Re: For Klueless and moose. Still waiting.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:10:38 GMT, NashtOn <nana@xxxxx> wrote:

>You ran away with you tail between your legs about resistance of e-coli
>to AB's. What is the experiment you used in class in order to prove that
>evolution is behind this mechanism?
>
>I won't let your behind off the hook until you live up to your
>obligation as a decent human being to describe your experiment.

As if you've got room to talk here. From an earlier post that you
continue to dodge yourself:

>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.

HINT: This was a challenge that, if you were telling the truth, you
should have no problem rebutting. But then you don't really rebut
anything, do you?
>
>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.

Perhaps you could contribute an actual coherent argument instead of
dodging everything. Or maybe you can run away again 'with your tail
between your legs'.

.