throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (06/07/85)
>>> [Ethan Vishniac] >>> I have to give up my project of classifying the 116 reasons. >> [Bill Jefferys] >> Since the "authors" of the 116 reasons are just parroting the contents >> of a pamphlet, ... >> ... I for one am going to exercise the "n" key when further >> examples are posted. I urge others to do the same. > [Paul DuBois] > (i) The authors are indeed the contents of the pamphlet, but one of the > authors (Walter Brown) wrote it originally. This may not exactly be > parroting. If it is, then every one of us is doing just that. OK. They're not parroting. The postings still leave a lot to be desired. > (ii) The postings have generated a substantial amount of discussion and > I personally feel that a certain amount of it has been worthwhile. I > am quite interested in the evolutionary response. Therefore I am > hopeful that the "n" key will not be used. In a recent posting, I made fun of this series of postings, stating that I couldn't find anything worthwhile in them so far. Ethan (when doing the classification he has since given up) found only two points that were relevant and even mildly interesting. The question is, why wade through 30 invalid points to find two points worth discussing? There have been repeated pleas for the posters of this series to - Filter out the arguments that have already been addressed in this newsgroup. - Respond to criticism. - Post at a higher rate (so as to have more substance available at a time) All such requests have been totally ignored. These postings seem to be aimed at an all-creationist audience (since I doubt that they could convince anyone not already convinced). They make elementary misstatements about evolution, and repeat essentialy identical arguments several times in different guises. And, to date, they have made *no statements at all* as to how creation explains the evidence that they claim disproves evolution. Perhaps someone (Paul?) would volunteer to do some filtering, so that a worthwhile version of the points could be posted when major headings of the outlines are complete. Such a posting might be worth reading, but the postings as currently presented are essentially unreadable as a basis for further discussion. (They make excelent light comedy reading, if you are in the mood for the absurd.) > I am guessing, but I think > Dr. Brown may view the net as a useful tool for getting feedback from > evolutionists. Dr. Brown is "getting feedback" from these postings, but absolutely refuses to enter a discussion. Hmmm. Without knowing what Dr. Brown thinks of this feedback, or how it is to be used, this doesn't give me a warm feeling, nor does it make me eager to provide input for Dr. Brown to (apparently) ignore. > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw