From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: "Bales is lying" thread
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 17 Nov 92  09:04:18

Who: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
ID: 7575@tekig7.pen.tek.com
 
[part about Meritt lying about you lying has been severed]
 
JM> "What data has been collected in support of creationism."
 
RB> "The interlocking nature of the feather is strong evidence
RB> that it did NOT evolve. Quoting again from _Vertabrates. . . ._
RB> 
RB>     "The typical feather has the two rows of barbs of slightly
RB>     unequal length, the one which is anterior on the body being
RB>     the shorter. Each barb has anterior and posterior barbules,
RB>     the former with hooks or hamuli and the latter with ridges,
RB>     so that the flat surface or vane of the feather is firmly
RB>     locked together on exactly the principle of the zipper."
RB>     (page 434)
RB> 
RB> Here we have another case of of *two* different, independent
RB> things, both of which must be present to accoplish the function.
RB> Evolutionary processes, assuming they occur, explain how *one*
RB> thing (at a time) can develop via a mutation and then be selected
RB> for, but as I pointred out above, they do not explain the
RB> development of simultaneous features.
RB> 
RB> and then says:
 
JM> "In case you didn't read what you wrote, your entire discussion
JM> revolves around what you do not believe evolutionary processes
JM> do and does NOT even mention creationism.
 
RB> "But I DID read what I wrote. What I wrote included *two
RB> additional lines*, which Jim cut:
 
JM> "On the other hand, the use of multiple different parts working
JM> together to accomplish a function is a hallmark of design.
 
RB> "These lines expand what Jim included and completly contradict
RB> the statement that my discussion is *entirely* about evolution.
 
Are you therefore accusing him of being dishonest in quoting you?
 
JM> Hence, this is not evidence FOR creationism.
 
RB> I mentioned "design" rather than "creation."
 
Since he asked you for evidence of Creationism, "design" doesn't
meet the request. Are you saying that Space Beings from Beta
Reticulii designed bird feathers in a lab? I suspect you blieve
that the way a feather inter-locks between its core-to-edge
radiating members is so unlikely that it must have been designed,
though you do not offer an opinion on what space alien cooked it
up in a lab.
 
You are once again confusing the END PRODUCT of a RESULT with the
probability of that result happening. I think you just do not
understand the issue. The probability of a feather being the way
it is is ONE, because it is that way. A feather -COULD- just as
easily evolved in some other way, and you would look at THAT
feather and claim it was designed! Feathers are an excellent example
of evolution.
 
RB> But since creation is the only prominent theory to include the
RB> idea of design, [....]"
 
Creationism isn't a theory, it is a religion. I thought you had
already been corrected on that fact. . . .
 
RB> [...] the presence in living organisms of characteristics of
RB> design which are not characteristics of evolutionary-type
RB> processes tends to indicate creation is a better explanation
RB> than evolution."
 
Sure. You are -MUCH- better at saying what is characteristic of
evolution than EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS. I'm sure your opinion is
must more valid than, say, and educated one.
 
RB> The point is, however, that discussing the issues in the above
RB> paragraph is what this group is for. Distorting what I say,
RB> or what anyone says, and falsely staing that I did not address
RB> the subject short-circuits fair debate."
 
Sure. Help folks out here: WHAT IS THE THEORY OF CREATIONISM??????
Sate it clearly, and it is much less likely to be distorted without
the distorted being called for a foul.
 
RB> Whether the omission was deliberate, or whether Jim somehow
RB> deleted the lines before he knew what they said, I don't know.
RB> But there was distorion, and I invite Jim to comment on my
RB> undistorted statements.
 
Since Meritt is a much brighter lad than I, I would not care to
second-guess him. Perhaps he felt, like I do, that the two lines
ommited were so utterly inane and bogus, what with the "by design"
argument haven been demonstrated false so many times, that he did
not want to yet once again tilt at that particular Creationist
mindmill?
 
RB> Bob Bales, Tektronix, Inc.