Joined: Dec. 2006
|Quote (Richardthughes @ May 21 2008,12:55)|
|Can someone poke the 'apology' thread there please, I feel there is more TARD to mine. bonus points if you can get another nugget from Joy.|
Here she is, in Bunny and a Book:
And this is no doubt what makes the "RM/NS" shorthand so popular among both IDers and DDs. The DDs like it (and teach it to everybody's children as the most instruction in biological evolution a huge majority of them ever receive) because it's catchy like a propaganda slogan, it's easy to impart, and it artificially supports their preference for selection as life's designer. IDers like it because it's so easily revealed to BE simplistic, dumbed-down pablum that looks a lot like ideological sloganeering, which leaves wide open the actual source and nature of biological evolution.
The deal is, it is known that biological evolution doesn't work exclusively or even primarily by RM/NS. It's not a good - or even adequate - description of what's going on. Obviously the pablum doesn't sell well to the public (or their children), since upwards of 60% don't believe it even after taking the requisite indoctrination and passing the test. The DD answer to that situation?
"Waaaaaa! You don't know enough to make that judgment!"
Which is darned lame. Of course they know enough to judge RM/NS insufficient for explanation - they were taught it on purpose, supposedly so they'd have enough knowledge to judge. When they DO judge, the truth comes out clearly - they were taught simplistic pablum that science knows very well to be insufficient! Tell me, aiguy… whose fault is that?
I'm just reading, don't care to enter into the arguments here. I simply note that you're pushing the pablum as if we're all 15-year old hormone-addled school children, when reality is that we are well beyond the RM/NS scam and have been for a long time. It's just a little bit insulting when you resort to this smokescreen when objects to your definitional distractions, that's all.
Zachriel provides a quick smackdown by reductio ad absurdum:
The deal is, it is known that planets don't orbit exclusively or even primarily by tracing ellipses. It's not a good - or even adequate - description of what's going on.
Turns out that elliptical orbits are a oversimplification of chaotic planetary dynamics. Why do they lie to children!?
If you are not:
please Logout »