nPeace
Veteran Member
Okay, I understand now why you sent the links, but I don't know what they are supposed to prove, other than that they are human interpretations - nothing new to what Deeje and I have already repeatedly acknowledged.
Oh boy..
OK - I had a lengthy response 3/4 written to one of your other tedious posts, but my computer shut down and I lost it, so I think will be my last response to you for a while...
OK, so the history of this particular exchange went like this....
You had written:
"I don't have an agenda....
My faith started from my reason....
You have no verifiable evidence of evolution, so what is the difference?"
I replied with these links:
You replied to those with some dopey smilies.
I explained that they were links, your response to that is the first line in this post that I am responding to.
Allow me to explain it to you (though I suspect your dismissal is not premised on your 'reason' or your ability to understand what I wrote) -
I provided those links because they contained 1. 1 of the several iterations of my presenting 'verifiable evidence of evolution' and 2. an admission from a creation scientist that people saying that there is no evidence for evolution are ignorant and dishonest.
So yeah, I can see why you can't figure out why I linked to them - your scientific acumen must be on par with Deeje's.
And this insightful reply:
Was in response to my referring to this claim of yours:
"The designer designed the genes to do exactly what they were designed to do..."
as being circular. I guess its more begging the question fallacy plus some circularoity, but whatever.
You claim evolution has no 'verifiable evidence' and you write something so childishly naive and fallacious and hypocritical, as your claim is not only 100% devoid not just of verifiable "direct" evidence, but even circumstantial evidence.
This is why I find it difficult to take creationists seriously, so thanks for reinforcing my experience-based stereotype.
Do you disagree, then place take one at a time and explain how they are not.
Do you understand why I made the statement?
"The designer designed the genes to do exactly what they were designed to do..."
It was in response to this question.
...what exactly did the Intelligent Designer do? Or did He/she design Evolution, the endocrine system, and our genes?
There is nothing circular about that. It is a simple answer to a simple question.
Specifically what "analogies to human activity" are you referring to?Yes - because there isn't any.
Analogies to human activity are not evidence.
I don't understand what is your purpose for this blog.And there is that lie again.
Here is what scientist and creationist Todd Wood has written about such claims:
The truth about evolution
September 30, 2009
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason...
What do you know that he doesn't? He, after all, ran the Baraminology study group for many years and has published creation science.
What is your background again?
Can you explain please. Is it a reflection of your thoughts?
Was it just to say that the theory of evolution is standing on its props?