOT corrected that error "to make it more proper" so it is a valid conclusion that he wants to continue portraying this demonstrated falsehood as what he calls "truth" in his essay.

Perhaps he would like to enlighten us on his reasons for not making a correction to such a blatant error when (a) he had the opportunity (while he was making other changes) and (b) he was aware of the fact that this specific error had been pointed out specifically to him.

Richard Dawkins is quoted (properly, versus some creatortionista versions) as saying:

quote:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, ...

... I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under "insane" but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed.


The word that comes to mind for me on this fifth category is deluded. He lays out his reasoning rather well in the article concerning the first four categories, especially about "ignorant" -- but it seems that in some cases such ignorance is involutary, yet not bedded in stupidity or delusion either. Rather it includes (among other things) a complete {inability\failure} to understand the relevance of logic and evidence to science. They think all such thought structure is no different than their belief about things.

The test for delusion is relatively simple: how much of the real world do you deny?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2006 7:52 AM RAZD 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 © 2019