Reflectorites
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 16:40:08 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:
[...]
>SJ>This is incorrect. Susan did not give "the full quotation" but still left
>>some of my omitted words out. And as I said, I was (and am), happy to put *all*
>>the words back and debate the point, but Susan (and Chris) declined.
SB>I certainly didn't quote the entire essay, what difference does that make?
[...]
As I said, Susan didn't even quote the entire *quote*! The fact is that
Susan omitted words from the same quote which were irrelevant to the
point *she* was making as I did.
[...]
SB>The obvious solution to this is for you to stop quoting evolutionists or do
>it more sparingly. Debate using your own words. Only use quotes if the
>*entire context* actually supports your argument. This quotation-heavy
>debate method of yours *isn't working* it's time to try something else.
When evolutionists tell me that my methods aren't working, then I assume
that they *are*!
The fact is that *nothing* works against really comitted evolutionists. The
fact that there have been creationists and IDers on this Reflector who
don't use quotes and at the end of the day, their methods don't work
either.
The beauty of posting quotes by leading evolutionists with difficulties
over aspects of evolution is that it forces the evolutionists on the
Reflector to either deal with the quote's message or shoot the messenger.
Evolutionists usually opt for the latter, which I (and I am sure uncomitted lurkers)
count as win for me on that point .
SB>Also I think I shall begin to be a bit more rigorous in supporting what I
>say with facts.
A welcome change!
SB>But I must also tell you that if I have access to the
>entire text of something you quote, and your quote is out of context, I
>will provide the context for the list without comment [...]
That's fine by me. As I said, I would *thank* anyone who objectively
demonstrated that a quote of mine was out-of-context. I have no desire,
nor need, to post out-of-context quotes.
But if they just claimed my quote was out-of-context with no supporting
evidence, I will treat it as an ad hominem and just delete it without
comment, as per my new policy.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The ability of species to adapt by changing one base pair at a time on any
gene, and to do so with comparative rapidity if selective advantages are
reasonably large, explains the fine details of the matching of many species
to their environment. It was from the careful observation of such matchings
by naturalists in the mid-nineteenth century that the Darwinian theory
arose. Because the observations were made with extreme care, it was
highly probable that immediate inferences drawn from them would prove to
be correct, as the work of Chapters 3 to 6 shows to be the case. What was
in no way guaranteed by the evidence, however, was that evolutionary
inferences correctly made in the small for species and their varieties could
be extrapolated to broader taxonomic categories, to kingdoms, divisions,
classes, and orders. Yet this is what the Darwinian theory did, and it was
by going far outside its guaranteed range of validity that the theory ran into
controversies and difficulties which have never been cleared up over more
than a century." (Hoyle F., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn
Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.137).
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 27 2000 - 10:11:24 EDT