JohnW
Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
|
| Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 06 2015,11:42) | | Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 06 2015,14:05) | | Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 06 2015,07:38) | Arguably this might be better said on the EN&V thread, but it also belongs here:
Why does EN&V not allow comments?
| Quote | The problem with that line of reasoning is that there already is an ID blog that allows comments. Check out Uncommon Descent to see who's fouling the carpet.
What they're really worried about isn't the "Darwinists." It's Mung, bornagain, Vy, Andre, Virgil Cain, Upright BiPed, Mapou and others like them who will dominate the comments section and give the Discovery Institute a bad reputation. |
|
Byers explains:
| Quote | | Its the prestige of DI that is the issue. |
... closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, dropped dead, and been flogged. |
| Quote | Laurence A. MoranTuesday, November 03, 2015 10:54:00 AM
Let's look at a specific example of the "real scientists" on the ID side of the debate.
Denyse O'Leary posted a response to a question about "evolutionary fossils" where she talks about the fact that horseshoe crabs and coelecanths have not evolved. She mentions stasis and she mentions something about understanding evolution (really!) [We can’t understand evolution without understanding stasis and extinction].
I thought it might be helpful to explain that modern horseshoe crabs and coelecanths actually have evolved. Not only are they significantly different than the ancient fossils but at the molecular level they appear to be evolving at the same rate as all other species.
I provided links to website that even IDiots could read and understand.
You'd think this was a simple case of correcting facts but that's not how the ID crowd saw it. Apparently it's extremely important to them to show that horseshoe crabs and coelecanths have not evolved.
So Mapou, Vy, PaV, Virgil Cain, Mung, and bFast had to come to the defend the "real scientist" (Denyse O'Leary).
The funniest response was from Vy who claims that bacteria haven't evolved in over "2 BILLION Darwin years."
This is the sort of thing that's bound to happen if Evoution News & Views (sic) opens up to comments. I think they know that. I think they realize that it's their own creationist supporters who are going to pollute the blog and make them look even sillier than they look when they post their main articles.
I suspect they're also worried about ID supporters who might disagree with them. That would be a PR disaster from their perspective. Over on Uncomon Descent we see ID proponents arguing about common descent. The Discovery Institute can't allow that to happen on their website. |
|
| Quote | | The funniest response was from Vy who claims that bacteria haven't evolved in over "2 BILLION Darwin years." |
Are they like dog years?
--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers
There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
