Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 10:17 AM
47 online now:
AZPaul3, Phat (AdminPhat), xongsmith (3 members, 44 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,579 Year: 3,616/19,786 Month: 611/1,087 Week: 201/212 Day: 16/27 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Scientists hail discovery of hundreds of new species in remote New Guinea
Belfry
Member (Idle past 3163 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 16 of 20 (294073)
03-10-2006 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by randman
03-10-2006 4:25 PM


Re: creationism too
randman writes:

Matthew, you miss the point if you are making that statement. The fact things evolve is not particularly good evidence for "evolution", which is the theory of universal common descent, the microbe to man story (myth?).


No, the theory of universal common descent is... the theory of universal common descent. That's just an aspect of evolutionary theory, and if that's something you have quibbles with (while accepting other portions of evolutionary theory), I suggest that it makes sense to be specific in your terms.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 03-10-2006 4:25 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 03-15-2006 2:19 AM Belfry has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2976 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 17 of 20 (295417)
03-15-2006 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Belfry
03-10-2006 4:53 PM


Re: creationism too
Wrong. It is intellectually dishonest, but not at all surprising for evos to make such false claims as indentifying "heritable change" as "evolution" and yet refer to "universal common descent" as evolution as well. It's dishonest. If you didn't know before, you do now.

Deal with it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Belfry, posted 03-10-2006 4:53 PM Belfry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2006 2:28 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Belfry, posted 03-15-2006 5:49 AM randman has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14750
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 18 of 20 (295419)
03-15-2006 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
03-15-2006 2:19 AM


Re: creationism too
It's only dishonest if actual equivocation is used. And Dembski's use of "specified complexity" comes closer to that than the examples you are attacking.

Calling others dishonest on the basis of contrived excuses is itself dishonest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 03-15-2006 2:19 AM randman has not yet responded

    
Belfry
Member (Idle past 3163 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 19 of 20 (295434)
03-15-2006 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
03-15-2006 2:19 AM


Re: creationism too
randman writes:

Wrong. It is intellectually dishonest, but not at all surprising for evos to make such false claims as indentifying "heritable change" as "evolution" and yet refer to "universal common descent" as evolution as well. It's dishonest. If you didn't know before, you do now.

Deal with it.


This is ironic, because you appear to be the only one who is equating "evolution" with universal common descent here. So, by your own accusation, who's being dishonest?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 03-15-2006 2:19 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1264 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 20 of 20 (295488)
03-15-2006 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by randman
03-10-2006 4:25 PM


Re: creationism too
The fact things evolve is not particularly good evidence for "evolution"

This is perhaps the funniest statement I've read all week.

"The fact that X happens is not particularly good evidence for X!"

which is the theory of universal common descent, the microbe to man story (myth?).

And this is simply wrong. It's like saying that the theory that describes the formation of our solar system is the same as the theory describing galaxy formation. Are the two related? Kind of. In a way. But just like evolution and universal common descent, they are two independant theories. If one is struck down, it does not necessarily mean that the other is false.

You, randman, are the one being intellectually dishonest, by equating two seperate, independant theories as if they are one and the same.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 03-10-2006 4:25 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019