Percy, it shows a certain lack of education to be surprised when discussing matters that someone would mention something that does not wholly agree with them, but this is quite common among many evos I have found. For example, if you use a fact that an evo admits, they often say you are quote-mining since the evo obviously disagrees with you. It shows that among some they have an inability towards independent thought, and thus are surprised when someone else shows enough independent thought that they can easily use and refer to someone and their claims and incorporate that area of thinking into their argument without agreeing with them wholly.
Perhaps that explains your surprise?
Or if you believed heritable change happened in the past, then you have to identify why it couldn't be responsible for life's history.
Uh, I have no idea why you think anyone has ever challenged heritable change, or why you think it is relevant in the slightest. Of course, sexual and asexual reproduction is a fact of biology. I don't have to show that heritable change did not cause all of life stemming from a first life form. You have to show that, and you cannot. You claim to be able to show it is possible, but that imo is not even shown, and certainly, imo, there is plenty of evidence in the fossil record indicating the nice story evos imagined did not really occur as they claim.
You have to explain how the changes recorded in natural history came about.
Well now, I don't really have to do that on this thread, do I? Nor do I need to show this at all in order to discuss and refute evo misuse of data and logic.
But on point of order, I have started threads to discuss my views at length. You have not been very active on all of them. So before you claim I have not done something, making false witness, perhaps you should first read what I have stated. Otherwise, you will be back in the position of falsely claiming I am a YECer, which would be fine if I was, but just don't happen to be.
Also, was it you I had to tell that Behe believed in elements of evolution? You act here like you are telling me something when I brought that fact up on this board on a thread amidst evos that insisted otherwise.
About creationists doing science, your responses have been that creationism embraces many of the same things that evolution does. I think many creationists would beg to differ with you
That's just because with all the hours you have spent on this debate, you are still so terribly ignorant of creationist positions that you cannot understand their even most basic claims.
Why is that percy?
It's easy to verify that creationists believe in speciation and micro-evolution, or evolution within a kind. In fact, some beleive in a much faster form of evolution to explain the diversity of life and argue evo models of evolution don't work because they are based or were based on assumptions of excessively slow rates of evolution whereas their models of rapid evolution do work and are consistent with the facts.
Further evidence is that most creationist books and websites and lectures are just arguments against evolution - they propose no science of their own.
That's BS. Just the example of positing rapid speciation above shows that, but more to the point, I am not sure what many evos pass off as science, such as fabricated claims, twisted logic and overstatements, should be considered "proposing science."
That's why the question evolutionists always pose to creationists, "How do you think life's history happened if not by evolution,"
Once again, you show an incredible level of ignorance here. For example, YECers are quite explicit in how they think history proceeded, and so explicit you guys often claim you can factually refute them, and yet you have the gall to say they don't give specifics?? Is character assissination just par for the course here; the standard stock answer to give to make your position sound good? Shouldn't you at least show some level of intellectual honesty and admit that creationists do provide models, and that you are thus grossly misrepresenting them?
This message has been edited by randman, 02-17-2006 12:19 PM
™ Version 4.2
