Re: ad hominems & the future of this Reflector

From: Stephen E. Jones (sejones@iinet.net.au)
Date: Thu Apr 27 2000 - 10:11:39 EDT

  • Next message: billwald@juno.com: "Re: Gene duplication and design"

    Reflectorites

    On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 16:40:08 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:

    [...]

    >SJ>This is incorrect. Susan did not give "the full quotation" but still left
    >>some of my omitted words out. And as I said, I was (and am), happy to put *all*
    >>the words back and debate the point, but Susan (and Chris) declined.

    SB>I certainly didn't quote the entire essay, what difference does that make?

    [...]

    As I said, Susan didn't even quote the entire *quote*! The fact is that
    Susan omitted words from the same quote which were irrelevant to the
    point *she* was making as I did.

    [...]

    SB>The obvious solution to this is for you to stop quoting evolutionists or do
    >it more sparingly. Debate using your own words. Only use quotes if the
    >*entire context* actually supports your argument. This quotation-heavy
    >debate method of yours *isn't working* it's time to try something else.

    When evolutionists tell me that my methods aren't working, then I assume
    that they *are*!

    The fact is that *nothing* works against really comitted evolutionists. The
    fact that there have been creationists and IDers on this Reflector who
    don't use quotes and at the end of the day, their methods don't work
    either.

    The beauty of posting quotes by leading evolutionists with difficulties
    over aspects of evolution is that it forces the evolutionists on the
    Reflector to either deal with the quote's message or shoot the messenger.

    Evolutionists usually opt for the latter, which I (and I am sure uncomitted lurkers)
    count as win for me on that point .

    SB>Also I think I shall begin to be a bit more rigorous in supporting what I
    >say with facts.

    A welcome change!

    SB>But I must also tell you that if I have access to the
    >entire text of something you quote, and your quote is out of context, I
    >will provide the context for the list without comment [...]

    That's fine by me. As I said, I would *thank* anyone who objectively
    demonstrated that a quote of mine was out-of-context. I have no desire,
    nor need, to post out-of-context quotes.

    But if they just claimed my quote was out-of-context with no supporting
    evidence, I will treat it as an ad hominem and just delete it without
    comment, as per my new policy.

    Steve

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "The ability of species to adapt by changing one base pair at a time on any
    gene, and to do so with comparative rapidity if selective advantages are
    reasonably large, explains the fine details of the matching of many species
    to their environment. It was from the careful observation of such matchings
    by naturalists in the mid-nineteenth century that the Darwinian theory
    arose. Because the observations were made with extreme care, it was
    highly probable that immediate inferences drawn from them would prove to
    be correct, as the work of Chapters 3 to 6 shows to be the case. What was
    in no way guaranteed by the evidence, however, was that evolutionary
    inferences correctly made in the small for species and their varieties could
    be extrapolated to broader taxonomic categories, to kingdoms, divisions,
    classes, and orders. Yet this is what the Darwinian theory did, and it was
    by going far outside its guaranteed range of validity that the theory ran into
    controversies and difficulties which have never been cleared up over more
    than a century." (Hoyle F., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn
    Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.137).
    Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 27 2000 - 10:11:24 EDT