Re: Is Evolution worse off than Heliocentrism?
- From: "A.Carlson" <amcarls@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 06:34:54 -0700
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 11:41:54 GMT, NashtOn <nana@xxxxx> wrote:
>Richard Forrest wrote:
>
>
>~meaningless ramblings snipped.
>
>Please stop going off on tangents. Where specifically does evolution
>help create new pharmaceuticals and assist in medical research?
Ah! loosing the argument so now you're changing the subject! How
typically creationist (and hypocritical) of you.
Let's see your original post:
>> >> You are correct. ID is starting to make some serious inroads in
>> >> the hearts and minds of "scientists" and lay people alike.
Nope! Nothing here about evolution vis-a-vis new pharmaceuticals.
Let's see what you, yourself, dodged here:
>> >Care to cite any scientific papers on "Intelligent Design" in the
>> >scientific literature? If there were "inroads" we'd expect to
>> >see them there.
A perfectly fair request for you to actually back up your bald
assertion!
Your dodge^H^H^H^H^Hresponse was:
>> I'm not going to do the work for you, look it up yourself, sweety.
Ah, the good old classic creationist dodge of failing to recognize the
all important burden of proof, followed by the baseless
rationalization:
>> And I don't believe that a theory, winning the hearts of people
>> would be in peer-reviewed journals, especially the ones that
>> wouldn't touch anything that has anything to do with ID, which
>> is most of them, no matter how important the scientific merit.
Of course, if this were even the least bit credible, you should be
able to point to any number of credible publications put out by the
Discovery Institute itself, unless of course they too are part of some
vast conspiracy of silencing those pesky ID proponents.
But of course the truth of the matter is that even the Discovery
Institute itself is at least honest enough to point out that they have
yet to come up with a viable scientific theory for ID. Now how can
they 'make some serious inroads in the hearts and minds' of any
reasonable person IF THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE A VALID SCIENTIFIC
THEORY TO BEGIN WITH!
Your next baseless assertion in your original post was:
>> >> A few more years to go and neo-darwinism will be nothing
>> >> but a shameful chapter in the cultural history of mankind.
Nope! Still nothing here about evolution vis-a-vis new
pharmaceuticals.
This, of course, was followed by the far more historically accurate
response of:
>> > This prediction has been made for the last 150 years, and is
>> > no closer to coming true.
Followed not so unexpectedly by your ridiculous and baseless
dodge^H^H^H^H^Hresponse of:
>> Right. Meyr saved Darwinsm with a few catch phrases when
>> everybody thought it was dead.
Now how does this silly little charge negate the mountains of evidence
supporting the fact of evolution that permeates science?
Your next baseless assertion in your original post was:
>> >> If anything, all the commotion about "evolution" will sensitize
>> >> people to the fact that it's a hoax, the
>> >> same kind of "science" that brought us Viox.
OK, at least you've mentioned a pharmaceutical here but your
subsequent post still dodged the actual response elicited and here you
still have made nothing more than a bogus 'guilt by association'
argument. Perhaps YOU could explain first how 'evolutionary science'
is somehow responsible for Viox.
Of course this particular falsehood of yours also elicited the
perfectly reasonable response of:
>> the theory of evolution is not a hoax, it's a scientific theory that
>> explains the diversity of life.
Which yet again led to yet another creationist lie/dodge:
>> And promulgates naturalistic propaganda with a handful of
>> questionable data.
Whether or not the TOE 'promulgates' a naturalistic point of view is
neither here nor there with regard to its validity.
As far as it being based on 'a handful of questionable data', perhaps
you could come up with a better explanation for homologies, vestigial
structures, the extensive fossil record, nested hierarchies, the
variety of DNA evidence in support of evolution, astronomical and
geological evidence that are far more in line with the evolutionary
point of view than your typical fundy points of view.
>> >> It was never really useful, except to keep nerds occupied
>> >> and to fuel ego wars amongst paleoanthropologists.
As if paleoanthropology was even the only field of science that gives
evidence to the fact of evolution.
So, to summarize, you yourself have done nothing but dodge the
original responses to your post and change the subject to yet another
pathetic creationist falsehood, which leads us to yet another attempt
of yours at changing the subject instead of honestly addressing the
responses:
>How has it helped, 150 years after Darwin, further mankind's knowledge?
>I'm not referring to solid science that has tangible benefits, but about
>evolution per se.
You mean like giving us a better understanding of who we are and where
we came from?
Even if such knowledge has no 'tangible benefits', as you put it, that
would have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with its validity! That would
fall under the fallacy of appeal to utility. Perhaps you should
acquaint yourself with some basic principles of logic before ranting
here.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Op-Ed: Allow students to question theories
- Next by Date: Re: Part of the canon/flat earth issue
- Previous by thread: Re: Is Evolution worse off than Heliocentrism?
- Next by thread: Re: Is Evolution worse off than Heliocentrism?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
