Dan,

Not one of the points you've made on this thread so far is in anyway accurate.

<<However, evolution’s opponents are standing up quite well.>>

No they're not. They're treated as nothing more than a joke, and you should know this by now considering all the debunking I've done of Creationism in our discussions. Not one of your arguments has stood up to my rebuttals.

In fact, looking at those links you provided about the debate, I see that I have also debunked the majority of the arguments, put forth by the Creationists there.

I'm a little surprised though, that you would continue to link to such a dishonest website. I found your last Richard Lewontin quote there under the heading of “Amazing Admission”.

But I guess when you have nothing, dishonesty is all you can rely on.

<<So well that I would suggest that is one reason evolutionists sometimes shy away from debating>>

Tsk, tsk. Now aren't we just being the teensiest bit dishonest here?

Real scientists make it abundantly clear that they don't debate creationists for the same reason that Stephen Hawkins wouldn't debate Black Hole Theory with Miss World. Nor do they want to give such a crackpot idea any more acknowledgment than it deserves, or validate it in anyway by taking it seriously enough to debate.

<<The question then becomes, into which domain does evolution really fall?>>

I like how you've tried to make this question sound intellectual, when in fact, there is nothing intelligent about it at all. Allow me to demonstrate...

<<One way to help determine whether something can be classed as ‘scientific’, ... is whether it can be falsified.>>

Correct so far.

<<Can we imagine a test that might disprove evolution?>>

Yes.

Either way, there doesn't have to be a “test”, just an observation.

<<This is rather problematic.>>

No it's not. Here's why...

<<Some suggest that looking at the fossils may provide an objective test.>>

And they would be right.

A static fossil record would be good evidence against evolution. Instead, we see hundreds of smooth transitions throughout many species, particularly primates.

Continued...

...Continued

There are many other ways to falsify evolution, such as:

- Finding fossils of more complex and more recent lifeforms buried deeper than the primitive lifeforms;
- Finding true chimeras, such as mermaids and centaurs;
- Discovering a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
- Observations of organisms being created.

Either way, your claim is absurd considering Creationists claim that evolution has been falsified.

<<When creationists have pointed out the sparsity of transitional fossils between the major groups, evolutionists have responded by giving possible reasons for their lack.>>

Two points:

1. There isn't much sparsity between the major groups.

2. What is your point here? It obviously doesn't say much for the intelligence of Creationists if they have to have the reasons for the lack of fossils pointed out to them. Even a primary school child would know that!

<<By the way, the design argument is not based on ignorance.>>

Yes it is. And you prove this in the rest of your post...

<<We know much about DNA and genetic sequencing.>>

Yes, in fact we know so much about them, that we can now be certain about evolution since they adhere to the theory to the point that they can be classified as solid proof of it.

<<...what would you conclude if you saw the letters H E L P scratched into sand on a beach? The chances of this occurring through natural (non intelligent) means, perhaps sticks being blown by the wind, or crabs pushing stones on the beach, are trillions to one.>>

Another Creationist fallacy.

Ever heard of 'Natural Selection', Dan?

Natural Selection is what turns the randomness of mutations into the NON-random process of Evolution. Therefore, not only is your analogy completely incorrect, but your so-called "evidence" for an intelligent designer is non-existent.

So it looks like you where also wrong when you said...

<<...I would suggest that it is not the creationists who are doing the mental contortions to try and escape the evidence.>>

No Dan, Creationists are the only ones trying to escape the evidence. And you prove this every time you post.

AJ Philips,

Keep defending the indefensible. It makes for a good laugh.

Runner,

Instead of making your usual snard little inconsequential remarks, how about you actually back your opinions with some evidence or reasoning.

You can't, can you? No, you never have been able to. You just sit on the sidelines and snipe at people with nothing to back your assertions. You're nothing more than a forum troll.

Honestly Runner, you have the mind of a child.

Grow up.

AJ Phillips:
This post is just to support your comment on Runner's snide remarks. I refer to people such as Runner as "bomb throwers" - they don't contribute anything to the debate, and in this case, perhaps Runner is showing his colours - throw a bomb and run.

It is a pity we get personal in some of these discussions, but I do think we have to dissuade comments such as Runner's most recent post.

HarryG & AJ,
I find your reaction to the Fundamentalism encountered here as quite legitimate. The defensible is well provided, where, irony of ironies the Vatican’s 2006 chief astronomer Fr. George Coyne admits, “Intelligent design [or creationism’s strong counterpart] isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.” Sadly, it is really quite childish to create confusion between the scientific plane and the philosophical or religious.

Those who have learnt from the ‘Galileo affair’ know very well the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason become prey to fundamentalism – in the face of any honest reflection or debate, ‘bomb-throwing’ becomes but a desperate, unavailing sanctuary.