You’re panicking now, Dan, and it’s starting to show.

All you’ve done is repeat the same old debunked arguments by putting a different slant on them.

You can give you’re arguments any slant you like, but they will continue to fall every time because they’re illogical.

*First Paragraph:

Thank you for your well wishes.

I’ll have to skip the rest of the first paragraph as it merely a red-herring and I don’t have the word allowance for it.

*Second Paragraph:

If Joe Schmoe doesn't understand abiogenesis or evolution, then his scepticism is irrelevant here.

Being sceptical is healthy, but if that scepticism comes from a deliberate ignorance, then it becomes stupidity.

*Third Paragraph:

No, Creationism can’t be consider scientific, and for many more reasons than even Waterboy has mentioned, and it’s disappointing that you need everyone to tell you this.

*Fourth Paragraph:

Your entire fourth paragraph focuses ‘testability’, but ignores observations.

But yes, we can test evolution. Natural selection is testable; mutations are testable.

And don't bother with going down the “no new information has been seen to add information to the genome” road. Not only has this been seen, but ‘adding information’ doesn’t have to occur as often Creationists like to imply. I’m happy to go further into this if you’d like?

Creationists accept ‘microevolution’, which is testable, but reject ‘macroevolution’. Yet they can’t find a mechanism that limits evolution – another way of falsifying it. The difference between macroevolution and microevolution is essentially just the time-span.

What proves reptiles-to-birds evolution? DNA, anatomy and fossils such as the archaeopteryx.

As I have tried to tell you time-and-time again, the fact that macroevolution is “history” is irrelevant. Disregarding a field of science because it is a science of history is irresponsible for so many reasons.

You’re advocating ignorance.

*Fifth Paragraph:

Behold the Creationist strawman argument...

You're 'past events' analogy – like the 'letters in the sand' analogy – is irrelevant.

Past events are not living creatures;
Past events don't leave their fossils behind;
Past events don't pass on DNA that we can trace back and compare to current events.

Continued...

...Continued

Also, the millions of intervening years are not just “alleged”. We have irrefutable proof of the Earth's age. I could provide you with many links to undeniable evidence of this, but you're too afraid to look at them.

*Sixth Paragraph:

Then you'd be guessing wrong.

So long as the chimeras weren't explained by lateral gene transfer, which mind you, only transfers very small amounts of DNA between lineages, then no.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe the reason we don't see chimeras is because evolution might be a fact?

Besides, you forgot about the other ways to falsify evolution that I mentioned, which are just some of many.

*Seventh Paragraph:

You’re trivialising the deplorable behaviour of quote-mining in yet another attempt to brush it off. Yet amazingly, it doesn't make you wonder why Creationists need to resort to it. I suggest you look-up the definition of “misquote”.

Also, before Darwin, paleontologists didn't know what to make of the weird creatures they'd found. We only realised what they were until we learned about evolution. Hundreds of transitional fossils have been found since Darwin, so no, the test didn't fail. You're point here is based on a falsehood.

*Eighth Paragraph:

One of the differences between evolution and Creationism is that Creationist’s don't want to 'do' science, they want to 'undo' science; Making Creationism not only useless, but counter-productive.

Dan, I feel sorry for you if you view historical sciences as useless. It’s as though religion has killed a part of your curiosity and spirit.

*Ninth & Tenth Paragraphs:

I believe Waterboy’s covered this.

*Eleventh & Twelfth Paragraphs:

My debunking of the ‘Orderly Creator’ argument also debunks these arguments, because they’re based on the same flawed logic.

Evolution has helped immensely in medical research; Belief in a six-day creation has not.

But maybe you can inform me, Dan... How did their belief in Creationism help with their medical/biological research?

P.S. Please don't make things up about me protesting Pasteur's name. I’d explained to you why your points about Pasteur were wrong. Just as I have now.

Continued tomorrow...

On second thoughts, I don't really have the energy to repeat everything that I've already said over the last 100 or so posts on this topic. So I'll leave it at that for now.

Trying to crush the rest of my response (which started out with 5000 words) into a measly little 700 words will only result in another couple of posts that don't flow too well.

Waterboy,
Firstly, let me say that I was never attempting to make a case for curriculum change in public schools. My view is the classroom should be an open place of discussion and investigation. I know a few Christian schools that teach units on design or creation. But they also see the importance of their students understanding the evolutionary view, as it is of course current accepted thought. At the public school where I used to teach, the biology teacher (who was evolution leaning) made himself aware of the creationist view, as he wanted to be able to deal with it fairly when it came up in discussion. And it inevitably will if OLO is any guide.

As for the glass of water example, I think you see my point. I was never claiming that drinking water was unrepeatable. I was only highlighting that historical events were unrepeatable and not directly observable. Only current processes are observable. That reptiles turned into birds is a claim to which people ascribe a date long past.

My previous paragraph is trivial. You claim evolution is an observable process going on all around us now. This is the claim around which there is debate. I would say that what we observe is not evolution at all.

A lot depends on the definition of ‘evolution’. Some (I’m not claiming you) say it just means ‘change’. Perhaps when the weather changes, or when I change my underpants, we see everywhere that change is constant, and ipso facto, evolution is observed.

So we need to specify clearly what we mean by evolution. If evolution only meant ‘natural selection’ then there would be no debate. That is a process everyone sees. Darwin didn’t dream it up. Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was already talking about it. Creationists such as Edward Blyth were already documenting this process before Darwin.

The current in vogue neo-Darwinian version of evolution is something like what Modell crudely described in the diner (27/8), a microbe slowly became a man. Are we currently really observing processes that affect these types of changes?

(continued…)

(…continued)

Alternately, there’s creationism. The biblical version thereof talks about a series of particular events in the past which have lead us to this point in time. You correctly note that this creation process is finished and therefore neither directly observable nor repeatable. We cannot demand of God that he go back and repeat it so that we may observe the process.

However, God did leave a record of what happened with enough detail (rough dates, etc.) for us to make models and predictions of the sorts of evidences and processes we might expect to see now, for example, remains of dead things buried in sediment from the result of the Great flood.

If our model is good, then it will produce useful scientific results.

Distinct categories or kinds of living things were created to reproduce after their kind. Animal husbandry and genetic engineering make use of the genetic variability within the created kind, producing similar if not more rapid results to that which may occur under natural selection. But the changes are still restricted to the change within that particular kind of living thing.

The problems of disease realised by antibiotic resistant bacteria do not arise from an appearance of new biological information, but often even degeneration of the genetic material within the bacteria.

In conclusion, the overwhelming number of scientists go about their daily activity without the question of origins entering their attention. Most current scientific pursuits would practice adequately under either model of origins. However, getting our view of origins correct could well lead to further breakthroughs in medicine or other areas of applied science.

AJ,
By the way, another accurate prediction of creationism is that all humans are shown to be closely related genetically. You could use this argument to good effect when you run into those white supremacists you mentioned.

As for discerning between facts and opinions, how come you skip over this, claiming it’s a red herring, when you put quite a lot of emphasis on it the previous day? Fact versus interpretation goes to the heart of what I’m saying

Dan,

You still couldn't respond to anything I said in my last response to you.

<<I was only highlighting that historical events were unrepeatable and not directly observable.>>

Yes, and both Waterboy and myself showed you why that was your analogy was irrelevant.

<<Some ... say it [evolution] just means ‘change’. Perhaps when the weather changes, or when I change my underpants, we see everywhere that change is constant, and ipso facto, evolution is observed.>>

And who would these people be? I don't know of anyone who says that. "Change over time" would be a little more accurate.

I suggest you check your dictionary for the definition of “evolve”.

<<[Natural selection] is a process everyone sees.>>

So if we can't see it, and it conflicts with the naïve beliefs of privative Hebrew tribes, then we disregard it regardless of the fact that the evidence is in everything we see?

<<The current in vogue neo-Darwinian version of evolution is something like what Modell crudely described in the diner (27/8), a microbe slowly became a man.>>

For someone who sounds so certain that evolution is false, you really don't know anything much about it at all, do you?

<<Are we currently really observing processes that affect these [macroevolutionary] types of changes?>>

No, and we wouldn't expect to either. If we did observe that within our lifetimes, then that would disprove evolution.

<<Alternately, there’s creationism.>>

Ahhh... The Creationists' false dichotomy.

<<...God did leave a record of what happened with enough detail (rough dates, etc.) for us to make models and predictions of the sorts of evidences and processes we might expect to see now...>>

Rough dates?

Oh, you mean those other dating methods you mentioned on the other thread that are based on old out-of-date information.

<<...for example, remains of dead things buried in sediment from the result of the Great flood.>>

I've already provided you with a link to irrefutable evidence that this is not the case. You see? It pays to check the links I provide in order to prevent yourself from repeating falsehoods.

Continued...