Posted 7 months, 20 days ago in 
Loading ...
How does one hold a debate between a scientific theory, and … whatever intelligent design is? It is most certainly not a scientific theory. Most simply, one of the defining criteria for a scientific theory is falsifiability. Despite common use of the term “proven,” no scientific theory can ever be proven — a good theory is one which withstands all empirical attempts to refute it.
Evolution by natural selection has survived all such tests for almost 120 years. In contrast, the disciples of intelligent design have not provided any such criteria by which their dogma may be refuted — hence no theory.Until the designers of intelligent design can produce an actual (coherent, refutable) scientific theory, rather than speculation rooted in dogma, there is no point in “debates,” except to further confuse the public. Generating such confusion is part of the transparent “wedge strategy” of intelligent-design proponents, by the way. Actual scientists typically advance their theories using data. They also reject their own theories when they are unsupported — but this isn’t an option with intelligent design, because — there isn’t any theory.Like Ms. Yeager, I would like to see newspaper space devoted to science. Education about the basic principles of science and its methodology would apparently be a good place to start, since clearly many citizens are not acquiring such basic knowledge where they should — in middle school and high school. Here’s my second question: If a God can create a universe, and modify physical laws at will, why is the authority of science so important to some believers? Is faith somehow not enough?
BRUCE A. BISHOPGrand Junction
Evangelists don’t believe they can force the law
I have to disagree with a couple of points The Daily Sentinel made in its editorial concerning the demand by a few to end invocations at city council meetings.
I do agree with the editorial in that the Atheists of Western Colorado group needs to get a life. What I disagree with is the statement that “their (the atheist group) agenda is no different from that of any evangelist. They are on a mission to force their beliefs on the rest of us.” If the editorial had said “a few evangelists,” I would not dispute that. I, however, do not know of one evangelist who even begins to think that they can force by law, the love and salvation that is offered up by Jesus on any one.
MARK SMITHGrand Junction
First Amendment proves atheists have no argument
In regard to the atheists’ position on City Council prayers, allow me to cite in its entirety the First Amendment to our Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The First Amendment is one sentence, whose subject is “Congress.” The verb of the sentence is “shall make.” The direct object of the sentence is “(no) law.” Everything that follows serves to modify the word “law.”
The point: Unless Congress has made a law that affects the Council meetings, nothing unconstitutional has been done. There is absolutely no constitutional issue involved in how the City Council opens its meetings. Making such a public stink creates a waste of Council time and energy and, by extension, a waste of taxpayer resources. The Atheists’ Association has preferences — don’t we all? — but it has no argument. They are certainly free not to pray, but if they want to reference the Constitution, the proper conclusion would be for them to avoid prohibiting the free exercise of other folks’ religion.
Marginalized? Not even close!
MERLE MILLER
Grand Junction
37 Responses to “May 27 printed letters”
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 10:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The letter by Merle Miller is a clear indication of one who, while he may quote from the Constitution, would appear to choose whatever suits his purposes.
It is not the First Amendment that is applicable in this instance, as it merely restricts the Congress. The one that is much more applicable, and which many people ignore is the one prohibiting any “religious test”. That applies to every single citizen. We ignore it at our own peril.
When looking at so-called “religious” displays or demonstrations of public property, what I ask is: If there is a church or other place of worship (right across the street in some instances) why do some choose to hold their “services” or “expressions of devotion” on government property. Such activity reminds me of (some may be offended by the analogy)what animals do to mark their territory.
As far as beginning public proceedings with a “prayer” or “invocation”, I often wonder why some believe that it is necessary and are such staunch defenders of the practice. If their “god” is all-knowing and knows what is in the “individual soul or mind”, of what use is spoken words or such a public display? It is certainly not for “god” so, it must be for public consumption.
Some would like to say that it is “tradition.” Fine, but who established that tradition, and for what purpose? Not all traditions should be kept. It is not like collecting antiques where “age” is an indicator of value.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 11:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “As far as beginning public proceedings with a “prayer” or “invocation”, I often wonder why some believe that it is necessary and are such staunch defenders of the practice. If their “god” is all-knowing and knows what is in the “individual soul or mind”, of what use is spoken words or such a public display? It is certainly not for “god” so, it must be for public consumption.”
Excellent point Mr. Laitres. I also liked the territorial marking analogy. That relationship had never occurred to me. Thanks for expanding my horizons on this subject.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 12:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Evolution by natural selection has survived all such tests for almost 120 years.” Except for the test of statistical probability.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 12:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That’s okay. Every time you shuffle a deck of cards, there is a probability of 1 in 8×10 to the 66th power against that specific order of cards, yet no one claims that shuffling cards is impossible.
Statistics aren’t laws.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 2:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I suppose statistics aren’t laws. But let’s take a look at them. The number of ways to assemble a system of 200 parts (apx. the number of parts in your skeleton) equals the number 10 with 375 zeros after it. Even if you could try a new arrangement every second, you would only complete 315,360,000,000,000,000 of these arrangements in 10 billion years. That’s a small portion of 10 with 375 zeros after it. 35% of that number equals the number of electrons (10 with 130 zeros after it) that could be packed into the universe. And the human skeleton is fairly simple, at least compaired to cell we all supposedly came from. If I am not mistaken, Sullivan has a point.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 2:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
But that is only trying one at a time. Keep in mind that there were likely billions upon billions of trials going on at once. It also neglects to take into consideration the fact that certain parts only go with certain others. Take the 200 bones and set it up so that the bones can only connect with the proper bones and you’ll find skeletons coming together all over the place. The laws of chemistry aren’t random, and those statistical estimates don’t factor that in.
That cuts the odds down a lot.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 2:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Natural Selection is cumulative and non-random
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 3:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Trish: ” If I am not mistaken, Sullivan has a point.”
Trish, Sullivan has no point. The mistake here is the assumption that it has to come together all at once. As polynomialtime and Scott (and I in other forums) have repeatedly pointed out, Natural Selection is non-random and cumulative. It takes something that may be already working-let’s say a primitive eye of the kind you might find in a water flea for example, and it selects for any mutation which causes an improvement that confers an advantage on its owner. Indeed the eye is one of the best examples of natural selection because it is possible to trace its gradual and increasing complexity in animals from the first primitive eyespot in a single celled organism down to the most complex eye in an almost unbroken sequence. Our eyes did not come into being fully formed and functional; it was a long and slow, gradual process spanning billions of years.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 3:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
uuuuhhhhmmmm, gene?
” Classof52
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 3:27 pm PM This User Report this comment
Trish: ” If I am not mistaken, Sullivan has a point.”
Trish, Sullivan has no point. The mistake here is the assumption that it has to come together all at once. As polynomialtime and Scott (and I in other forums) have repeatedly pointed out, Natural Selection is non-random and cumulative. It takes something that may be already working-let’s say a primitive eye of the kind you might find in a water flea for example, and it selects for any mutation which causes an improvement that confers an advantage on its owner. Indeed the eye is one of the best examples of natural selection because it is possible to trace its gradual and increasing complexity in animals from the first primitive eyespot in a single celled organism down to the most complex eye in an almost unbroken sequence. Our eyes did not come into being fully formed and functional; it was a long and slow, gradual process spanning billions of years. ”
“natural selection is not random”, ” it selects for any mutation which causes an improvement that confers an advantage on its owner.”
The “it” referred to in your post indicates an intelligence in charge of the process…..
Wouldn’t that make it “intelligent design”?
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 3:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Trish,
One thing on this board that you must always remember.
Words have specific meanings and any deviation from the acceptable version, will be quickly brought to your attention by the master of words, Mr Laitres.
Unless you wander into a discussion of fact versus theory as in the “Theory of Evolution”, in which case, theory suddenly proven, accepted fact.
Quite often, they get confused on exactly what their position is.
As Mr. Fox so eloquently pointed out in his (classof52) post, there has been a touch of divine intervention and intelligent design happening at random times…
And be careful of the rusty rocks scenario. They can’t cite the name of the scientist that took air samples 4.5 billion years ago. (I think they made him up out of desperation).
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 3:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: ““natural selection is not random”, ” it selects for any mutation which causes an improvement that confers an advantage on its owner.”
The “it” referred to in your post indicates an intelligence in charge of the process…..
Wouldn’t that make it “intelligent design”?
Nope! The “it” here is the process of natural selection, a totally inanimate and impersonal set of principles which demonstrates that those variants best suited for a particular environment are the most likely to survive when there is competition (and there is almost always competition because most organisms reproduce far more offspring than the environment in which they live has the capacity to support). See how easy the basic concept is, WLJ?
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 4:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” Nope! The “it” here is the process of natural selection, a totally inanimate and impersonal set of principles which demonstrates that those variants best suited for a particular environment are the most likely to survive when there is competition (and there is almost always competition because most organisms reproduce far more offspring than the environment in which they live has the capacity to support). See how easy the basic concept is, WLJ? ”
How does it know the mutation was beneficial?
The previous version had no way to know the ‘offspring’ was different, and the ‘offspring’ had no way of knowing it was different, so how did it know what mutation to keep and which one to give back?
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 4:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Back to the short necked giraffes.
If mid-length necked giraffe failed, how did they get past that stage long enough to make the long necked giraffes?
If man didn’t descend from apes, why are all those posters depicting the progression from ape to man still on the walls?
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 5:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“How does it know the mutation was beneficial?
The previous version had no way to know the ‘offspring’ was different, and the ‘offspring’ had no way of knowing it was different, so how did it know what mutation to keep and which one to give back?”
Come on Willis. You have claimed repeatedly that you understand evolution. Yet here you are once again demonstrating how little you truly know about it.
If the mutation helps the organism to survive long enough to reproduce, than the mutation has a better chance of being passed on, and thus spreads through the population. That means it has been “selected” simply by virtue of being passed on. There is no knowledge on the part of any “version.” That is simply your own misunderstanding, yet again.
“If mid-length necked giraffe failed, how did they get past that stage long enough to make the long necked giraffes?”
Because they were the most well adapted at the time. The longer the better, but since it proceeded in small increments, each successive generation had just a slightly longer neck than the previous one.”
Are you SURE you understand evolution? These questions are classic examples of the anti-evolutionist straw-man caricatures that have nothing to do with the real theory.
“If man didn’t descend from apes, why are all those posters depicting the progression from ape to man still on the walls?”
Because they display the progression that man’s evolution took, as evidenced by the fossil record, genetics, biology, homology, anatomy and morphology.
Of course, man IS an ape, biologically speaking (yes, that includes you, Willis). Just like man is a mammal and a vertebrate, man is also an ape. The modern apes living today are cousins, descended from a common ancestor.
But someone who understands evolution as well as you already knew that, right?
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 6:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Also we share some 98% of our genes with the Chimpanzees, our closest living relative. I learned yesterday that new studies indicate that we shared 99.9% of our DNA with Neanderthal man, who was obviously very similar to modern man but a different species with just enough difference in traits and abilities so that it lost out in the competiton and became extinct about 50,000 years ago. Advances in DNA technology (which is one of the things biochemists do, WLJ) have made it possible to sequence Neanderthal DNA from fossil bones.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 8:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52-I’m afraid you’ve already lost the “village idiot” (WLJ). He’s one of those “young earth” advocates who believe the bible says the earth is no more than 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and humans co-existed during that time period.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 8:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As i said before.
Your ancestors were apes.
MY ancestors were human.
The difference in breeding is extremely apparent.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 9:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You can say it until you’re blue in the face. It doesn’t make it true. You are yourself an ape, from a biological standpoint.
You know, come to think of it, that reasoning is precisely the same that Hitler used both to justify the Holocaust and to reject Darwin. Common descent didn’t go together with the idea of a Master Race.
I am not trying to equate Willis with Hitler here, just pointing out the irony in the similarities of the arguments.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 9:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott-Someone needs to tell WLJ that his ancestors are human based on mythology and superstition, while the ancestors of all other humans are apes based on scientific evidence.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 9:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The point is scott is that you have your religion and you are not going to back away from it.
As you, yourself, stated, evolution is only the best current explanation.
And that is all it is.
You are requiring people to bow to your religion, as opposed to allowing them the freedom to believe what they choose.
I personally do not care, because I am a realist.
What is, is.
Trying to explain why what is without full and complete knowledge is a waste of time.
Like explaining anything to a liberal or an evolutionist.
My ancestors were human, you are free to decide what you want your ancestors to have been.
Any more questions?
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 9:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Evolution is the best current explanation for the diversity of life, just like the theory of gravity is the best current explanation for things falling down, and atomic theory is the best current theory for the structure and behavior of matter. Funny how you don’t seem to question those “theories.” You accept lots of theories that are only the best current explanation, but for some reason evolution gets singled out. Why is that, Willis?
You aren’t a realist, because you don’t seem to be interested in reality. You are already convinced that your version of events is correct, and have rejected all attempts to point out where you are wrong. None of the facts that have been given to you prove evolution is right. We haven’t even gotten to that part. All we have been doing is trying to show you that your “understanding” of evolution is wrong. If you don’t want to accept evolution, that’s fine. But shouldn’t you reject it for what it really is, rather than the cartoon version you have been repeating over and over again? You call yourself a realist, but shy away from learning about reality.
But here you say: “Trying to explain why what is without full and complete knowledge is a waste of time.”
This is very interesting. Pardon me for disagreeing with you, but I find the search for new information quite stimulating. Now it makes sense. You’re a realist, but the reality is mid fourth century. Come up and join us in the twenty-first - you’ll love it.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 10:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Interesting scott.
Now you claim to have all the facts and details to support your chosen religion?
Well, little buddy, just whip all that info out here for all the people in the world to see.
You have no ‘facts’ only observations backed up with, ‘well, maybe it could happen’ scenarios.
But you hang in there with that. If it gives you comfort in your hour of need, that’s all that matters.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 10:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That’s all we’ve been talking about, Willis. How your “understanding” of those “maybe it could happen scenarios” is wrong. have you completely missed the point of all this discussion?
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 10:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Since you have all this complete knowledge of evolution, how about the date and time of the first life appearing, and what form it took.
What the first mutations were, how long it took for the first method of movement?
You accuse me of being in the 4th century, but you have no more factual data now than you did 25 years ago, just a more determined bunch of folks doing everything they can to make evolution look real, like man-caused global worming, just hyperbole to make themselves look more intelligent than they truly are.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 10:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wrong again, Willis.
You’re talking about abiogenesis. Evolution is what happen after life has started. And I never claimed to have complete knowledge - quite the contrary. We don’t know exactly how life started. That doesn’t mean we don’t know anything. We know of several possible pathways that could have led to life. We may never know exactly which one is the right one, or if any of them are, but we know enough to say that it’s not impossible.
And 25 years ago is still way ahead of the fourth century.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 10:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “You accuse me of being in the 4th century, but you have no more factual data now than you did 25 years ago,”
And wrong yet another time, WLJ. We have considerably more data than 25 years ago because biochemical techniques and diagnostic instruments are considerably more advanced. So for example we now have the complete DNA sequence of Neanderthal Man. We now have a host of new intermediate and transitional fossil forms which confirm in a very solid way what had been suggested by other evidence concerning the relationship of animals (that birds came from dinosaurs for example). The list of new discoveries and new information is long and goes on. Hardly a new issue of the the weekly journal Science appears which does not add a new brick in the wall of the magnificent edifice which constitutes the principles of evolution.
And guess what WLJ: All this new information continues to show that you are a member of the anthropoid apes (just like the rest of us). Not a single piece of evidence turns up which contradicts the principles of evolution even though the creationists desperately search for such. Any scientist who turns up evidence which overthrows the principles of evolution is assured of fame and fortune. So there is a powerful incentive for skeptics (all scientists are taught to be skeptics of current ideas) to find such evidence. But it has not yet ever happened and in my view probably never will since the basic theory of evolution looks rock solid at this point in time. Some of the details may get modified as our understanding increases.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 10:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
The idea that viruses and bacteria cause disease is only a theory, too. Do you have a problem with that theory? What do you do when you get sick? Do you go to a doctor or try to exorcise the demons?
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 7:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ok scott, just as an exercise.
Show me the fossil evidence of the ’short necked’ Giraffe all the way through to the current ‘long necked, long legged’ Giraffe.
And then show us the circumstances the led to the demise of every version in between.
I do not want to see any ’suggested, or hypothesized, or indicated’ so-called proof, just real hard fact.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 7:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Why should I do your homework?
First of all, I’m at work and can’t look all that up right now.
Second of all, the last time you asked for something and I gave it to you, you shifted the goalposts to the next step.
Third, you have given me no reason to think that the effort involved will not be simply dismissed. People have been bending over backwards trying to show you why you’re wrong, and you have refused to even acknowledge the possibility that you might be.
Fourth, what you are asking for is impossible. We have a lot of transitions between short and long necked giraffes, but how can we possibly know the specific circumstances if each one’s demise? Why do we have to? This is simply yet another on the long list of your misunderstandings about evolution in particular and science in general. Contrary to your belief, we do not have to know everything before we know anything.
You won’t find any hard fact that gravity exists, never mind this straw-man.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 8:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott-WSJ is insisting that you “I do not want to see any ’suggested, or hypothesized, or indicated’ so-called proof, just real hard fact.”
You might want to “counter-insist” that he provide “hard fact” that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old as his Christian bible indicates. You should also insist he show proof that dinosaurs and humans co-existed during that time-period, as the religious right (of which he is obviously a member) contends.
I would insist myself, but I refuse to address WLJ directly - it’s simply too intellectually demeaning. I acknowledge this is an elitist attitude, but then, even the most (unfortunate) developmentally disabled person can legitimately feel elitist around Willis.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 8:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
He claims not to be a creationist, although he uses the same bad arguments so there is little practical difference.
I was going to ask him to explain why he doesn’t require the same level of proof for germ theory, atomic theory or relativity. It seems a bit hypocritical to me.
How ’bout it Willis?
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 10:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh now Scott, think about this for a minute.
” Why should I do your homework? ”
But Scott, it’s unreasonable for you to ask me to refute my position so that you don’t have to.
“First of all, I’m at work and can’t look all that up right now. ”
Fair enough, I’m patient. (does your boss know what you do on the internet while he’s paying you to do HIS stuff?)
“Second of all, the last time you asked for something and I gave it to you, you shifted the goalposts to the next step.”
I NEVER move the goal posts. You alter the subject and I respond to your movement.
” Third, you have given me no reason to think that the effort involved will not be simply dismissed. People have been bending over backwards trying to show you why you’re wrong, and you have refused to even acknowledge the possibility that you might be. ”
Well, actually, people have been demanding that I agree with them and their positions.
I give you specific problems with evolution and all I get is “well, it doesn’t work that way.” Even when I use the string-mutation theory and point out the reasons why I question it.
” Fourth, what you are asking for is impossible. We have a lot of transitions between short and long necked giraffes, but how can we possibly know the specific circumstances if each one’s demise? Why do we have to? ”
Because without the knowledge, you are basing your theory on suppositions, not fact. (”well, it could happen this way…” type of thing.)
” This is simply yet another on the long list of your misunderstandings about evolution in particular and science in general. Contrary to your belief, we do not have to know everything before we know anything. ”
Wrong again, There are plenty of things KNOWN to science through repeatable observations and experiments that support other theories.
” You won’t find any hard fact that gravity exists, never mind this straw-man. ”
Well, you could drop a 200lb anvil on your foot and we could call that scientific evidence of gravity.
But we are not discussing ‘gravity’ are we?
However, you are shifting the goal posts again Scott.
” I was going to ask him to explain why he doesn’t require the same level of proof for germ theory, atomic theory or relativity. It seems a bit hypocritical to me.
How ’bout it Willis? ”
Once again, topics not under discussion Scott.
Goal shifting to deflect the discussion away from your religion?
Way to go buddy!
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 10:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
And from the second childhood section…
” Sugarfoot
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 8:46 am PM This User Report this comment
Scott-WSJ is insisting that you “I do not want to see any ’suggested, or hypothesized, or indicated’ so-called proof, just real hard fact.”
You might want to “counter-insist” that he provide “hard fact” that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old as his Christian bible indicates. You should also insist he show proof that dinosaurs and humans co-existed during that time-period, as the religious right (of which he is obviously a member) contends. ”
Yeah, that ‘counter-insist’ idea sounds good, only as the adults have already realized I’m not a ‘creationist’. Too bad your comprehensions skills don’t measure up.
” I would insist myself, but I refuse to address WLJ directly - it’s simply too intellectually demeaning. I acknowledge this is an elitist attitude, but then, even the most (unfortunate) developmentally disabled person can legitimately feel elitist around Willis. ”
WHAAAAA!!!! MOMMY!!!! The big bad meanie is picking on me!!!!
MAKE HIM STOP MOMMY!!!
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 10:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “Well, actually, people have been demanding that I agree with them and their positions.”
I have not seen any such demands on any of the forums from anyone. Perhaps you have a persecution complex, WLJ. I personally, could not care less whether or not you agree with me or understand the principles of evolution. My comments are directed at your posts which state falsehoods about evolution, science in general or me personally; there are many in each category.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 11:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“But Scott, it’s unreasonable for you to ask me to refute my position so that you don’t have to.”
Because these things have been pointed out to you before, you just didn’t bother to look at them.
“I NEVER move the goal posts. You alter the subject and I respond to your movement.”
Right. That’s why you switched from demanding a short necked giraffe to a mid length giraffe after the Okapi was brought to your attention.
“Well, actually, people have been demanding that I agree with them and their positions.”
No, they haven’t.
“I give you specific problems with evolution and all I get is “well, it doesn’t work that way.” Even when I use the string-mutation theory and point out the reasons why I question it.”
Because it doesn’t work the way you seem to think it does. It’s quite simple.
“Wrong again, There are plenty of things KNOWN to science through repeatable observations and experiments that support other theories.”
Like the mechanisms that make evolution work. As has been pointed out to you numerous times. That’s how science works, Willis. It’s all suppositions. It’s all just based on observations, including evolution.
“Well, you could drop a 200lb anvil on your foot and we could call that scientific evidence of gravity.”
Evidence, yes. Proof, no. It is based on the supposition that gravity works the way we think it does. Maybe the anvil is being pushed down? We don’t know. It’s still a supposition, you just don’t happen to have a problem with that particular supposition.
“Once again, topics not under discussion Scott.”
Yet relevant to my point of how you pick and choose which suppositions you agree with and which ones you don’t.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 9:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52 needs to go back to school. He sees complex processes as single events. Many “evolutionary steps” have no advantage unless they are accompanied by other evolutionary steps. The probability of having concurrent advantageous mutations that would be required for the development of the eye or an elephant’s trunk is is so low we would run out of zeros right of the decimal point. To think of that happening again and again takes real faith. Most atheist evolutionists are ignorant of statistics.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 9:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Careful Sullivan, evolution doesn’t work that way.
They don’t much care for all the “happy little accidents” theory either.
The formation of the nervous systems, circulatory systems, digestive systems, brains, etc.
That was all done in the original critter before they started branching.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.