Originally Posted by Bex
If they're presenting the theory from a standpoint of apparent understanding and accurate portrayal - how does criticising the content of their posts then not criticise the theory?
Then if I criticize the posts that a Jehovah's Witness presents as their idea of apparant understanding and accurate portrayal of Christianity (They are Christians) then I am rightly criticizing your religion? Somehow that doesn't seem like an accurate statement.

Quote
If the opposition (creationists) are in fact as ignorant in our understanding of these things as has often been made out - one wonders why the need for such a backpeddle here to excuse the evolution members own possible errors, for fear it might poorly reflect or expose the theory itself?
Because CTD only concentrates on the outlandish statements and ignores the basics of the theory. If he was actually trying to debunk the theory of evolution, he would attack the basics of it, not questionable fringe statements made by non-professionals.

Quote
I'm considering that evolution is a game the opposition can never win - based upon the excuses and changes of definitions that game makers/marketers continue to apply to it.
So now it's your turn to demonstrate where the definitions have been changed in the professional literature of evolution biologists? You may as well get in the queue. Just don't wait for the others to show you where to look.

Last edited by LinearAq; 11/09/08 03:42 AM. Reason: spelling error
A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke