Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Maybe, others have.

And here is the quote from your link, just as Dr. Morris quoted:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Do you have a point?

 

How many of those do I have to demonstrate to be taken out of context or otherwise dishonestly presented before you admit that your sources have been lying to you? I'm asking now before I spend a whole lot of time going through what amounts to several pages of bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The very first one I addressed in my last post. So... How many? Going from the top to the bottom, how many is reasonable? Five? Ten? How many will it take for you to see that the people you are trusting are full of (*)(*)(*)(*)? What you posted is virtually the quintessential Gish Gallop - a dishonest debate tactic named after its inventor, the creationist Duane Gish. The idea being to throw out so many statements that are false that the opponent doesn't have time or interest to refute them all, and they stand. I'm not going to go down that entire list and correct every mistake. Gimme a reasonable number where you'll admit you've been lied to.

- - - Updated - - -

The two are notably different, and without the sentence at the end and the paragraph before, you completely twist the meaning. Do you not understand this? Do you not understand how removing parts of the article can change the meaning of the words to something they are not?

But even beyond that, I'm left wondering - do you have a point? Why would Morris bring up that quote? What was his point? And what do you get from that quote? What conclusion do you draw from it?

 

Poodles and wolves effectively have the same genes. Humanity most certainly could breed poodles back into wolves over the course of 12,000+ years (the time it took to get where we are with them now) by selecting for the most wolf-like of each generation and breeding them together. The fact that you think there has somehow been a loss of genetic information from wolf to poodle is comical. Please, tell me what genes a wolf has that a poodle doesn't.

 

"Another reason that scientists are so prone to throw the baby out with the bath water is that science itself, as I have suggested, is a religion. The neophyte scientist, recently come or converted to the world view of science, can be every bit as fanatical as a Christian crusader or a soldier of Allah. This is particularly the case when we have come to science from a culture and home in which belief in God is firmly associated with ignorance, superstition, rigidity and hypocrisy. Then we have emotional as well as intellectual motives to smash the idols of primitive faith. A mark of maturity in scientists, however, is their awareness that science may be as subject to dogmatism as any other religion."

Peck, M. Scott [psychiatrist and Medical Director of New Milford Hospital Mental Health Clinic, Connecticut, USA], "The Road Less Travelled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth," [1978], Arrow: London, 1990, p.238.

 

cool a whole quote mine gish gallop, from some creosite.

 

Completely false.

 

why was it necessary to FAKE...."Lucy"

I know..

Yes this is a rhetorical question.

oh well

 

"effectively " ahahahah the GIVEAWAY!

thanks for sharing

 

the PEOPLE ,,and the digestion of MILK.........BIG GIVE AWAY

the PEOPLE have always BEEN PEOPLE

they didnt become a new SPECIES of LACTOSE TOLERANT people

Thanks for sharing

 

Lucy wasn't faked. It's seen to this day as one of the most clear examples of a transitional form between old apes and humans.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you even read the article?

 

I dont care who said it, it's moronic. Just because a thing might have some commonalities with religion, does not make it a religion, if you are looking at the matter with anything approaching a modicum of sense.

 

You got that from some creosite too.
"Lucy" is not a "fake".

 

http://www.whale.to/b/peck_h.html

He's got his own whale.to page; 'nuff said.

 

Please, tell me what genes a wolf has that a poodle doesn't.

 

We'll just pretend that I didn't completely annihilate your, "Their faith requires a firm conviction in dogma in spite of any contradicting data or argument", argument.

 

But you couldn't have the integrity to address your gaff?
So noted.

 

That will be easy to do.

 

Immunology for one. Doctors require knowledge in genetic mutations iow how germs & diseases EVOLVE.

 

You have faith that the Big Bang occurred in spite of the fact that it supposedly only happened once, there are only sparse scientific evidence which point to it as a possibility, and even the best computer models calculations have no means of explaining what happened to create the expansion to begin with.

You mean to say that it is completely impossible for there to be any other possible explanation for the Cosmic microwave background radiation? Because even recent observations have "disproved several specific cosmic inflation models, but are consistent with the inflation theory in general." #1
(#1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation )

And of course, "The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws and the cosmological principle." (ibid)

What is really entertaining is how people make fun of religious teasingly calling them flat-earthers and such because Christians once believed in a heliocentric universe, yet currently believe we live in a finite universe in which we just by coincidence, happen to be right in the center of.

 

ask a dog breeder

- - - Updated - - -

ask a dog breeder

 

You made the claim that poodles have somehow lost genetic information compared to their wolf ancestors. Back it up or admit you're making crap up.

 

I will go further than saying man evolved from a fish, a more accurate statement might be man evolved from proto-life.

According to evolutionary biology every animal (mammal etc), including humans came from a microorganism or even less complex examples of ‘organisms’/proto-life.****. In this case of this discussion a fish was mentioned as the ‘precursor’ or at least in the lineage of ‘mans’ evolution from the guts of a comet that spilt it’s ‘amino laden ooze’ out on a primeval earth. Or if that is too far fetched for the secular darwindidit crowd to swallow they can always fall back on their heroes story (myth) of a self replicating creature that emerges from a warm earthly ‘mud puddle’ or whatever. (yes there are elements of sarcasm in that last paragraph). However the question I have is why the member was belittled?

IMO, he did not deserve the grief. The reason being is technically speaking evolutionary biologists’ and other scientists, (most of them are of the secular ‘vein’**) do claim that the only surviving ‘envoy’ of the genus Homo*** i.e. we modern humans have indeed ‘evolved from’ prokaryotes, or older and less complex orders of ‘life‘******. So the member was more correct than those who disagreed or ridiculed him.

Notes; .

**… ‘More basic orders of life’ means an non celluar critter. example; virus or units smaller than a cell, most do replicate; example; virus.

** Vein… Vein is used as synonym (not as in biology) meaning ‘along the same line as’. I posted this definition for Takikoo and other members who have difficulty understanding my writing style and literary devices such as taking ‘artistic license’ with words or other examples of wordsmithing. I am here to help lol~ Also see ; www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wordsmith

***… There is of course debate in scientific circles of the classification i.e. particulars of taxonomy as it applies to modern humans.

***** Life… Life too is ill-defined and the nature and exact (scientific) definition of life is not yet determined.


reva

 

I think all statements that require an educated opinion such as scientific statement etc should be validated by at least one (two or three are better) creditable sources. I attempt to post notes for most basic to advanced posted material. There are two problems with posting validating sources. One is determine when a validating source is needed due to our membership being so diverse in education and lifestyle culture etc. Number two is when no one can agree what source is creditable.

reva

 

PARTIAL QUOTE>>>>>> ;