Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Definition of evolution

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Chew
    ... From: Paul Andrew King To: creationism@egroups.com Sent: July 31, 2000 5:18:44 PM GMT Subject: Re: [creationism] Re: Definition of
    Message 1 of 49 , Aug 1 2:50 AM
      ------Original Message------
      From: Paul Andrew King <paul@...>
      To: creationism@egroups.com
      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
      whatsoever.

      It take two months to put together evidence you supposedly already had ?
      To put together a single example ?

      Daniel:
      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, then
      >>you are the one that is commiting all the lying in your posts regarding
      >>the subject.)
      >>
      >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...
      >
      >Daniel:
      >Oh, you always make honest mistakes and I always lie...?

      Have I ever claimed that every mistake you make is a lie ?

      Daniel:
      Only those mistakes that you have pointed out.

      >>Look, I would rather have some good, solid debate than having you trying
      >>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 ?
      >
      >Daniel:
      >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.

      O.K., it was Paul Robson, sorry. Try message 1284 at our egoups webpage, message 1276 also, especially this one by 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

      Paul Robson:
      > You are simply parrotting arguments made by some creationist or in some
      > book without stopping to consider whether they are true or even sensible ;
      > this is what is annoying people.

      Tami:
      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 of
      >you to calm down. After some time, Tami withdrew from the discussion.
      >Isn't it a coincidence?!?

      Since Tami's withdrawal was - according to Tami - due to a desire to lurk
      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 make
      >>it up ?
      >>
      >>Daniel:
      >>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.
      >
      >Daniel:
      >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 ?

      Daniel:
      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
    • Paul Andrew King
      ... And you ll get around to providing specifics, when ? ... So he shouldn t have to apologise for that accusation, should he ? ... I don t see why Kelvin
      Message 49 of 49 , Aug 6 11:30 PM
        >------Original Message------
        >From: Paul Andrew King <paul@...>
        >To: creationism@egroups.com
        >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,
        >>danielchc@... writes:
        >
        >I don;t see that that is necessary.
        >The points in question are :
        >Is thermodynamics being twisted to accomodate evolution ?
        >
        >DAniel:
        >Yes.

        And you'll get around to providing specifics, when ?

        >
        >Is Kelvin to blame for the accusation that people are twisting
        >thermodynamics ?
        >
        >DAniel:
        >No.

        So he shouldn't have to apologise for that accusation, should he ?

        >
        >>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 ! :-)
        >
        >DAniel:
        >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
        >against evolution.

        I don't see why Kelvin should be upset that evolution is *not* against the
        second law of thermodynamics since I know of no evidence that he thought it
        was.

        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_

        Paul K.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.