Why Darwinism Is Doomed

WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/27/2006 | Jonathan Wells

[tacticalogic]

I also personally don't believe that is really evidence to support his claim. But Wells does present what he thinks is evidence.

Then I question Wells' grasp of the concept of what constitutes evidence to the same degree and in the same way that you challenge stands2reason's grasp of the English language, and expect the same rules of what does and does not constitute a "personal attack" to apply equally.

[PFC]

hmmm.

Interesting notion. The main idea he seems to be saying is that since most Americans don't believe in evolution, it must not be true.

So, basically the laws of nature are up for a popular vote like American idol contestants.

[ml1954]

...and ad hominem placemarker.

Last I checked, a statement of fact is not an ad hominem. And your 'egocentric' comment was an ad hominem. Or was your placemarker self referential? Sorry if I've completely misunderstood you post. Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Discounting *ALL* of someone's posts on the grounds that they adhere to geocentrism is, strictly speaking, ad hominem.

Discounting any of their conclusions which can be shown (or reasonably expected) to be shown to derive from the faulty premises of geocentrism is not.

People get tired of the "same old thing" from the "same old people" and resort to intellectual shortcuts.

The "egocentrism" was simply a pun involved by switching the letters around, together with an example of another ad hominem for reference...I have been accused of egocentrism by others before, but what would *they* know, anyway? ;-)

Thanks for replying instead of putting me on a virtual ignore list.

Cheers!

[ml1954]

Discounting *ALL* of someone's posts on the grounds that they adhere to geocentrism is, strictly speaking, ad hominem.

But I didn't say *ALL* posts from the poster should be ignored. I provided what I thought was relevant background info.

I have been accused of egocentrism by others before, but what would *they* know, anyway? ;-)

Sometimes it's actually a veiled compliment. And it's always good to have someone whispering in your ear. IMHO, it's better to be accused of this than of false humility. :) Cheers.

[taxesareforever]

There is a difference between your subjective definition of 'sin' and MULTIPLE FELONIES like assault and battery, perjury, theft....

Not in God's eyes. We all sin every day and to God sin is sin whether it be murder or lying.

[taxesareforever]

Hey Di, get a life.

[Al Simmons]

I apologize for not being clear. There is a difference between 'sin' (which can fit almost any selfish behavior), and criminal acts punishable under man's law.

I was taking umbrage at your insinuation that somehow her 'sin' and my 'sin' were equivalent.

That's NOT what I was talking about. Whatever 'needs' of hers I failed to meet, it did not justify the law-breaking actions she undertook.

All clear now I hope.

[Dimensio]

Telling me to "get a life" is a poor substitute for admitting error.

[taxesareforever]

Yep. Got it.

[taxesareforever]

To you, everything is questionable. So if I was to admit error, that would even be questionable to you. Therefore, I don't want you to question your own questionableness so therefore I won't admit anything to you.

[balrog666]

[Dimensio]

Making excuses for not admitting error does not change the fact that you were in error.

[taxesareforever]

In your questionable mind everyone except you and your ideas are in error. You would think the error of evolutionary thought would totally occupy your thought pattern.

[Dimensio]

In your questionable mind everyone except you and your ideas are in error.

Making false accusations against me does not demonstrate that your claims are true.

[taxesareforever]

Just that I am right. And does that make me feel so good.

[Dimensio]

Given that I have acknowledged error in the past, your claim is demonstratably false.

[Gargantua]

"...which calls into question your qualification on claiming that any part of it is "doomed"..."

I never, in any posting, claimed that Darwin's Theory is "doomed."

Which calls into question your ability to discern fact from delusion. If you must set up non-existent straw-men to make your point, you're actually ceding that you haven't one. Get a brain, then get a manual which explains how to use it properly... n'kay?

PTBS.

;-/

[Gargantua]

I say, have you any barbecue sauce?

;-/

[Dimensio]

I never, in any posting, claimed that Darwin's Theory is "doomed."

You are correct. I had mistakenly misatttributed someone else's declaration that the theory is "doomed" to you. This does not, however, alter the fact that you attributed elements to the theory that are not actually a part of the theory, which does call into question your credibility when speaking on the theory.

Which calls into question your ability to discern fact from delusion.

My statement was a mistake, not a delusion. Your insults do not lend credibility to your claims.

Get a brain, then get a manual which explains how to use it properly... n'kay?

Insulting me not only does not demonstrate that your claims are factual, but they are also a violation of the terms of usage for this forum.