Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!greipa!pesnta!amd!vecpyr!lll-crg!dual!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!ethan
From: ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: debating tactics
Message-ID: <130@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-May-85 10:31:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.130
Posted: Fri May 24 10:31:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 27-May-85 00:13:54 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 24

I have noticed a bizarre tendency in the arguments in this group
which confuses the issues at hand.  Frequently (I'm being deliberately
vague here) I have noticed arguments like this.

Creationist: "Evolution requires x to happen. x is impossible."

Evolutionist: "Nonsense! x could happen in this way or that way etc."

Creationist: "'could happen' is not proof of evolution."

The second and third speakers are both correct, but they are not talking
to one another.  Many of these exchanges were set off by that ridiculous
series of postings on reasons for creationism.  

To be fair I have also seen incorrect arguments for evolution of the form

 "x can be explained by evolution, therefore x is proof of evolution."



"Don't argue with a fool.      Ethan Vishniac
 Borrow his money."            {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas