Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <652@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 16:51:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.652
Posted: Thu Aug  1 16:51:34 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 20:40:09 EDT
References: <388@iham1.UUCP> <14600032@hpfcrs.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 24

In article <14600032@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) writes:
> >Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
> >>Does anyone not see the contradiction between #63 and #67 repeated here?

> Sure looks funny to me too!  Don't be to quick to jump on our case, however --
> unless you would like to see a huge list of contradictions made by the
> evolutionists!  Paul DuBois could produce one rather quickly, with references
> and all.

Bald contradictions in one work are a prime example of the fallacy of argument
of having your cake and eating it too.  The fact is that the author didn't
even have the honesty to point out that the two contradicted, but instead
cites them all as evidences against evolution despite the fact that at least
one has to be blatantly false.

Paul can doubtless find scientific reversals, etc.  He probably couldn't make
much of a list of blatant contradictions within the same paper.  However it's
common in creationist literature to use a shotgun approach of listing all
possible objections, rather than selecting only a set which is compatible,
or noting which are incompatible.  Creationists frequently mix old-earth and
young-earth and all sorts of other incompatable models in their publications.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh