Re: Can any Darwinist in the forum produce an argument showing

On Sep 11, 3:28 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <Sj0yk.26685$XB4....@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Aerion
<Aer...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

"Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:23525473-d00e-4a5a-a012-148a2efaef84@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 10, 12:55 pm, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:55:33 -0400, "Aerion" <Aer...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

There is evidence which in my mind is counter to
evolution as fact.

Is there?

There isn't, and he knows that, which is why he keeps doing
the "I don't really care" evasion ploy.

Because if he answers honestly, and gives actual specific
reasons that he, incorrectly, believes are objections to
evolution, he will be clearly outing himself as a full blown
creationist/IDiot.

Without proof, and science doesn't deal with proof, evolution
remains a theory. The problem with arguing that evolution or
any other theory is a fact, means it is totally sequestered and
protected from genuine scientific testing. It is encased
in an impenetratible cocoon. Evolution can never be seriously
questioned or challenged. Its defenders have developed a
philosophically non-falsifiable weltanschanuung.

We have a problem. You have in the past been quite willing to accept
that gravity, or atoms, or the orbit of Pluto, are facts. Consequently
it is not particularly credible that you actually hold the position you
have just expressed.

Indeed. It is a fairly common trait among creationists to deny
evolution, yet to accept other areas of science where the evidence is
of the same type and amount for, as there is for evolution.

Thats a major item of evidence about Aerion's unstated views that
convinced me that he is a creationist, with his already stated motive
being that he "doesn't want to be attacked".

Which he doesn't want to do in the open.

I prefer not to be personally attacked.

The strategy you have adopted to avoid being personally attacked is a
bad one. There some people here who will attack you anyway, but in
general you will find that people who argue on the basis of evidence
will be treated with more respect, even if they are believe to be wrong,
than people who cast ill-formed aspersions at the factuality of common
descent.

This is at the crux of my stated views about Aerion to Mr. Harshman.

Andre

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New Ethiopian Find - Oldest Biped At 3.8-4 mya
    ... > the science and the implications on human evolution and instead try to ... >> it take evidence to move you to this point. ... > you've used it as a vehicle to attack me. ... > insults your way in response to the repeated, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: The Strawman Defense: Use at all times - it just in case
    ... Pitman asserts, without adequate evidence or argument, that X is ... Pitman then argues that, under Y, evolution cannot proceed. ... But but such an attack, in order not to be a strawman, must be ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A question for the group
    ... would be to attack that person's beliefs based on ... FAITH certain for a reason. ... evolution seems to me to be the same thing. ... Let's correct their facts but also, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Church says sorry to Charles Darwin
    ... Darwin for criticising his famous theory of evolution. ... wrong it was for senior bishops in the past to misunderstand and attack ... reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still,'' the article ... Atheists have written millions of books and articles attacking ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The 1st Annual Talk.Origins YEC-OEC Debate
    ... scarce evidences involving macro-evolution are ambiguous and are subject to ... So I do not "attack evolution" as you claim. ... people from the idea that there just may be a creator. ...
    (talk.origins)