What I have noticed about these debates...

Ten-sai,

quote:

---

Abiogenesis is the logical imperative of evolution; that is, your stated creation belief derived from how science sees the early beginnings of evolution. Agreed?

​

Now, I understand that some are misled that abiogenesis and evolutioin are TWO SEPARATE THINGS like Mams here, AND say we don’t care if God created the first life form (b/c evolution and abiogenesis are irrelevant of course), to wit: EVOLUTION IS NOT ABIOGENESIS.

​

Fine. We can get busy talking about Intelligent Design then!

---

So, if the first complex cells were designed, could evolution then occur, a la Behe?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Ten-sai,Regarding the "god-of-the-gaps fallacy."It is essentially an argumentum ad ignorantium, used by people, usually theists (hence "god" of the gaps) in an attempt to show they are right & science is wrong because the scientific theory in question has knowledge gaps, therefore it is rational to conclude that god is responsible for said gap.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Ten-sai,

quote:

---

It's occurring before your very eyes as it is I who conceived the challenge for the evolutionist to post a "logical and concise" outline of the logical irrelevance between abiogenesis and evolution as asserted herein time and again. Similarly, there is an outstanding challenge for the evolutionist to produce a peered reviewed explanation for the irrational reliance on the phrase "god of the gaps fallacy". I challenged because the evolutionist bragged. Logical minds want to see if there is any logical substantive analytical thought processes behind the boastings. Guess there's not. Case closed...

---

Again, what stops life evolving after cellular life has been designed? It would seem from an ID point of view, certainly ID protaganists such as Behe, that the answer is nothing. Hence, abiogenesis is not the "logical imperative of evolution" as you claim.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

wj,Interestingly, GB & East Germany (showing the studies age) have the highest % acceptance of evolution AND at the same time the lowest % belief in the bible. Yet the correlation to a belief in God doesn't seem to follow. It's the bible & evolution, not religion & evolution that appear to be the oil & water, a gross generalisation I confess. Check Russia & the Phillipines, for example.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Cybereagle, You're going to have to read a lot more than that, my friend. Genetics, population genetics, palaeontology, molecular systematics, cladistics, comparative anatomy etc etc. Evolutionary theory has come a long, long way since Darwin penned Origins. This is why creationists find it so easy to misunderstand the ToE, they haven't exposed themselves to the evidence & placed it within a logical framework.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Other way around, mate.

Percy,Fair enough, but what's good for the goose...Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

AC, Do you mean Phyla, or species, or any other taxonomic rank? Do you even unsderstand the argument you are making? Make your claim as clear as possible, start a new thread, & we'll have at it! ? Er, that's not what the evidence suggests at all. Evidence please. Haeckels drawings were fake, but the details were true. Human embryo's have tails, mammalian jaw bones begin as several components, the bones in question migrate to the ear region where they become the malleus & incus, as indicated in the fossil record, etc, etc. True, but only if evolution fails to meet the standards of the scientific method, which it actually DOES meet. So sorry, religion remains mumbo jumbo, & evolution remains science. You gave one value, 8k years. That comes first AND last, surely? What was the other option? DNA, provided it doesn't become hydrolysed & oxidised can survive a lot longer, even if it is only fragmentory.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-25-2003]

Hi Percy,I guessed as much, trust me, I'm not that paranoid, yet! When they catch me, then it'll be a different matter....Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

jcgirl92, But none of the above are definitions. We are told by creationists that "kinds" exist, but since neither they nor the bible aren't defining what a kind is, it's impossible to independently verify. The truth is, creationists know this, & the moment they stick their heads over the parapet it's going to get shot off. Whatever criteria with which they choose to define kinds, I predict it can be shown that the same criteria shows with equal validity that kinds themselves are related.The conclusion is that biblical kinds are exactly that, non-scientifically supported groups of organisms purported by a religious book.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

jcgirl92, I should have been clearer, although "kind" is purported to be what you describe, actual kinds haven't been identified, & would be rubbished the instant they were claimed, most likely using the same evidence that was used to claim a group was a kind.We still don't know what a kind looks like, & how it was inferred to be in the first place.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-26-2003]

A Christian,You have questions to answer & assertions to support.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

A Christian, Thought not, your claims can be taken as nothing more than hyperbole. You don't have the slightest clue about what you write, so why did you write it?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

A Christian, Not that you'll post here again, but if you are going to make assertions you are going to have to support them, & "I saw a TV program about" it isn't good enough.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."