Anytime you want to specifically call me out on something, you know where I am. Your extrapolations and assumptions are weak. Now if you want to get specific then do so. Don’t waste my time with this diatribe. Ever wonder why it’s called a theory? Ever wonder why so many cosmologists espouse ID? Ever wonder how incredibly idiotic and contradictory it is for scientists to espounse the second LAW of thermodynamics that all is in a state of entrophy/decay which is antithetical to the core to the THEORY of evolution. Good grief. Some consistency please!
This is being brought to the fore not by a pack of redneck hicks singing “When the Saint’s Come Marching In”, it’s being done by hard science and honest (many SECULAR) scientists. I want one thing from you, and one thing only. Prove evolution. Prove it. When the evolutionary powerhouse Steven J. Gould has a star pupil sit under his teaching at Harvard (don’t imagine you’re on the roster there) and be impressed with all the HOLES in this humanistic religion, then maybe you should consider the foundations of your erroneous assumption. Kurt Wise, PhD, is the student.
We are trying to specifically keep it all on an understandable level here. I could blow your doors off with technical theology. My ego is well served and souls still march to Hell. What use is that? Get it down to base points. Every house stands on a foundation. A simple brick and mortar foundation. You can build the most spectacular piece of imagination on it but it’s only worth it’s foundation.
Yours is unfounded, unproven, mathematically (there is a REAL science) impossible, rationally dysfunctional, and much to your dismay being systematically dismantled not by late night TV preachers with great hair, but rather by learned men who are experts in the field. I suppose that hurts. See you in a decade or two in the relic section of the clearance aisle. Your constant attention to the fossil record, that does NOT show macroevolution (used in a reader friendly sense of large scale evolution producing mutations to a siginificant enough degree to literally rewrite the DNA code from the ground up). Microevolution (that reader friendly term meaning adaptation that is capable within the narrow band of gene expression that exists within the boundaries of the current genome)is obvious. I can get a sunburn by laying out for an hour this afternoon. Don’t think I’ll develop a second opposable thumb and a bulbous cranium in the future, though.
I’m willing to bet it was a beautiful sunset recently where you live. Oh that’s right the sun doesn’t set. It’s a literay expression based upon the subjective perception of a localized finite being. The next time you or someone else uses this, be sure to look in the mirror at a hypocrite who used common vernacular and verbiage to get the point across. Better start taking names on all those folks using anthropormophisms too. Old man winter and the long arm of the law are nonsensical. You’re dodging the point by focusing on micro.
DH
[quote]blackjack2 wrote:
Disc Hoss wrote:
That was a hideous example. That is called adaptation which is entirely different from macroevolution. There are variances within a species, but there are NO deviances from one species to the next. That is your big obvious problem as an evolitionist. Adaptation, of course. But the walls of the specific genetic parameters are not breached.
DH
Disc Hoss,
I wanted to point out that, in reading your various posts, your understanding of evolution is very limited. You need to do some reading on this topic because whenever you comment on evolution you use terms incorrectly and make poor arguments. Taking a few days to read a decent book on the subject would be worth while. I grew up very poor and most of the people I knew had little education and were very religious. I was also religious. Then I went to college and grad school and had a chance to travel around the world and meet people from a variety of religious backgrounds. As I stated before, I do believe in God but I think that denying evolution is simply ignorance (despite what the late night television preachers say, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming; I’ve actually had a chance to examine some of the fossil record first hand and anyone who thinks we are “missing a link” in terms of the bones just hasn’t taken the time to look at what has been unearthed in the last twenty years). I also wanted to introduce the idea to this thread that people who literally interpret the Bible tend not to be very well educated. There are, of course, exceptions and certainly some of the world’s best educated people believe in God but it seems to me (in comparing the friends I grew up with to those I’ve made later in life) that a lot of people who think the Bible is a literal document (that the world was created in seven days or that all life forms actually fit onto Noah’s ark) are just not well educated. Some are well spoken and may be intelligent but it doesn’t take much scientific or historical knowledge to realize that the Bible isn’t an accurate historical document. Now, this post might make you mad but again I’d encourage you to do some reading and really try your best to understand why just about every scientist who has studied the issue uses an evolutionary hypothesis. Don’t just get angry and start using words out of context or comment on ideas you don’t understand or cut and paste stuff from some fringe wacko web site. Instead, buy a book (intro text for college students) and do some reading because even if you did read something like this in the past, your use of terms and your arguments certainly indicate that you’ve forgotten most of it…[/quote]