and here we go again. Eldredge is talking about *gradualism* not evolution.
He's talking about the rate at which evolution proceeds. He's not saying
that evolution doesn't happen. AND YOU KNOW THAT if you have actually read
the book you are quoting from--or even the table of contents.
>>BV>I believe Steven (or Darwinists, including you) read whatever they say
>>they've read. I am delighted to see the Darwinist "arguments" sinking to
>>such depths.
>
>This is an important point. The Darwinists can get away with these
>ad hominem tactics in relatively closed forums like these. But they
>are increasingly being drawn into public debates where these sort of
>tactics won't cut any ice with the general public.
science rests on evidence, not popular vote.
>Well these days the boot is on the other foot! It is the Darwinists
>who are the ideological oppressors and who are trying every trick in
>the book, including personal denigration, to avoid the truth coming
>out.
I caught you in a lie. That's not ad hominem. That's not even personal
attack. I presented what you said and then presented what the actual quote
said. Everyone can decide for themselves.
>It is good to see new members to the List like Berthajane, who by
>not being committed to either the Creation or Evolution side
>represent the general public, being disgusted, as I was, with the
>depths to which Darwinists (including the Christian variety) will sink
>to protect their sacred doctrine.
Gosh, you'd have thought he caught ME in a lie!
>SB>I've often thought I should make a collection of out-of-context creationist
>>quotes.
>
>According to Susan that would be *all* "creationist quotes"!
no, I"m talking about quoting creaitonists out of context (I wish you'd read
what I actually wrote)
>SB>Something that proves conclusively that Behe and Johnson are
>>atheists and rabid evolutionists. Now *there* would be some quotes that
>>were interesting!!!
>
>The problem with Susan is she is still focusing on the personal, ad hominem
>level.
oh, you mean Behe and Johnson AREN'T atheists? and it might be dishonest to
portray them as such?
>Hx>You mean, to the same depths that creationists of all stripes start out at?
>>Going all the way back to 'The Genesis Flood' right on up to 'Darwin on
>>Trial'?
>
>Huxter's prejudice shows here. Not all creationists agree with the Young-
>Earth/Flood Geology thesis of "The Genesis Flood". I certainly don't.
>Indeed if he read "The Genesis Flood" he would realise that it contains an
>attack on Old-Earth/Progressive creationists like the late Bernard Ramm.
I don't agree with Dawkins. So what? He's talking about creationist dishonesty.
>And what was all that about me being a liar if now I am supposed to have
>trusted some other creationist who gave me a dishonestly edited quote?
if you trusted them, then THEY are the liars. I was trying to give you an
out. You didn't take it. That's your choice. I'm willing to believe you
edited the quote yourself.
>The fact is however that it was my quote which I scanned from Gould's
>book and it was me who cut the extraneous words out for clarity and
>brevity and inserted ellipses in their place.
:-) things are just a lot more brief and clear if you cut out that nasty
stuff you don't agree with!
>>SB>I have been debating creationists and reading evolutionary material for
>>>many years. I have yet to see a creationist quoted out of context in such a
>>>way as to make them seem to support evolutionary theory. Why is that? If
>>>you or any lurker reading this has come across such a thing, *please* post
>>>it to this list.
>
>Susan's argument here only works if the parallel was that by cutting out the
>words I did made Gould seem to support creationist theory!
yes, and I don't see those quotes I asked for. Do you have them? Quotes
where creationists are edited so they seem to support Darwinism?
>>SB>If "intelligent design" or "creation theory" have so much going for
them, why
>>>bother to *ever* quote an evolutionist?
>
>Since evolution is a competing theory of origins to "intelligent design" or
>"creation theory", it is part of their argument to show that evolution has
>problems and internal inconsistencies.
and naturally, then, ID would make its own claims. Other than "some god did
it, or maybe space aliens" I haven't seen any scientific ID claims.
>>SB>If you have a million dollars in the bank, why bounce a check?
>
>One could ask Susan the same question. If "problems with evolutionary
>theory...don't actually exist" then why not have a calm, courteous, rational
>debate about the claimed problems that creationists raise?
If you lie and I see it and can easily prove it, I'm going to point it out.
If I don't it makes me a liar too. No thanks.
Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb