Re: Definition of evolution
- ------Original Message------
From: Paul Andrew King <paul@...>
Sent: July 31, 2000 5:18:44 PM GMT
Subject: Re: [creationism] Re: Definition of evolution
Then where is the evidence you had at the time ? Two months is more than
enough to point out at least one example. But you have pointed out none
It take two months to put together evidence you supposedly already had ?
To put together a single example ?
Just why is two months a lot of time? I have a lot of other things to do, like moderating one e-circle. By the way, if you have forgotten, I'm still studying.
>>(By the way, if I am correct regarding the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, thenHave I ever claimed that every mistake you make is a lie ?
>>you are the one that is commiting all the lying in your posts regarding
>Or I could possibly be making an honest mistake - *if* you were right. But
>even if you turn out to be right it's quite clear that you had no grounds
>for your accusation. Two months is plenty of time to post the evidence IF
>you had any...
>Oh, you always make honest mistakes and I always lie...?
Only those mistakes that you have pointed out.
>>Look, I would rather have some good, solid debate than having you tryingO.K., it was Paul Robson, sorry. Try message 1284 at our egoups webpage, message 1276 also, especially this one by Tami:
>>to engage on a smear campaign against me. You may be able to frighten away
>>Tami, but not me, O.K.?
>What makes you think I frightened Tami away or even attempted to do so ?
>Let's see. After Tami joined in the discussion, both you and Paul Robson
>attack her faith in God (which is what you are doing now to Charles and
>who's the new one?), which would definitely upset her.
>Please produce quotes to back up your claims - especially with regard to Tami.
'Basically every time I mention anything that shows evolutionist hoaxes or what has shown them to be wrong, I GET JUMPED ON.'
& this exchange
> You are simply parrotting arguments made by some creationist or in someTami:
> book without stopping to consider whether they are true or even sensible ;
> this is what is annoying people.
Since I am annoying people there are two choices. One, you can delete messages from me without reading them and two, I won't bother trying to debate anyone because obviously anything I say has already been said before .
> The situation got so bad that Todd need to send a letter asking all ofSince Tami's withdrawal was - according to Tami - due to a desire to lurk
>you to calm down. After some time, Tami withdrew from the discussion.
>Isn't it a coincidence?!?
rather than participate in discussion with *no* suggestion of being
"frightened" away your inference is questionable.
Daniel:Tami is no more on the list. She got off it some time sfter she withdrew from the discussion. I hope you have found out that Charles or ReddiReader has also left the list, and I don't blame them for it. Especially in Charle's circumstances, where most of you attack his faith in a very disrespectful manner.
>>I have *no* idea where the term "Astroevolution" came from - did you makeDaniel:
>>it up ?
>>It is a term used to desribe a naturalistic evolution of the universe.
>>Anything that has gone from simple to complicated by naturalistic means
>>could be said to have evolved.
>I shopuld think so. However, it is a term that is very appropriate, don't
>you think so?
>Shall I take this as an admission that it is a term of your own invention ?
Let me see. Scientists refer to the formation of the universe as 'the evolution of the universe'. If this process is not astroevolution, than what is.
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @...
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
>------Original Message------And you'll get around to providing specifics, when ?
>From: Paul Andrew King <paul@...>
>Sent: August 4, 2000 5:32:17 PM GMT
>Subject: Re: [creationism] Re: Definition of evolution
>>In a message dated 8/3/00 11:49:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>I don;t see that that is necessary.
>The points in question are :
>Is thermodynamics being twisted to accomodate evolution ?
>So he shouldn't have to apologise for that accusation, should he ?
>Is Kelvin to blame for the accusation that people are twisting
>I don't see why Kelvin should be upset that evolution is *not* against the
>>Indeed on the second point there should be no need to look at anything more
>than the original accusation.
>>Here it is again :
>>"I think Lord Kelvin would have died in his grave if he has heard what
>these scientists are doing to twist the science of Thermodynamics to
>accomodate evolution, which he is firmly against."
>>I think the phrases "would have died [turned ?] IN HIS GRAVE" and "IF he
>has [had? ]heard" and "I think" clearly rule out the idea that Kelvin made
>the accusations - how can someone complain about something they do not know
>is going on ? Especially if they happen to be dead at the time ! :-)
>I think I have not made myself understood. What I was trying to say with
>that statement was that Kelvin, if he had been alive, would not be happy
>to see that evolutionary scientists have 'figured out' a mechanism so that
>evolution would not have violated the 2nd law of Thermodynamics as he is
second law of thermodynamics since I know of no evidence that he thought it
That aside there has been no miscommunication.
You accused scientists of twisting thermodynamics.
You refused to apologise for it insisting that Kelvin should apologise
first - as if it were Kelvin's word, not yours.
You have finally admitted that Kelvin is *not* responsible for the accusation
So why did you try to pretend that he was responsible for *your* words when
it was clear from the start that he was absolutely innocent ? And why has
it taken more than two months for you to admit that much ?
"The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of immortality.
More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals in the T'ang than
in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala Guide to Taoism_