Quoting Case <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [Platt] > Well, it made for a nice story. But did it actually happen? I thought > science depended on observation and experiment, not on mythical tales. > > [Case] > It wasn't my story so I can't say. My point was mainly the foolishness of > your assertion that the fact at animal breeders do it makes it somehow > irrelevant or uninteresting.
Foolish? Less better? Hmmm. > [Platt] > Yes, but still finches. Not bluebirds. > > [Case] > So what? The story of the finches covers relatively recent events. Over a > longer period Finches and Bluebirds originate from common stock. Yes, that's the theory. > [Platt] > Are you saying once a fruitfly always a fruitfly? > > [Case] > No Platt I used to live farther north and routinely transmorgraphied fruit > flies into wooly mammoths. But the neighbors got annoyed and I had to stop > or leave town. I did both. When you transmogrify a fruitfly into something other than a fruitfly, do let us know. > [Platt] > Being stranded on an island doesn't prove evolution does it? > > [Case] > In the case of Madagascar, Galapagos and Australia yes. Ok Australia is a > continent, barely. Prove? How? > [Platt] > Yes, I've read some of those authors. Also, critiques of their works, > especially "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip Johnson. I try to be "fair and > balanced." :-) > > [Case] > If Johnson is the source of your misunderstandings that explains a lot. Next > you will be citing Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell. These guys present bald > faced gibberish to the intellectually challenged. Sez one died-in-wool biologist, quoted below. And you, of course. Hardly convincing. > > >From the Phillip Johnson Wiki: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson > > "In fact-checking Johnson's books Darwin on Trial and Defeating Darwinism, > one reviewer has argued that almost every scientific source Johnson cited > had been misused or distorted, from simple misinterpretations and innuendos > to outright fabrications. The reviewer, Brian Spitzer, a professor of > Biology, described Darwin on Trial as the most deceptive book he had ever > read." > > Or this from Johnson himself. > > "So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you > now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important > thing" -the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and > the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the > so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that > you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify > the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a > Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to > get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." > > This is calculated claptrap. > > If you really want to have an open mind you will need to resolve to do more > frequent dusting. Claptrap to you, or not "betterness." But where is your argument? All I see is sand. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
