Meldinoor writes:
Without going off on too much of a tangent here, I agree that random was not the right word to use. But Buzsaw wasn't discussing the randomness of evolution or abiogenesis, his post had nothing do with it. As such, while he may have used an unfortunate choice of words, you are still attacking his semantics rather than his post.
Whatever Buzsaw's knowledge on the topic, he is still entitled to ask questions and recieve answers to those questions.
It's a good thing you point this out. But rather than just saying "You're a liar!!", try to point out why and how he is lying. You'll notice that I had to explain to Buzsaw why you were upset, as it wasn't apparent in your post.
Here is why I think he's a liar. While the post wasn't about the supposed randomness of chemical reactions that brought about abiogensis, he threw out the word random as a way to deceive unsuspecting readers. By ignoring this, he's hoping that some readers might take it to mean evolutionists are acknowledging that abiogenesis and evolution are just random processes.
Here is a more obvious example of this form of dishonesty. There was an episode of law and order where the defense attorney was questioning the forensic scientist in court. While he was questioning her credentials, he asked the following question: while you were attending medical school and worked at a strip club, I understand that you studied...?
The question had nothing to do with her working as a strip dancer while she attended med school. And yet, he knew, the judge knew, and the jury knew that he threw the fact in as an attempt to discredit her. When the prosecutor objected, the defense lawyer said he was just innocently referencing her past work. Innocent my ass. If no one questioned it, the jury would have assumed that working as a stripper in the past somehow discredited her as a reliable forensic scientist. Goodness knows, I've been attacked in this way by defense lawyers while testifying in court before (no, I never worked as a stripper). It's their way of discrediting you in the eyes of the jury and still be able to back pedal when someone objected to the dishonesty.
When I objected to the use of the word "random" to describe the chemical reactions that resulted in abiogenesis, I was objecting to the intellectual dishonesty of throwing a lie out as a side comment and then not even have the balls to admit the dishonest intention.
The intention to lie is obvious. Let's drop the bullshit.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.