For those who are watching this, perhaps you might be interested
        in seeing exactly how much Joe Mama is fitting the mold right now...

        I am seeding these messages with quotes *from Joe Mama* in the last
        few messages, illustrating where he's done all of the above.

The majority of creationist arguments are intended to discredit
evolution in various ways.  Since they can't make a case for
creationism, they attempt to dismantle the case for evolution. 
This fallacious argument assumes that there are only two
possible explanations þcreation and evolution.

Here is a sampling of the techniques used in creationist
arguments.  You will often see a large number of these
techniques used in one presentation.  A really gifted creationist
can often combine two or three of these techniques in a single
paragraph.

Being aware of the techniques creationists use may be of some
help, should you ever find yourself engaged in a "discussion"
with one of them.  The entire purpose of these techniques is
to keep the audience from noticing that the creationist never
actually defends his own position, but merely attacks everyone
else's.

Audiences are much more likely to notice what's happening
when it's pointed out to them.  :-)


1) INTERPRET ANY UNCERTAINTY ANYWHERE IN
SCIENCE AS IMPLYING TOTAL UNCERTAINTY
EVERYWHERE IN SCIENCE.

Science is by nature tentative.  Anything on the cutting edge
is going to have considerable uncertainty attached to it. 
Anything science is certain about now will be found to have
had considerable uncertainty attached to it at some point in
history.  As soon as any evidence of any uncertainty is found,
present it and claim that scientists therefore don't know what
they are talking about.

¯ Area: Science vs Religion ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  Msg#: 120                                          Date: 02-28-98  
  From: ``joe Mama`` Micronet #11                    Read: Yes    Replied: Yes
    To: ALL                                          Mark:                     
  Subj: Baloney...
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

[...]

JM>> Further, quoting *FROM THE SAME BOOK* on page 101 - "The fact of
  >> evolution is not in doubt."

This was not the issue of the debate.  One of the things that bothers me
about your replies, is while you consistently criticise others for doing
similar things, you continue to rebut one topic of discussion with the
irrelevant examples of another.

We were talking about whether or not *SCIENTISTS* who affiliate with the
evolution community, not only biochemists, biologists, or paleotologists
disagree with the theory of evolution per se.

[...]

Not to mention that you are comparing the undiscovered future technology
to past recorded evidence already in existence, there is *nowhere* I
know of where it was ever stated at that time, that these things were an
"article of faith," but most likely were considered as being definite
possibilities which were worth working toward.

And to remind you *again* that my claim was that there are [were] those
scientists, particularly of the evolution community, who disagree with
the theory of evolution, which you have not yet proven to be inaccurate.

¯ Area: Science vs Religion ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  Msg#: 122                                          Date: 02-28-98  
  From: ``joe Mama`` Micronet #11                    Read: Yes    Replied: No 
    To: All                                          Mark:                     
  Subj: Again, wrong again...
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

So you again, posted kilobytes of FAQ on me to address a situation which
was totally and completely independent of the topic of discussion, which
AGAIN TO REMIND YOU is that there are scientists who are/were affiliated
with the evolution community WHO DISAGREE WITH THE THEORIES OF EVOLUTION
and I have AGAIN proven true by the quotes I provided.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

¯ Area: Science vs Religion ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  Msg#: 123                                          Date: 02-28-98  
  From: ``joe Mama`` Micronet #11                    Read: Yes    Replied: No 
    To: All                                          Mark:                     
  Subj: Constant reminders...
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Not that it matters, because *AGAIN*, the main point is not whether
their assumptions are accurate or not, but whether or not there is *in
fact* dissention among the evolution community, which is apparently so.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

¯ Area: Science vs Religion ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  Msg#: 124                                          Date: 02-28-98  
  From: ``joe Mama`` Micronet #11                    Read: Yes    Replied: No 
    To: All                                          Mark:                     
  Subj: More of the same...
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

SS> BTW - all of these fall under the same Hoyle/Wickramasinghe fallacy
  > as mentioned two posts ago.

I presented about ten or more examples of dissent among the ranks of
those within the evolution community, such as the ones above, and you
provide one author's opinion which you blanket as being the bottom-line,
absolute, irrefutable fact.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯


=========================cut here =========================================

2) TRUMPET ANY MISTAKES MADE BY ANY
SCIENTIST, AND IGNORE THE FACT THAT THESE
MISTAKES ARE CORRECTED.  
Most people in your audience will not be well versed in the
history of science.  You can flood an audience with accounts
of  mistakes in science, and accounts of things scientists
thought that are now known not to be true.  With enough such
accounts, you can build a superficially compelling picture of
"Science Always Getting It Wrong".
Even experts in the history of science will not be able to
directly address all the examples you bring up.  Anything left
unadressed can be waved in front of the audience as "not
refuted".  You can then use the fact that something has been
left unrefuted to claim that everything has been left unrefuted. 


¯ Area: Science vs Re ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  Msg#: 122                                          Date: 02-28-98  
  From: ``joe Mama`` Micronet #11                    Read: Yes    Replied: No 
    To: All                                          Mark:                     
  Subj: Again, wrong again...
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

JM>> "If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a
  >> scientific training into the conviction that life originated
  >> [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation [the
  >> mathematical odds against it] wipes the idea entirely out of
  >> court." -Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe, Astronomers, Evolution
  >> from Space, p. 24
JM>> "From my (Chandra Wickramasinghe) earliest training as a scientist
  >> I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be
  >> consistent with any kind of deliberate creation.
JM>> That notion has had to be very painfully shed.
JM>> I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now
  >> find myself in.
JM>> But there is no logical way out of it...For life to have been a
  >> chemical accident on earth is like looking for a particuala grain
  >> of sand on all the beaches in all the planets in the universe--and
  >> finding it.

[...]
SS> More background: Years ago Hoyle and Wickramasinghe postulated

(deleted out of sheer and total irrelevance to the topic of discussion)

[note: I had to add this next portion back in, because Joe Mama deleted it,
not suprisingly, as it demonstrates how Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, and all
"probability" arguments are based upon erroneous equations]

This "probability", combined with a distortion and misquotation of
Dawkins, has actually been used as a claim by some extremely
dishonest Creationists as the foundation of a scientific theory of
Creation, even though it is nothing of the sort for other reasons.

The flaw in the equations used by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe was that
they used anonymous/non-anonymous atoms and, later, genetic
sequences, to calculate the probability of a random assembly
becoming a modern uni-cellular organism. The same tactic by Behe was
used, via the debunked "irreducible complexity" approach, to derive
a probability.

But this method of applying probability is utterly dishonest.

Let us take a simple example - table salt crystals.

Table salt is made up of sodium and chlorine atoms, so let's start
with a very small quantity (around 50 milligrams) of sodium and
chlorine - around 10^20 atoms of each.

Let's place these elements in a small container and mix it up.

What is the probability of a sodium atom meeting a chlorine atom in
this container?

Answer: Virtually Unity.

What is the probability of a *SPECIFIC* sodium atom meeting a
*SPECIFIC* chlorine atom in this container?

Answer: Once the sodium atom meets any OTHER chlorine atom, it is
out of the picture. Similarly, once the chlorine atom meets any
OTHER sodium atom, then IT is out of the picture.

The probability of the specific atoms meeting each other?

              1 in 10^40.

The probability of every single specific sodium atom meeting a
specific chlorine atom?

              1 in 10^80. 1 with 80 zeroes after it.

Once we have 10^20 salt molecules, what is the probability of any
salt molecule linking to any other until we have a salt crystal?

Answer: Unity.

What are the chances of a SPECIFIC salt molecule meeting another
SPECIFIC salt molecule? 1 in 10^20.

Of all of them meeting like this? 1 in 10^40?

Of that batch of Sodium and Chlorine making that crystal?

                          1 in 10^120

This is how Hoyle and Wickramasinghe and Behe established their
probabilities - by using permutations and treating each component of
the cell as a totally unique entity with no other properties prior
to final assembly than staying where placed.

[end of what I replaced - Surge]

SS> The argument of Hoyle/Wickramasinghe/Behe and probabilities is
  > therefore debunked!

So you again, posted kilobytes of FAQ on me to address a situation which
was totally and completely independent of the topic of discussion, which
AGAIN TO REMIND YOU is that there are scientists who are/were affiliated
with the evolution community WHO DISAGREE WITH THE THEORIES OF EVOLUTION
and I have AGAIN proven true by the quotes I provided.

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
======================================================================

3) SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO YOUR
CRITICS ANY WAY YOU CAN. 

Remember, your position is indefensible.  The only way you
can present anything like a compelling argument is to make
your opponents look ignorant.  Force them to prove everything
they say.  If they refuse to accept the burden of proof, force
them to prove they don't have to prove what they say.

¯ Area: Science vs Religion ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  Msg#: 121                                          Date: 02-28-98  
  From: ``joe Mama`` Micronet #11                    Read: Yes    Replied: No 
    To: All                                          Mark:                     
  Subj: Wrong again...
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

SS> Which, of course, may further be explained by the fact that the
  > *mechanism* of evolution is still in debate - most notably of
  > late between punctuated and gradual evolution.  The models differ
  > and both attempt to describe it as best as possible.

Before they can arrive at a conclusion of "mechanism," they still have
to *prove* the fact of evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, which they
HAVE NOT DONE...
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

¯ Area: Science vs Religion ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  Msg#: 125                                          Date: 02-28-98  
  From: ``joe Mama`` Micronet #11                    Read: Yes    Replied: No 
    To: All                                          Mark:                     
  Subj: Oh Mama, can it *really*
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

JM>> "It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out
  >> of palaebiological facts.  The fossil material is now so complete
  >> that...that lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due
  >> to the scarcity of material.  The deficiencies are real, they will
  >> never be filled." -Synthetische Artbildung (The Synthetic Origin of
  >> Species), by Heribert Nilsson, Botanist, 1953, p. 1212

SS> Considering that many new fossil species have been found since 1953,

Oh really?  Well, straying from the main topic of discussion, are these
ones which beyond a shadow of a doubt prove a transition of *any* of
these species?

I don't think so...

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

=================================================================

4) ANY FACTS OR EXPLANATIONS NOT
IMMEDIATELY AT HAND MAY BE REGARDED AS
NONEXISTENT.

If a critic makes a statement about science and doesn't present
all the evidence to prove it from the fundamental level on up,
you can seize upon any missing step and declare the entire
statement as "unproven" or "a wild guess".  If a critic
manages to refute any of your statements, ignore the
refutation.  As soon as the refutation is no longer being
actively presented, re-assert your claim.  After all, the
refutation's not right out there any more.

¯ Area: Science vs Religion ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  Msg#: 125                                          Date: 02-28-98  
  From: ``joe Mama`` Micronet #11                    Read: Yes    Replied: No 
    To: All                                          Mark:                     
  Subj: Oh Mama, can it *really*
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

SS> Considering that many new fossil species have been found since 1953,

Oh really?  Well, straying from the main topic of discussion, are these
ones which beyond a shadow of a doubt prove a transition of *any* of
these species?

I don't think so...

SS> not to mention that this reference predates the discovery of DNA,
  > let alone our ability to discover true relationships by genetic
  > heritage (genotype) rather than by appearance (phenotype), one would
  > quickly conclude that not only was Mssr. Artbildung incorrect in his
  > assertion that the "fossil material is now [1953] so complete...",

I can only think of, in the same manner as scientists nowadays are so
sure of pinpoint accuracy, these people back in 1953 must have felt the
exact same way, only to have a lot of their theories eventually shot to
blazes through new discoveries, evolution *not* being one of them...

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
=====================================================

5) BURY YOUR OPPONENT IN QUOTES. 

Nobody is an expert in everything.  The more quotes you pull
up, the greater the chance that your opponents will not have
the knowledge or data to refute at least one of them.  You can
then emphasize the quotes not dealt with and announce that
"science has no response to them".  (Note that this will not
work unless you have managed to shed the burden of proof,
as advised in step 2.)

¯ Area: Science vs Religion ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  Msg#: 120                                          Date: 02-28-98  
  From: ``joe Mama`` Micronet #11                    Read: Yes    Replied: Yes
    To: All                                          Mark:                     
  Subj: Baloney...
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

JM>> "The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is,
  >> at present, still an article of faith." -The Limitations of
  >> Science, by J.W.N. Sullivan, Mathematician, 1933, p. 5

SS> Mathematician, "at present", and 1933.  Considering that the idea of
  > controlled atomic fission, color tv's, computers, and a trip to the
  > moon were "an article of faith" at the time of that writing, we can
  > throw this one out on principle...

Not to mention that you are comparing the undiscovered future technology
to past recorded evidence already in existence, there is *nowhere* I
know of where it was ever stated at that time, that these things were an
"article of faith," but most likely were considered as being definite
possibilities which were worth working toward.

And to remind you *again* that my claim was that there are [were] those
scientists, particularly of the evolution community, who disagree with
the theory of evolution, which you have not yet proven to be inaccurate.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

¯ Area: Science vs Religion ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  Msg#: 124                                          Date: 02-28-98  
  From: ``joe Mama`` Micronet #11                    Read: Yes    Replied: No 
    To: All                                          Mark:                     
  Subj: More of the same...
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

SS> BTW - all of these fall under the same Hoyle/Wickramasinghe fallacy
  > as mentioned two posts ago.

I presented about ten or more examples of dissent among the ranks of
those within the evolution community, such as the ones above, and you
provide one author's opinion which you blanket as being the bottom-line,
absolute, irrefutable fact.

I don't think so...

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
===========================================================

6) USE "CAFETERIA SCIENCE" 

If you look around diligently enough, some scientist
somewhere will say something that will bolster your case. 
Even at the rate of one oddball case in a million, you can
accumulate literally thousands of quotes if you mine a long
enough time period.  In true cafeteria style, you can seize
upon these quotes and ignore the science that refutes these
quotes.

¯ Area: Science vs Religion ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  Msg#: 123                                          Date: 02-28-98  
  From: ``joe Mama`` Micronet #11                    Read: Yes    Replied: No 
    To: All                                          Mark:                     
  Subj: Constant reminders...
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

JM>> "Evolution...is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
  >> but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.  Among
  >> paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
  >> growing dissent." -The Tortoise or the Hare, by James Gorman,
  >> Discover Magazine, October 1980, p. 88

SS> Do you have the magazine at hand?  I would *dearly* like to know the
  > paragraph before, after, and what was omitted in the ellipsis.

No, I'm afraid that I don't, but you perhaps it may be available on a
microfiche at your local library.

Not that it matters, because *AGAIN*, the main point is not whether
their assumptions are accurate or not, but whether or not there is *in
fact* dissention among the evolution community, which is apparently so.

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¯ Area: Science vs Religion ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  Msg#: 122                                          Date: 02-28-98  
  From: ``joe Mama`` Micronet #11                    Read: Yes    Replied: No 
    To: All                                          Mark:                     
  Subj: Again, wrong again...
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

JM>> "If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a
  >> scientific training into the conviction that life originated
  >> [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation [the
  >> mathematical odds against it] wipes the idea entirely out of
  >> court." -Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe, Astronomers, Evolution
  >> from Space, p. 24

JM>> "From my (Chandra Wickramasinghe) earliest training as a scientist
  >> I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be
  >> consistent with any kind of deliberate creation.

JM>> That notion has had to be very painfully shed.

JM>> I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now
  >> find myself in.

JM>> But there is no logical way out of it...For life to have been a
  >> chemical accident on earth is like looking for a particuala grain
  >> of sand on all the beaches in all the planets in the universe--and
  >> finding it.

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
==========================


7) FIND AN INSTANCE OF A SCIENTIST BEHAVING
BADLY, AND USE IT TO MAKE THE CLAIM THAT
ALL SCIENTISTS WILL DO THE SAME. 

Ideally, all scientists would base arguments against bad science
on the science.  Fortunately, scientists are human.  Sometimes
they will engage in personal attacks, censorship and other
unsavory techniques.  Use this fact to tar all scientists with the
same brush, and also to make the claim that no crank scientists
have been "refuted", but rather censored.

 [He did this recently with his Ph.D. example, which I don't happen to have
 handy.  Too bad.]

================================================

8) SCIENTIFIC FACTS AND THEORIES NEED HAVE
NO EFFECTS EXCEPT WHERE CONVENIENT. 

Whenever some bit of cafeteria science has implications you
don't want to deal with, you are free to ignore them.  For
example, if you like the possibility that neutron radiation might
have changed the ratios of radioactive elements and their decay
products, ignore the fact that neutrons have observable effects
elsewhere in nature.

¯ Area: Science vs Religion ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  Msg#: 123                                          Date: 02-28-98  
  From: ``joe Mama`` Micronet #11                    Read: Yes    Replied: No 
    To: All                                          Mark:                     
  Subj: Constant reminders...
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

No, I'm afraid that I don't, but you perhaps it may be available on a
microfiche at your local library.

Not that it matters, because *AGAIN*, the main point is not whether
their assumptions are accurate or not, but whether or not there is *in
fact* dissention among the evolution community, which is apparently so.

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¯ Area: Science vs Religion ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  Msg#: 124                                          Date: 02-28-98  
  From: ``joe Mama`` Micronet #11                    Read: Yes    Replied: No 
    To: All                                          Mark:                     
  Subj: More of the same...
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
JM>> "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede
  >> that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is
  >> impossible." -George Wald, Biochemist, Scientific American, August
  >> 1954, p. 46

JM>> "There is no other way in which we can understand the precise
  >> ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on
  >> a cosmic scale." -There Must be a God, by Geoffrey Levy, Daily
  >> Express, London, August 14, 1981, p. 28

SS> BTW - all of these fall under the same Hoyle/Wickramasinghe fallacy
  > as mentioned two posts ago.

I presented about ten or more examples of dissent among the ranks of
those within the evolution community, such as the ones above, and you
provide one author's opinion which you blanket as being the bottom-line,
absolute, irrefutable fact.

I don't think so...

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

======================================
9) WHEN CORNERED, CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

Always have material from several different subjects ready to
present.  When you find yourself out of your depth in one, be
ready to duck into another.  Chances are, your opponent will
not be an expert in that other subject.  This is particularly true
if you choose subjects that are distantly related, such as
cellular biology and astrophysics.  Ideally, you will have set
this dodge up while you have been burying your opponent in
quotes.

¯ Area: Science vs Religion ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  Msg#: 120                                          Date: 02-28-98  
  From: ``joe Mama`` Micronet #11                    Read: Yes    Replied: Yes
    To: All                                          Mark:                     
  Subj: Baloney...
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

SS> Firstly, Jastrow is an astronomer, not a biochemist, biologist, or
  > paleontologist.

So too is the situation with Carl Sagan, yet he is touted as being an
authority with *his* comments on the matter.  Without these other known
sciences such as chemistry, etc., there could be no theory of evolution.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

================================
10) WHEN REALLY CORNERED, CALL NAMES.

With sufficient imagination, any of society's ills may be
attributed to the beliefs of "evolutionists".  Ignore the fact that
most, if not all, of these ills existed long before Darwin ever
drew breath.  Asserting links between evolution and such
movements as Marxism, Communism and Nazism is a popular
form of mud slinging.  If you have been making use of 
technique #7, accuse your opponent of being as bad as the
people youAve been citing. 

This is even more effective if you can manage to goad your
opponent into a display of impatience, disdain or temper using
any of these techniques.

[I've commented this one, because it's vaguely sneaky]

¯ Area: Science vs Religion ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  Msg#: 118                                          Date: 02-28-98  
  From: ``joe Mama`` Micronet #11                    Read: Yes    Replied: Yes
    To: All                                          Mark:                     
  Subj: Dumb Questions...     1/2
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

This is the same as the "smoking gun" example, which I agree, but if the
same situation was applied to any secular text, you would be more prone
to accept it merely because it would not require adherence to a belief
or way of life that most people don't want to be restricted to.

[ad hominem circumstantial]

[...]

No wonder the whole world is in such chaos and turmoil.  No one has any
incentive to think for themselves anymore because it's already been pre-
decided for them how and what they should believe.  I don't have any
idea how old you are, but I don't have to be rocket scientist to be able
to see the writing on the wall as clear as the nose on my face.


[blames chaos of world on rules of logic]

SS> Actually, I can honestly say that such does not appear to be the
  > case.  You are attempting to (perhaps unwittingly) promote a form of
  > "logic" that is entirely conditional on whether or not it supports
  > what you want to believe.

Thank you Mr. Spock, and the manner in which you have been replying to
me ever since I made it clear that I would not accept any prefabricated
rules of logic, is beginning to *far surpass* this assumption...

[ad hominem abusive]

SS> I, on the other hand (and despite your claims) *can* be convinced of
  > various claims if evidence were to accumulate.

Excuse me, but not lately you can't.  You have since blanket rejected
about 99% of *all* the information I have posted, and with absolutely
*no* supporting comment or evidence.  It almost feels as if you think
you're punishing me for not seeing it your way...

[attempting to cast me as personally abusive]

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

11) WHEN AN EXPLANATION SHOWS YOU TO BE
ABSOLUTELY WRONG, IGNORE THE EXPLANATION
AND REASSERT THE ORIGINAL CLAIM.

This works on the principle that "Any Lie Repeated Often
Enough Will Be Believed".  It's also a very good way of
goading your opponents into bouts of ill temper.

[this applies to nearly every conversation we've had]

¯ Area: Science vs Religion ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  Msg#: 118                                          Date: 02-28-98  
  From: ``joe Mama`` Micronet #11                    Read: Yes    Replied: Yes
    To: All                                          Mark:                     
  Subj: Dumb Questions...     1/2
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Thank you Mr. Spock, and the manner in which you have been replying to
me ever since I made it clear that I would not accept any prefabricated
rules of logic, is beginning to *far surpass* this assumption...

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯