Dan S de Merengue

I am sure you are fully au fait with the old adage:

"we reap what we sow"

Runner has, from his very first post on OLO, treated with contempt, any posters with whom he disagrees. I know that any courtesy on my part towards him will be wasted as it has been in the past (under a previous name).

In addition, he has never attempted to learn from the frequently patient and informative posts of others - such as AJ Phillips.

As for your inability to understand how much of our modern technology we owe to science - particularly the understanding of evolution, geology and astronomy, well, that is your burden and your loss.

As I stated and you acknowledged; I remain open to learning as discoveries and understanding are made every day - child of the universe that I am.

Severin,

Thanks for your kind words.

To be honest, I really enjoy debating the topic - it’s a labour of love - although I admit that’s a little cheeky of me considering all the evidence is stacked my way. I can’t help but feel like an adult picking on children sometimes. I just remind myself from time-to-time that the wilful ignorance of these people is a conscious decision they make themselves.

I don’t usually bother with Runner though. Dealing with such a hateful person makes me feel dirty and uneasy.

Rusty,

Thanks for saving me the time. As you can see though, Runner didn’t even bother reading it.

Runner,

Dan’s trying his darnedest to disassociate himself from such blatantly dishonest tactics such as quote mining. You’re really not doing him any favours by continuing to do it so contemptuously.

Anyway, you still haven’t answered my questions.

Could you please provide me with some references, and could you either tell me what “true scientific process” is, or be big enough to admit that you made it up. You’ve accused others of being dishonest, but until you answer my questions, the only dishonest person here appears to be yourself.

Thanks.

Dan,

I’d really appreciate it if you could stop misrepresenting what others say...

<<[Michael Zimmerman] said he wanted to ‘to raise the quality of the dialogue on this important topic’ and get beyond the name calling. Unfortunately, just a few paragraphs later, he himself set the tone of his own discussion by describing some people in derogatory terms as narrow and fundamentalist.>>

Zimmerman did no such thing. He described the view of some as “narrow” and mentioned that “when fundamentalism trumps science, all of us lose.”

Both demonstrable observations.

You are trying to divert attention away from the fact that there is no evidence on the Creationist side of the debate by smearing the author of the article. This is clear in your continuous dodging and weaving (speaking of which, I’m still waiting for some evidence of a young earth (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9980&page=0)).

Continued...

...Continued

And since when did the term “fundamentalist” become derogatory? You said yourself that you don’t mind being called a fundamentalist under a proper definition of the word (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6784#103675)

Fundamentalist: of or relating to or tending toward fundamentalism. (http://tinyurl.com/yc2y9ws)

Fundamentalism: the interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth. (http://tinyurl.com/yfp89xr)

<<By the way, Runners point, to which I agree, is that today’s technology has nothing to do with and owes nothing to Neo-Darwinian theory. Neo-Darwinism, or the alleged common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection, is a theory of history, empty of any benefits to biology that theories of design cannot apply more beneficially.>>

I’ll assume you’re differentiating between macroevolution and microevolution here.

If you had read the page david f linked to on the other thread (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html), you would have seen these other points:

“7. Good science need not have any application beyond satisfying curiosity. Much of astronomy, geology, palaeontology, natural history, and other sciences have no practical application. For many people, knowledge is a worthy end in itself.”

“8. Science with little or no application now may find application in the future, especially as the field matures and our knowledge of it becomes more complete. Practical applications are often built upon ideas that did not look applicable originally. Furthermore, advances in one area of science can help illuminate other areas. Evolution provides a framework for biology, a framework which can support other useful biological advances.”

It sounds like you prefer ignorance over knowledge if the knowledge has no practical application.

What is it that you’re trying to point out in regards to macroevolution not having much practical application in today’s world?

Too be fair, could you also list the different ways in which Creationism has contributed anything with any practical application?

There must be quite a few considering how much you and Runner are belittling macroevolution for apparently not having any practical application.

Thanks in advance!

Well done runner! You can read a crib sheet.

To correct you again, that is not "another quote", that is the *first* assertion you have made that is attributed. The rest you just make up as suits you. You'll be up to junior high-school report level soon.

Actually, you don't have the wit to make this stuff up, you get it from pastor, who in turn reads a couple of "50 scientists who..." books.

You have twenty-four hours to relate how Dickerson's *lament* for the *then* lacking information translates to a telling argument for anything but your dishonesty.

I worked in cancer genetics for some time, and had reason to peruse many of Dickerson's papers on DNA-ligand interactions. His views on creationism are a matter of court record, as are his views on the feasibility of early molecular evolution.

Runner, you are dishonest, and you dishonesly represent the view of this scientist for your own shabby purposes.

Go look it up you lazy, lying little twit. If pastor gave you that quote, so is he.

By the way, when scientists cite papers, we don't use single lines that pervert the actual intent of the paper.

Rusty

Rusty,

Why not simply quote this, obviously endorsed by Dickerson himself:

“(Dickerson’s) analyses of the structures of cytochromes c from mammals, fish and bacteria allowed him to demonstrate the principles of evolution at the molecular level. As a consequence, he served as an expert witness in trials challenging the imposition of creationism on our science curricula, and lectured on the threat of creationism to science teaching. “ (http://faculty.chemistry.ucla.edu/institution/personnel?personnel_id=45877).

There cant be any conflict between religion and science. The new gospels are being written by our scientists. The mythological stuff will only be relevant to the backward and archives of the future.What was once Religion is being extended and made relevant by and through the sciences.
Amen.