Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Condorman
>>Junior (#723): Evolution is a theory supported by facts.
gore3000 quoting Junior (#727): Evolution is facts. <<

Actually, to a lay person, there is not really a "core" difference between these two statements. Yes, one could argue the point and gore3000 was not precicely quoting, but the spirit of the quote was still captured.

You're picking at nits.
772 posted on 10/18/2002 9:54:30 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 731 | View Replies ]


To: RobRoy
You're picking at nits.

Not really. There are light years of difference between the two statements. That OJ whacked his wife is a theory supported by the evidence. Whether he whacked his wife or not is not an established fact

779 posted on 10/18/2002 10:14:24 AM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 772 | View Replies ]

To: RobRoy
Actually, to a lay person, there is not really a "core" difference between these two statements. Yes, one could argue the point and gore3000 was not precicely quoting, but the spirit of the quote was still captured.

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.

794 posted on 10/18/2002 11:14:06 AM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 772 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson