Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 19:22:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1615 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> > > > > No, evolution didn't happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > As Sherlock Holmes states - or is attributed to have said,
> > > > > "After you eliminate the impossible whatever you are left with, however
> > > > > improbable, must be the answer."
> > > >
> > > > Sherlock is a fictional character, not a scientist (and I suppose I
> > > > shouldn't mention Piltdown Man and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in the same
> > > > breath). :-O
> > >
> > > Way off topic here...
> > > I suppose you thought that I believed the SH was real? hardly - Piltdown
> > > wasn't either... - But we all know that too. But he was more of a pig than
> > > SH :-)
> > >
> > > -Jon
> >
> > If it's way off topicn then why do you bring it up?
> >
> > You suppose incorrectly. I was pointing out that you were using a fictional
> > character to attempt to make a scientific point - a character written by the
> > man who may (or maybe not, lotsa noise, little surety) have been behind the
> > Piltdown Hoax, the man who wrote "The Lost World", to make a point about
> > evolution. I simply find it hugely ironic. :-)
> >
> > Bruce
>
> Ironic it may be... but what is fundamentally wrong with the statement?
>
> ... "After you eliminate the impossible whatever you are left with, however
> improbable, must be the answer." seems like a reasonable statement, whatever
> the source, fictional or not. (the flaw, if any, is in the "left with" part,
> since to be "left with" the correct possibility after eliminating the rest,
> you must have enumerated all (or at least a set that includes the correct
> one) the possibilities in the first place, a non trivial task)
You have to realize the train of thought he is trying to establish. If he
can prove evolution impossible, therefore, creationism, however improbable,
must be the answer. He may deny that is the point he is trying to make, but
note that there is no reason for the quote otherwise.
This discussion follows the usual pattern of creationists: the scientific
world doesn't accept it (with no evidence in any reputable scientic journal
forthcoming); shot down there, creationism is just as accepted (same lack of
evidence forthcoming); shot down there, evolution is just a (sneer) theory
(basic lack of understanding of the nature of scientific process); shot down
there, evolution is impossible and therefore creationism has greater
validity (which ignores that it still fails the scientific process
regardless of the conclusions on evolution); shot down there, hey its all a
matter of FAITH, so they are equivalent.
He is misapplying the quote in the manner of a sophist, and as you point out
has certainly not covered all the applicable bases.
>
> I think Jon's all wet in a lot of different ways but I wouldn't take him to
> task for this particular canard. It's a target rich environment, after all,
> why plink at sparrows when he's got plenty of albatrosses to shoot down?
>
> Just MHO of course.
>
> ++Lar
Gotta disagree. Of course, if you don't think he is trying to establish the
link I'm claiming he is, I understand your position.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| Bruce, you have a valid point in the larger context. I just think it's OK to quote fictional characters if there's merit in the thoughts of the author behind them. That's all. And I think it's OK to quote voices in your head too, but I digress. (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Actually no - you presume incorrectly :-) I realize, by now, that I can't convince you of much, but, here and now, my only point is that you should not hang your hat on "evolution" (in it's many definitions) except so-called 'micro-evolution'. (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Ironic it may be... but what is fundamentally wrong with the statement? ... "After you eliminate the impossible whatever you are left with, however improbable, must be the answer." seems like a reasonable statement, whatever the source, (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
