Skip to comments.Evolution Opponent Is in Line for Schools Post
Posted on 05/23/2007 8:19:05 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
click here to read article
Tell me something Ahayes, scroll down this page to the illustrations showing the cynodonts/early mammals, and tell me what’s wrong with that picture? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2
Please explain to me what you think a transitional organism is and why these fossils are not examples of such.
Drawing a hippo sized animal’s jaw the same size as a rat sized animal’s jaw and suggesting that it’s clear evidence of tansition is science?
As everyone knows, there is great variety in species anatomy- juxtoposing uniquely created, and completely different species, and suggesting that they show clear evidence of the transition of just one organ is beyond being a credible hypothesis- it amounts to setting an orange next to a coconut, the cocunut next to a pear, and the pear next to a banana- and attempting to point out that the banana and it’s unique shape evolved from the pear, the pear from the coconut, and the coconut from the orange, and suggesting it is evidence of transition.
When you have a clear line of jawbones in one species evolving, moving backward and upward, and can show the assembly of the ear anatomy in that ONE species, lemme know- otherwise all your showing me is that there is great anatomical diversity in different species, and you’re asking us to suspend common logic, and take a great leap of faith. Tell me, where are the transitions between the hippo sized animal and the rat sized one? One must have to believe rat sized animal is somehow related to the hippo sized one if we’re going to even begin to think that the two seperate species KINDS’ specific jaw bones pieces were indeed evolving into ear bones. Certainly you can show the many many steps between the two disimiliar species?
Show me that rat sized species evolving down through the ages- show the obvious links to the next species, and so on and so forth- Asking me to believe elephants evolved from blades of grass is a bit much to ask.
It would start a shooting war, you know.
Again, any scientst of any religion or nationality who studies the same subject will find the same facts. This really is something new in the arena of thought. It is the reason that Genesis based conjectures are not allowed in science classes.
Ah, so by definition, science can only be called science when ‘tests’ are done, eh? I guess we should then throw out all evolution being taught in schools that relies on OPINION then? Which means the majority of evoltuion material will be thrown out. We;ll throw out the whole notion of evolution because obviously we can’t fully test species that supposedly lived millions and billions of years ago- We can’t observe them, or even hteir environment for that matter, so byt your narrow definition of what science entails, anything that doesn’t fit the testability criteria isn’t true science.
Look, part of the process of science, as you full well know, yet apparently are feigning ignorance to, in order to support your losing argument, is studying material and comming to educated scientific conclusions- the two sites I listed are chock full of material by an extremely educated person in the sciences. As I stated, there is plenty more even some that fit your narrow view of what science consists of. Sciencei s a set of falsifiable proposals and that is exactly what Demski presents deflating your assertion that ID isn’t falsifiable, or even testable. Demski took the proposals of fellow scientists, tested them, and presented his conclusions and offered equally scientific alternatives and explained, scientifically, the problems with his fellow sicentists’ proposals and experiments.
Information, We’ve been over and over this- Search the forums- it’s been addressed to death.
[Again, any scientst of any religion or nationality who studies the same subject will find the same facts. This really is something new in the arena of thought. It is the reason that Genesis based conjectures are not allowed in science classes.]
Fine, then keep all the evolution crap conjecture out the schools then. Stick to the facts! The Jaw bone of the Cynodont sets back *insert correct measurement here*, the jawbone of the rat sized animal sets back *insert correct measurment here*- that’s it! Keep all the crap evolution conjecture out of it- DO NOT suggest the two are related or even close to being related! Keep conjecture out ofg it per your orders!
Facty is JS, While one conjecture is accepted with open arms, the proponents of the allowed conjecture absolutely refuse to allow any competing conjecture. Oh, they deny they conjecture, but the facts are plain for any htinking person to recognize- the hypocrisy is blatant, and quite frankly offensive to the intelligence. Got to keep kids ignorant if evolution hypothesis is to be kept alive and thriving.
If you choose to see it that way.
Heliocentrism had religious implications, but religion got over it. Religion will get over evolution and common descent also. It's just a matter of time. Behe and Denton have figured it out, even if they choose to call themselves ID advocates.
You have a misunderstanding of transitionals and the process of evolution. Evolution does not occur in a linear fashion with one species converting into another in a ladder fashion. It branches frequently. Likewise, a transitional is not to be understood as the direct ancestor of a later species. Transitionals are transitionals because they display traits intermediate between those of previous organisms in the tree and later ones. They are not transitionals by virtue of direct descent.
When you have a clear line of jawbones in one species evolving, moving backward and upward, and can show the assembly of the ear anatomy in that ONE species, lemme know
The process does not occur in one species, but over multiple ones over long periods of time. You're asking for something nonsensical.
Additionally, you seem to be supposing that the examples of fossils given are an exhaustive collection. It's a summarization, there are many fossils not mentioned. If you're interested in those you should go to your college's geology library and see if they have any books on the evolution of various lineages.
Sounds like, "If God made the universe, who made God?"
If these two constructions are not logically equivalent, perhaps you can tell me how they differ.
Are you suggestion that Newton's laws of motion are invalid or untrue because they don't explain the origin of matter?
Contrary to your supposition, my confidence in the accuracy of the theory of evolution has been directly related to my knowledge of it.
If you are referring to evolution, there are no competing theories.
A statement that science is incomplete is not a theory. Nor is a statement that some unspecified structures were made by an unknown entity having no specified attributes, capabilities, limitations or motives. This kind of statement is vacuous. It doesn't say anything that leads to research.
This is not just my opinion. It is widely discussed among ID advocates. They admit their lack of research and even a lack of suggestions or plans for research.
But that isn't the way science works. Science does make conjectures, hypotheses and theories.
What you are asking is for physics to teach the current positions of the planets without speculating about where they were a hundred years ago.
Conjectures and hypotheses that are consistently confirmed over many years become become established theories. There really isn't a major theory in science that is more thoroughly established than evolution.
Good question.. Humans have a distinct problem with eternity and infinity in general.. The prospect that God always was is hard for any human.. So humans invent "big bang" mental concretions and other "where did GOD come from" ideas.. Like everything had to be "made"/initiated/caused/boot strapped/constructed..
Humans eventually innate hubris make everything point to what "they" can understand.. like a frog in a well(on earth) prognosticating the world on earth(above) and even the Universe beyond.. The metaphor of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (and resulting story) reduces this problem above to brilliant simplicity.. "Frogs" brush that metaphor aside with extreme conseqensences of logic..
Do you have a point? Are you saying that physics is also wrong? Is physics wrong because it doesn’t explain what existed prior to the big bang? Is Newtonian mechanics incapable of describing orbits because it doesn’t explain the origin of matter?
What is special about biology that you and others on this thread attack a theory of change in living populations because it doesn’t explain the origin of the first living thing?
I posit there WAS no big bang.. The big bang is a mental construct and secular religious "hope".. Physics and Cosmology is/are observations that seem true in a house of mirrors(dimensions)..
[.. What is special about biology that you and others on this thread attack a theory of change in living populations because it doesn't explain the origin of the first living thing? ..]
WHat is LIFE? has not been determined YET?.. Surely it(life) is NOT DNA which is/are the Plans for "the Machine".. and not "Life" at all.. DNA(rna) are the plans for all organic machines.. Life is a whole other issue..
Seems to me organic machines are being "ridden" "driven" by spiritual(living) entities.. Could be that "LIFE" is completely spiritual..
[What you are asking is for physics to teach the current positions of the planets without speculating about where they were a hundred years ago.
Conjectures and hypotheses that are consistently confirmed over many years become become established theories.]
No sir- there isn’t a theory more established through assumptive opinions. Big difference.
What has the planets gotr to do with science? It’s simply one aspect and shouldn’t be a criteria for discussing the theory of evolution or design
[This kind of statement is vacuous. It doesn’t say anything that leads to research.]
It most certainly does. If a design can be established, then the only conclusion- the only sane conclusion, is that a designer must be behind the design. You can falsify this by proving that random accumulations could account for the design we see. The burden of evidence is on the evolution side to do so when it is clear that design is evident. Ignoring that, and suggesting that the opposition isn’t science doesn’t negate this serious problem. In essence, you’re asking the folks to take it completely on faith that nature could create design. So please- quit suggesting that ID is the only one that goes on faith.
[They admit their lack of research and even a lack of suggestions or plans for research.]
That’s not true- there is research- ID is currently studying the genome in a project- discovering hter design that we are talking about
[But that isn’t the way science works. Science does make conjectures, hypotheses and theories.]
Ah- see? You’re conjecture is accepted, while the opposition conjecture is banned by law? Hypocrisy- plain and simple.
[Conjectures and hypotheses that are consistently confirmed over many years become become established theories.]
‘confimed’ by more conjecture outside of the realm of STRICT science. Sigh- the words game keeps going and going and going, while kids are left ignorant of completely plausible and scientific alternatives, and are kept ignorant of the seriousness of the problems that face evolution. All this conjecture allowed and mandated by government ignores the biological impossibilities, keeps coming up with dead end hypothesis, and ask everyone to suspend their belief and logic in order to glom onto a dead hypothesis. Nope- no baised agenda there. This is strict science- Egads!
and you’re qwelcoem to ignore the problems and form your own opinions- noone is questioning your right to do so.
Wow, that spelling completely threw me for a few seconds.
And you’re welcome to come to premature conclusions without bothering to actually research and understand the issues.
[The process does not occur in one species, but over multiple ones over long periods of time. You’re asking for something nonsensical.]
It’s only ‘nonsensicle’ to thosew who are willing to suspend reality and beleive in the impossible. What you show are exampl,es of completely unique species, weith completely unique anatomies, and suggesting that they are all common ancestors, yet you can show no evidence of such except for pionting out that they each had unique jaw bones? and just showing 5 examples and suggesting that because they are in different positions, then that means they are examples of ear evolution? Come on- Don’t be throwing out hte ‘nonsensicle’ label too freely when you defend such nonsense. Yuo do nothign to show the relationship or even the transitions of the species listed to the other species. At best, all evolution presents us are more unique species that might have had similiar features and telling us that they were related, and show transitions. Again, this am0unts to setting the apples next to pinapples and suggesting that they are related- yet offering nothing more for evidence than pointing out both have stems and a skin. When that fails to convince, then the ‘well... everythign is related, so therefore it had to happen’ covers all sins I guess. And I understand the process proposed by evolutionists just fine- and I also understand that it consists of a deep seated faith and apologetics based on assumptions while any other opinion is maligned and ridiculed.
[Likewise, a transitional is not to be understood as the direct ancestor of a later species.]
Noone is stating that- we ARE stating that the gaps are so vast that suggesting the pineapple is an apple- or rather became an apple is based on nothing more than a dogmatic faith- Yup- you can show trees that have unique features that appear to look more like an apple tree, and you can suggest that it’s an ‘intermediary’, but hte fact is that it takes a tremendous amount of faith and suspension of logic to beleive it in face of the lack of supporting evidence- suggesting that ‘all things are related’ doesn’t make uyp for lack of evidnece.
“Oh, but there’s a vast amount of evidence’ No- no there isn’t- there is a vast amount of unique examples that people have opinions about and who infact dissagree about.
Noone is suggesting that evolution hypothesis shouldn’t be explored, but we ARE stating that throwing out competing hypothesis- infact banning competing hypothesis is the highest form of hypocrisy there is.
[Wow, that spelling completely threw me for a few seconds.]
I’m not surpris3d, concidering you’re completely thrown by evidences when it comes to evolution- lol- just kidding- easy now.
I came across a case recently that causes me to wonder whether parents would take the time and trouble to challenge/discourage such a thing. I don't recall all the details, but I think I got the main takeaway.
A public middle school contracted a panel of outside experts to lecture on matters relating to human sexuality -- one supposes in a reasonable and age-appropriate way. IIRC, the audience mainly consisted of 13- and 14-year-olds.
The message these "experts" delivered: (1) You don't have to be married to have sex. (2) You don't have to confine yourself to opportunities among the opposite sex. Indeed, the scientific method encourages us to make experimental trials, "to explore," so we can find out which kind of sex is more pleasing to us. (3) One should never eschew group-sexual experiences. The expansion of the imagination is a human right and it might even do you some good. (4) Oh, and if you're ever doing any or all of the above, by all means, do take drugs while you're doing it.
Anyhoot, some parents got wind, and made a HUGE STINK about it in front of the "responsibile authorities."
And so a local newspaper (IIRC) conducted and reported a poll they conducted of the parents' reactions.
I was stunned to see the poll came out essentially 50-50. Roughly half of the respondents were morally outraged, and ready to "go to the mat" to preserve their sovereign (i.e., God-given) privileges and responsibilities as parents. The other half just yawned, and said: "Big deal. It doesn't mean anything anyway."
As if manifest dishonesty, malfeasance, and malversation of office/position weren't egregiously "meaningful."
But any nihilist denies that anything can ever be meaningful. This is the "social cancer" metastasizing before our very eyes....
Mixing metaphors, I wonder: Has half the population really been lobotomized here???
Caffe, in this post #87 of yours you stated...
“Actually, I have . Its not that difficult to get a college degree nor a masters. Generally, an average student can obtain a graduate degree in two years.”
Good grief, what is being talked about is people getting their doctorates....I know only 4 people personally who have gotten their doctorates, which is not all that many people, but still, since your wild eyed claims about people getting their graduate degrees(meaning doctorate)in just one or two years, I have contacted these 4 people...needless to say, they all just had a fine laugh at your expense...they want me to find out where, oh where in the world is the school that has such an extra special super duper fast track to one getting their doctorate in their particular chosen fields...please enlighten me, so that I may enlighten these fine folks about how they wasted 4, 5, or 6 years of their life getting their doctorates....we did not know that along with the Evelyn Wood speed reading course, there was also an Evelyn Wood speed doctorate program...
One of these people got their doctorate in chemistry, another in geography, another in mechanical engineering, and last person got their doctorate in Applied Physics engineering...and brilliant as these folks may be, not one of them speeded through their doctorate program in a year or two...
I think you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to graduate school and the time required to get ones doctorate...but you have provided myself and the folks I know who actually do have their doctorates, a chuckle concerning your knowledge in this area....
Coyoteman and Ahayes...thanks for your input regarding this matter...you two actually seem to know what is going on...
Would it be an accurate description that you are a godless troll soul on a pro-god website?
Could be, but unless you have a way of testing your hypothesis using the tools of methodological naturalism, you beliefs are not science.
Snowflakes have an "obvious" design, but they arise from the laws of physics and chemistry. Finding design says nothing about the history of an object.
When an archaeologist finds a clay pot or arrowhead, its origin is judged by its similarity to artifacts known to have been made by humans. There is no mathematical test for design. If you don't have known samples made by known methods for comparison, you cant't say anything about an object's history.
there is nothing about science that allows you to assert atha an object is made by an unknown entity having unknown capabilities and unknown limitations and unknown methods and unknown methods. Such a statement is vacuous.
Is that important that truth be discovered by "science"?..
Maybe life is undiscoverable by science... what else important could be discovered by other than science?.. That scientists and science could benefit from..
Science works with what it can work with. Anything that defines itself outside the methods and scope of science is not science.
Life will eventually be defined by physics and chemistry. Nothing in the behavior of living things is beyond study by the methods of science. It is, however a difficult problem, and there is no shame if such investigations take decades or centuries. Centuries elapsed between Copernicus and Newton, and more centuries elapsed between Newton and Einstein. And Einstein is not the last word on gravity.
I was pretty tired and not thinking/explaining well before- although I’m not much better now- (Trying to show hte light is exhausting) but I’ll try to explain it a little better, more clearly what I was getting at.
When I pointed out the rat sized animal’s jaw bones being compared to a hippo sized animal’s, I meant to illustrate that this is a huge leap to suggest that the two were even remotely related. If we’re to believe the jaw bones represent a ghradual evolving ear bone structure based on these examples, then that’s asking for us to suspend too much reason. First of all, I wasn’t suggesting that the one was a direct descendent of the other, but I was pointing out that all the 1000’s of direct descendents inbetween are missing from this puzzle, aND that their jaw bones would very likely discount the earbone evolution hypothesis. Oh, you might find a exampl,e here and there where a particular species might have the bone located a cenemeter back from a close relative, but then we’ll also find hteir direct descendent who doesn’t.
The direct supposed earlier relatives show that the ear was already fully functional and fully formed in two spereate classes of species.
Fruit flies have amazingly complex hearing systems very similiar to humans, Perhaps it would be better to try to show the evolution of fruitfly hearing?
Science tells us that whale’s semicircular ear canals took 5 million years to shrink from their supposed land form ear canals, yet we’re to beleive that it took a mere 10 million years for a dog sized animal to evolve into the whale? For crying out loud, it supposedly took 5 million years for just one relatively simple shrinkage on a huge animal to happen, and now we’re to believe the incredible journaey of dog to whale took place in just under 10? Let’s not forget the dead end supposed horse eovlution that turned out ot be way off course, yet is still taught by some. There are so many major evolutionary differences that must have occured in such a short time like the mouth breathing to blowhole eovlution, the limbs to fins, the tail etc etc etc, yet all we’re given for evidences are completed unique species and we’re told they are connected by pointing out some moot similarities that are open to highly subjective commentaries.
Found htis, and think it’s appropriate. While the objects are fascinating, making claims can lead to trouble when careful objective annalysis and observation could have avoided the problems in the first place.
“Lucy of Peanuts fame provides a fable on how a priori reasoning confronts anomalies. Pointing to an object on the sidewalk, she said, Wow, look at the size of that butterfly, Charlie Brown! That must be one of those big tropical butterflies from Brazil. Upon closer inspection, Charlie Brown commented, Thats no butterfly; that s a potato chip. Well, what do you know; youre right, Charlie Brown, Lucy replied. I wonder how a potato chip got all the way up here from Brazil?
Got the nephew and neices here this weekend, and it will be too hectic to get into detailed discussion till they’re gone- Nephew likes hte computer, so I’ll give it to him for the weekend mostly.
[Snowflakes have an “obvious” design, but they arise from the laws of physics and chemistry. Finding design says nothing about the history of an object.]
Yup- there certainly are obvious natural laws- however, the supposed descent from common ancestor isn’t law bound according to Darwinists- as such- stating that because nature does exhibit certain laws that result in design, and asserting that a random process shouldn’t be investigated for design is shying away from true science.
[there is nothing about science that allows you to assert atha an object is made by an unknown entity having unknown capabilities and unknown limitations and unknown methods and unknown methods. Such a statement is vacuous.
This forum allows optional use of most HTML tags. If your post does not contain HTML, it will be converted to HTML when posted, retaining paragraphs as typed. This conversion is not performed if you have anything resembling an HTML tag in your text.]
I’m sorry but that’s just not true. Design indicates one of two things, either a designer or a natural law- As I mentioned, because we know for fact that design is present at the very simplest levels of organisms, then it is the burden of evolutionists to show that nature is capable of designing. You find the pot, you obviously know there was a designer behind it- You find a watch, you obviously know that it didn’t just randomly evolve all the parts and then assemble itself. You find cells that are so intricately designed that to take away parts would render them null, then you must explain how this design could have arisen to function as an assembled whole.
to state that it is vacous is to avoid and sidestep a problem that needs scientific answers.
[If you don’t have known samples made by known methods for comparison, you cant’t say anything about an object’s history.]
You can tell quite a bit about the intelligence of the designer without having to compare it with anything else. The more complex the design, them ore intelligent the designer, them ore intricate the design, the more artistic the design, the more expressive the designer, and so on. One need not have another clay pot from a known culture with wich to make perfectly ligitimate conclusions.
I have studied the history of engineering from several directions.. Most of the history of man so-called engineers/scientists were conserned with CLOCKS... You know time.. They could care less about the wheel or gears.. except nominally.. This changed only a little with the invention of "patenting" and printing.. Engineers guarded their "secrets".. Even now guarding patents by corporations slows down progress.. especially by Drug companies..
HAPPY BIRTH-DAY, BETTY BOOP. I’ll bring the ice cream...
Looking for a designer is reasonable, but there is no science in positing an entity that has no attributes, no capabilities, no limitations, no motivations, no methods and no verifiable instances of action.
Post #58 is a perfect example of the narrow minded arrogance of the left, on display for all to see.
oops...post #59. sorry :)
Ah, but if we’re to concider two posible designer, one being God, one being nature, they do indeed have attributes, and capabilities, and motivations and indeed methods.
If nature, the attributes are, for the sake of argument, directed randomness, a corraler of arraNGER of randomness. One will have to show that nature is capable of this on a macroevolutionary level
If God, He has many attributes that can be seen in His work. Amniscience, complete wisdom and knowledge of natural laws, as well as being able to suspend natural laws- but we see that God does indeed create with natural laws inplace, and assembles many many seperate complexities into a comprehensible identifiable whole.
As for capabilities, is it any less plausible to concider that an Omniscient God was capable of complexity and design as it is to concider that nature could have done it without being able to explain how? We’ve actually gone further in explaining that it simply isn’t biologically, mathematically, or any other ‘ly’ possible for randomness to create the necessary new information or the complexities we see in the designs discovered in scientific evidences.
Motivations. Does a completely random system of mutations have motivation? If you answer ‘survival of the fittest’ then don’t be too quick to settle on that for a final answer because what instructs this inborn sense of survival of the fittest? Or ‘law’ if you will. An intelligence? It would have to be intelligent in order to deal with the very complexities that go into keeping the fittest fit and furthering the ‘desire’ if you will for the continuation of survival.
We can’tv escape the design seen in nature, and we can’t escape the intelligence behind the design- We can explore what that intelligence is, and we ought to, but we shouldn’t rule out one so the other can have exclusive uncontested acceptance- that’s coersion, and not science.
Methods? If you’re goign to state that the ID’ist has to prove how God brought life from non life, while at the same time stating that ‘science doesn’t need to because abiogensis isn’t a part of evolution hypothesis’ then that’s setting the bar muich higher for the oppoenet than you set it for your own scientists. ID isn’t about the creator, it’s about the intelligence behind the design, and the design itself. One doesn’t need to posit a designer to suggest the design or the intelligence seen in the design. Many ID proponents believe nature is the intelligence seen in the design. I beleive they are wrong and can be scientifically shown to be wrong, but allow them their belief simpyl because it has nothign to do with the actual science of design discovery, nor even of intelligence discovery.
[no verifiable instances of action]
Sure there is, the very instructions in the code themselves. You might argue the instructions came about randomly outr of non life, or from accidental arrangements of non functioning code, but really, we need to explore where this code arose from in the first place before we can posit there was non functional code awaiting arrangement in the first place. Molecular biology is opening up tremendous knowledge in the area of specific complexity and design, and they’re discovering these specific complexities seem to have been orchestrated by an orchestrator- they are just in dissagreement about who or what that might be.
I don’t know what area of the country you, your friends or coyote but a graduate degree usually means a MASTERS and a PHD is called a PHD or doctoral program.
I know many people, most in my family, who have PhD’s so if you want to pull some elitist attitude with me, your already DOA.
No, but some mutations result in individuals that produce more offspring than others.
Randomness doesn't produce information. Information is implicit in the feedback provided by selection.
Stop the tape...Doctorates are not a graduate degree...you are supposed to go to Ph.D school, dontcha know? Is this called a ‘split level’ where you come from?....lets see, what schools and parts of the country am I talking about..well, lets see...Stanford, Cornell, University of Louisville, for starters...no slouches here....
No elitist attitude here, just the truth...
Why don’t you try reading all the posts on this issue - I believe I said that and then was challenged on it. Perhaps you need to straighten out coyoteman on this issue - not me.
Better yet, before you comment, try to get your ducks in a row.
I did read the whole thread...coyoteman needs absolutely no straightening out on this issue...he actually knows exactly what he is talking about...
My ducks are in a row, yours are not...
Thank you for these additional insights. Jeepers...
Thank you. I are indeed granulated.
(That means I've been through the mill!)
[No, but some mutations result in individuals that produce more offspring than others.]
That’s not in dispute- Science is clear on that- however, you propose that ID needs to describe motivational aspects of a designer in order to be concidered ‘true’ science, but don’t require any such thing from Evo.
actually, during the formative years in Americas history most of the schools were religious in nature. Look at the hearty and respectful citizens it produced. So many people willing to build up a new country and withstand immense hardships. It was largely their belief in God that gave them the strength to indure and help create this great country that you enjoy. To try and eliminate that from present day publically funded schools is terrible and destructive. If anything, the balkanization is occuring by creating mind numbed school kids who are filled with doubt with the help of bad scientific teachings which are afraid of some good competition...of course that competition is labeled unscientific in order to excuse their blindness. But, upon just a little bit of research their house built on sand and much mental imaginations falls away.
Evolution does not work toward specified goals. Are you asserting that this is true of the Designer?
Well, if coyoteman needs “no straightening out on this issue” you definitely do. It should be obvious to any logically thinking person that your post contradicts coyoteman. Personally, it’s an argument that’s a total waste of time and i’ve no clue why you felt some compulsion to defend coyoteman since he’s already stated he’s so brilliant. I guess you have doubts about his own ability to defend his own words? Are you “his mama” too?
I’ll state my thesis again so that perhaps some people can get back on track: To reject macro-evolution does not make one anti-science.
I believe when I made this statement in response to coyote, he immediately told me how brilliant he is and that I don’t need to “lecture” him on the issue because...well, he’s brilliant and I guess i’m not. LOL
You are such a whiner....you are already behind, the more you talk, the further behind you get...
As for Coyoteman, he is brilliant, I am not his mama, and nothing I have said, contradicts anything Coyoteman has said...keep whining, it gets funnier as it goes along...
And getting this thread off track, started with your postings, not mine...
Your opinion that rejecting macro-evolution does not make a person anti-science, is just that, your sole opinion...and since we all have opinions, which may differ from yours, so what? You reject macro-evolution, and I dont....