SmarterThanHick
Senior Member
- Sep 14, 2009
- 2,084
- 241
- 48
Two things came up about this thread.
First: Using the term "Darwinian Evolution" in a discussion on evolution is like using the term "Franklin Electricity" in a discussion on iPad technology. Yes, the man broke ground. No, the entirety of the science is not still reliant on the initial ideas.
Second: Attempting to discredit one aspect of an insurmountable amount of evidence does not disprove all evidence. Let me dumb this down a bit:
Prosecution: this man is guilty of murder. We have fingerprints, his blood on the victim, hair samples, semen samples, eye witness accounts, and an HD video recording of the event from 10 angles.
Defense: Wait, he was wearing gloves, you don't have fingerprints!
Prosection: oh, that's correct, sorry for the mistake.
Does that make the man innocent now?
First: Using the term "Darwinian Evolution" in a discussion on evolution is like using the term "Franklin Electricity" in a discussion on iPad technology. Yes, the man broke ground. No, the entirety of the science is not still reliant on the initial ideas.
Second: Attempting to discredit one aspect of an insurmountable amount of evidence does not disprove all evidence. Let me dumb this down a bit:
Prosecution: this man is guilty of murder. We have fingerprints, his blood on the victim, hair samples, semen samples, eye witness accounts, and an HD video recording of the event from 10 angles.
Defense: Wait, he was wearing gloves, you don't have fingerprints!
Prosection: oh, that's correct, sorry for the mistake.
Does that make the man innocent now?