>> Loren's rhetoric is getting out of hand. <<
Forgive me Walter, but given your comments in the same letter, isn't that a
case of the kettle calling the pot black?
Walter writes in the same response (with ample snipping on my part):
>>
In that case, Loren is using the old "dramatic observation" ploy .... Loren's
notion does not test evolution, it
is just another run-around.
"Predictions"!!!??? No, those aren't predictions, they are evolutionists'
excuses for the ***absence*** of fossils lineages. Loren is using
reverse-logic again.
That is another favorite evolutionary dodge. .... That's bad logic. (I
document examples of this ploy in my
book....)
A favorite ruse of evolutionists is to divert the discussion to theories
OTHER than evolution. Anything to wear you down and take the heat off
evolution.
...Loren has not begun to identify its observations
that could refute Darwinism. They are vastly more elusive than Loren has
admitted to.
...evolutionists have more excuses, cover-ups,
and "auxilliary hypotheses" than they know what to do with. Loren's
discussion on this point is exceedingly bland (non-existent!).
In summary, Loren gave us the run-around
Evolutionists cannot demonstrate
the sufficiency of their mechanisms, so they invoke mechanisms SOLELY on the
ability to match (and therefore "explain") the data. There is no compact
"central core" of their theory. It's always been a structureless
smorgasbord of conflicting mechanisms.
Darwinism is an ambiguous term with various meanings -- evolutionists shift
to whatever meaning they need to evade the jaws of a particular criticism.
And his pointing to various authorities is no excuse for his inability
to identify a test. Popper couldn't identify a test either.
<<
Walter, you consistently use the most striking "full contact" rhetoric I've
seen on the reflector. Given what I've seen above, you're accusing anyone who
speaks positively of evolution of using "ploys," of giving the "run-around," of
using "excuses, cover-ups" and so forth. If there is such a conspiracy, perhaps
you could tone down the rhetoric and be the voice of reason to educate others.
Given what I've seen thus far, you probably will explain to me why I completely
misunderstand rather than taking my comments to heart, but I had to try.
Steve Anonsen
Software Architect
Great Plains Software
Fargo, ND