Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000
Even the original evidence and trial for normal people was conclusive---certain!
No, I'm not being obtuse, you're being misled by Gore's changing the subject.
I'll go over it again. Gore makes a claim: All Nobel Prize Winners have disproved evolution. Then, Gore chooses (among others), two authorities. They are Nobel Prize Winners, therefore, they must have disproved evolution. Simple enough? I investigate. Gore's own authorities have made statements, reprinted here, which indicate, at the very least, that they assume evolution to have happened. One of them is doing further work investigating elements of evolution. Gore now wants to claim that they don't understand their own work, they're "just assuming" evolution, and that their work does disprove evolution.
It doesn't. Baltimore is in awe (as we all should be) of DNA. He's quoted saying, "It will be the work of at least the next half-century to fully comprehend the magnificence of the DNA edifice build over 4 billion years of evolution." These are not the words of a man who has disproved evolution. Whether Baltimore "assumes" is not the point.
Hartwell's own description of his current work is, "My laboratory is beginning a new research program aimed at studying how molecular circuits support evolution." Again, not the words of a man who has disproved evolution. Whether Hartwell "assumes" it is not the point.
Gore was wrong when he stated that all Nobel Prize Winners have disproved evolution. Q.E.D. That's the point.
Gore is now raising a lot of objections to various elements in the (separate) work of Baltimore and Hartwell. All of his objections are nothing more than attempts to change the subject. Gore was the one who claimed all Nobel Prize Winners have disproved evolution. He was wrong. He won't admit it, but then he never does.
It's hard to carry on a discussion this way. I love WRITTEN debate - you can refer to your previous words to show that people are not responding to what you ACTUALLY WROTE.
How true. And it's also possible to show how people attempt to change the terms of the debate part way through it. But you have to read all the words to find that out.
It can still be frustrating though, as is starting to come out in gore3000's posts.
Gore's posts have been substantially the same since he started posting on the subject. The only thing that's changed in them are the names he uses to insult his opponents. "Taliban," for instance, is newish.
try this...
I use p*** off parties for... lighter---fluid!
Here's the link---post!
To: Condorman
Keep up the good work and give me a ping when you've mastered "coherent thought."
Any particular reason your bio page is blank?
Because your mind is consumed by evo schlockism nothing resonates in an empty space. A guy over here always inebriated died in a drainage ditch with a broken beck. Nobody was around like the the times before to pull him out. Your tank must have a permanent drain in it. I know another guy who pushed his junker off of a cliff into the ocean because the only value was the insurance pay out for theft.
Ping me back wnen you get your brain donation---transplant!
167 posted on 9/28/02 4:49 AM Pacific by f.Christian
...by---guess who?
The spirit of the quote was most certainly not captured. The blue poster has a well-developed habit of misrepresenting his opponents' position just enough to make them untenable. It's known as "creating a strawman."
From post #714 come this, "Junior is going back and forth saying on one post that science proves nothing and on the next that evolution is fact."
The truth of the matter is that the theory of evolution, like any scientific theory, will never be "proven." A scientific theory makes specific predictions. Based on lines of common descent, evolution specifically predicts that a fossil of a bird-like amphibian will NEVER be found. If one such creature is found, the theory of exolution will be in serious trouble. Each fossil is a test, therefore, of the theory of evolution. If there is no contradiction, evolution gains credence, but never is a theory not subject to revision.
From post 626: "Being an evolutionist fraud, not a scientist, [Charles Darwin] was disproved in a famous book called 'The Beak of the Finch'."
This is an interesting case. In the first place, Darwin was not disproved. Darwin was a guy, not subject to proof. That nit-pickiness notwithstanding, Charles Darwin's theories of evolution and common descent have been revised a great deal since they were first formulated. This does not mean that evolution is false, merely that Darwin's conception of the mechanism and means was inaccurate. I would hypothesize that none of our current theories exist as they were first proposed. Additionally, 'The Beak of the Finch' is not a disproof of evolution as the reviews graciously posted by Gumlegs amply demonstrate.
The 'wildly elliptical' debacle is summarized (among other places) here. There are links included for verification purposes.
The point is that there is, among certain posters, a glaringly obvious history of deception, distortion and dishonesty. Those who have been around for a while tend to shorthand our remarks when dealing with them, and it might not always be obvious to the lurkers and newbies as to why.
You can attack/critcize the messenger(fC) over the style because you can't stand the message---TRUTH!
g3 has always complimented me publicly and privately---never said I was an embarassment...
even though I am willing to admit/apologise it myself---on occasion!
I believe that according to Catholic theology it's when you to to Confession and through the priest the Lord cleanses you of your sins. But only on the outside.
Somewhat less effective than absolution, which involves tonic water and lime.
What if I don't wear my tutu to Confession anymore?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.