Hi Fencer,
Sorry to butt in between you and John bashing each other, but I'd like to revisit one of your earlier posts (I've been out of town).
Fencer writes:
Well, I'm not an evo anymore because I've looked at the entire body of evidence in its totality and it compelled me to rethink whether evolution is probable. Therefore, I could no longer be an evolutionist since it was the wrong paradigm.
I don't suppose you'd care to share any one or two bits of evidence that you found compelling enough to cause you to dump the theory of evolution? I'd also be interested in hearing how you went about examining the "totality" of the evidence for evolution - and specifically which parts. This is quite an impressive feat: it's as much as I can do to keep up with one or two journals and the occasional recent book (for instance, I just bought Mayr's "Evolution and the Diversity of Life" - Darwin only knows when I'll actually get around to reading it
).
Non-matter does not create matter, naturalistically speaking, despite your strange belief it does; likewise, inorganic matter does not magically transform into organic matter, but believe this only if you want to remain consistent with science.
I find this kind of a difficult statement to understand. In the first part, you seem to be discussing matter-energy tranformation or nucleosynthesis - subjects more properly in the realm of physics than biology. In the second half, you seem to be arguing against abiogenesis - a subject more properly in the domain of chemistry. I will agree that abiogenesis doesn't happen "magically", but I'll state that there hasn't been any evidence provided to date showing that there is some barrier precludes it happening naturally.
You've seen the same evidence, but you've reached the wrong conclusions. I think the erroneous conclusions are the product of falsely accepting things as evidence for your theory, when in fact it is not evidence at all. I don't really know how to help you in this regard.
Well, of you're really interested in helping readers see how their conclusions are so wrong, you could start by listing the evidence you're talking about. Saying things like, "You've seen the same evidence, but you've reached the wrong conclusions.", doesn't help all that much when we don't know what evidence we've both supposedly looked at. Help me out here. As I requested above, what is the evidence that you say we both examined that proved to be so compellingly anti-evolution on your part?
Many well educated doctors, scientists, and Ph.D's heiling (sic) from every major accredited university in the world reject evolution and embrace creation as the most probable scenario of reality.
Maybe we shouldn't play this game. After all, over 300 "well educated doctors, scientists, and Ph.D's hailing from every major accredited university in the world" named
Steve fully embrace the theory of evolution. Interestingly, all the Steves have a directly related specialty (geology, paleontology, biology, ecology etc). Most creationist scientist lists can't make this claim. Better that I simply stipulate to the fact that not all creationists are ignorant, in-bred, illiterate rednecks, and we can move on to something more substantive, right?
Looking forward to your reply.