[MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Case <Case at iSpots.com>:

> [Platt]
> Well, it made for a nice story. But did it actually happen? I thought
> science depended on observation and experiment, not on mythical tales. 
> 
> [Case]
> It wasn't my story so I can't say. My point was mainly the foolishness of
> your assertion that the fact at animal breeders do it makes it somehow
> irrelevant or uninteresting.

Foolish? Less better? Hmmm.

> [Platt]
> Yes, but still finches. Not bluebirds.
> 
> [Case]
> So what? The story of the finches covers relatively recent events. Over a
> longer period Finches and Bluebirds originate from common stock.

Yes, that's the theory.

> [Platt]
> Are you saying once a fruitfly always a fruitfly?
> 
> [Case]
> No Platt I used to live farther north and routinely transmorgraphied fruit
> flies into wooly mammoths. But the neighbors got annoyed and I had to stop
> or leave town. I did both.

When you transmogrify a fruitfly into something other than a fruitfly, do let us
know.
  
> [Platt]
> Being stranded on an island doesn't prove evolution does it?
> 
> [Case]
> In the case of Madagascar, Galapagos and Australia yes. Ok Australia is a
> continent, barely.

Prove? How?

> [Platt]
> Yes, I've read some of those authors. Also, critiques of their works,
> especially "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip Johnson. I try to be "fair and
> balanced." :-)
> 
> [Case]
> If Johnson is the source of your misunderstandings that explains a lot. Next
> you will be citing Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell. These guys present bald
> faced gibberish to the intellectually challenged. 

Sez one died-in-wool biologist, quoted below. And you, of course. Hardly convincing.

> 
> >From the Phillip Johnson Wiki: 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson
> 
> "In fact-checking Johnson's books Darwin on Trial and Defeating Darwinism,
> one reviewer has argued that almost every scientific source Johnson cited
> had been misused or distorted, from simple misinterpretations and innuendos
> to outright fabrications. The reviewer, Brian Spitzer, a professor of
> Biology, described Darwin on Trial as the most deceptive book he had ever
> read."
> 
> Or this from Johnson himself.
> 
> "So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you
> now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important
> thing" -the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and
> the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the
> so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that
> you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify
> the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a
> Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to
> get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." 
> 
> This is calculated claptrap. 
> 
> If you really want to have an open mind you will need to resolve to do more
> frequent dusting.

Claptrap to you, or not "betterness." But where is your argument? All I see
is sand. 




-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/