Re: Evolution: A few questions

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:58:25 -0500 "Glenn Morton"
<glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:
> Vernon wrote:
>
> > Yes, I can understand that you would view any transition as
> > part of a continuum. However, I suggest it is reasonable that
> > we lift this particular one out of the wider context and
> > treat it as a well-defined sequence
>
> This is procedure is one of the most frustrating things about
> young-earthers and antievolutionists. They want to isolate any issue
> and
> never look at the broader picture. To do that denies oneself the
> context.
>
> >
> > But here, again, you are further along the sequence than I
> > had in mind Come back a couple of tens of thousands of
> > years. The promise of a substantial change then must have
> > taken the form of a few lumps and protrusions which can only
> > have reduced the creature's prospects of survival.
>
> Not necessarily. Why do you think every 'lump and protrusion' must
> be
> detrimental? That makes no logical sense whatso ever.
>
>
> > But, in the final resort, what makes your view less an
> > article of faith than mine?
>
> Because the observational data is there to support my view. You have
> to
> ignore the observational data. That is why yours is more of a
> fideism
> than mine.
>
>
Vernon,
I gave you solid reasons why your "lumps and protrusions" argument is
inane, as did Bivalve. Yet you repeat it to Glenn. The sole reason to
continue to spout such jejune nonsense (I refrain from using the earthier
term) is Himmler's Big Lie technique: Any falsehood repeated often enough
will gather some believers. But, to this audience, it merely demonstrates
that you are radically silly. So flush it!
Dave
Received on Tue Jun 22 15:27:11 2004