In a message dated 1/3/00 2:10:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, MikeBGene@aol.com
writes:
<< Me:
>It would seem this would be just as intellectually satisfying as
>thinking something just fell together in a way that happened to
>make it more likely it would persist.
Huxter4441:
>Who is thinking that? What you are doing is constructing a strawman
>argument. Common practice in creationist circles.
Me:
>Strawman begets strawman. People with beams in their eye ought not
>complain about other circles. Next time, I'd suggest being more leary
>of the bait. ;)
Huxter:
>Yeah... Sure.... Your strawman was in claiming that 'someone' thinks
>'something just fell together'. That IS common in creationist circles.
>Where was mine?
From my perspective, you clearly implied the only thing to add to
my posting was that a "supernatural entity did it!", and then with an
arrogance that is typical of anti-design people, likewise implied it
should be flippantly dismissed.
***** I wouldn't call it flippant - and your post did not seem to deserve
anything else.
Of course, these are my perceptions.
But speaking of straw mans, in record speed, you just produced
*another* one. You claim:
>Your strawman was in claiming that 'someone' thinks 'something just fell
>together'.
But I didn't claim this, now did I? Perhaps you should read what is
written. I wrote, as part of one complete sentence:
"as thinking something just fell together in a way that happened to
make it more likely it would persist."
****** Funny - that is EXACTLY what I wrote that you wrote. True, it was not
a verbatim quote; then, I have noticed that 'designists' often glom on to
irrelevent details. Tell me - how is "thinking something just fell together"
so terribly different from "'something just fell together'? Oh my - the
differences are flooring me! Oh I know - you didn't write 'someone thinks'
that. My terribly flippant mistake. You just wrote:"as thinking..." Yes -
I see the tremendous differene and my gross mischaracterization of your
logically concise statements.
I realize anti-evolutionists commonly portray evolution as pure chance,
but my portrayal includes natural selection - "in a way that happened to
make it more likely it would persist."
It is at least as valid to cast ID as "a supernatural entity did it!" as it
is to cast
Darwinian evolution as "something just fell together in a way that happened
to
make it more likely it would persist."
**** The difference is that there is at least *some* evidence for one of
those views.
>Next time, I'd suggest not using strawman statements.
And I'd suggest you read what is posted. Your reply suggests you are
driven by looking for buzz words that trigger the following argument:
"That IS common in creationist circles."
*** I do read what is posted - I cannot help it that folks like YOU often DO
use techniques that are commom place in anti-evolution circles. Maybe you
just cannot see that.
Apparently, the logic is to convince yourself a creationist ploy is in play
and then rely on handy counter-creationist tactics. If you had simply
bothered to calmly
read what was posted, you would have spared yourself the irony
of using a straw man to accuse me of using straw men.
***** Again, I'd say just don't use strawmen.
And I'd also suggest you practice what you preach.
Mike
**** Thanks mom.
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 12 2000 - 09:45:15 EST