Pastor telling you who to vote for…

[rforsythe]

Did you know that the smallest one cell creature contains more than 300 billion bits and pieces of information? In fact, the smallest one cell creature is so complex, it could never have been generated from anything other than intelligent design.

This argument cracks me up every time. Look, just because the mechanism of how it came to be is not understood by our feeble human minds, does not mean there was "intelligence" surrounding it. It also doesn't mean there wasn't, but your god could have very well been hyper-"intelligent" cows sent from a far away galaxy. The FACT is that just about every theory is as likely to be true as the next, whether it's that God/Allah/etc made life on Earth, aliens, some incredibly unlikely but possible chemical reaction, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and so on. It's your FAITH that makes one more true than the other. It's IGNORANT to think that just because we don't understand it, that our lack of knowledge somehow begets some necessity for another intelligent being at the helm.

Without ingelligent design, there is no design. Without a creator, there is no creation.

And don't give me that big bang crap. You and I both know you can't generate something from nothing. Matter is neither created nor destroyed in the event of a chemical reaction.

Who ever said there was nothing to begin with? And if you can't generate something from nothing, then where did we all come from? "Humans obey conservation of energy but God does not"? If the Pope decreed that it shall be law that God follows conservation of energy, would we all cease to exist?

I challenge you to prove that intelligent design is any more plausible than the other arguments or theories, without going to the standard "it's just so complex that it must be intentional, ergo God" fallback. I don't buy that argument. Complexity does not inherently mean engineering created it.

[dragos13]

This argument cracks me up every time. Look, just because the mechanism of how it came to be is not understood by our feeble human minds, does not mean there was "intelligence" surrounding it. It also doesn't mean there wasn't, but your god could have very well been hyper-"intelligent" cows sent from a far away galaxy. The FACT is that just about every theory is as likely to be true as the next, whether it's that God/Allah/etc made life on Earth, aliens, some incredibly unlikely but possible chemical reaction, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and so on. It's your FAITH that makes one more true than the other. It's IGNORANT to think that just because we don't understand it, that our lack of knowledge somehow begets some necessity for another intelligent being at the helm.

Great post Ralph. Its all old school belief where people needed to make sense of everything. Thats why the Greeks believed gods thru lighting and made it rain. Now with the advancement of the human race, we can explain alot of it thus removing the need for "intelligent" creation.

[fullgrownbear]

This argument cracks me up every time. Look, just because the mechanism of how it came to be is not understood by our feeble human minds, does not mean there was "intelligence" surrounding it. It also doesn't mean there wasn't, but your god could have very well been hyper-"intelligent" cows sent from a far away galaxy. The FACT is that just about every theory is as likely to be true as the next, whether it's that God/Allah/etc made life on Earth, aliens, some incredibly unlikely but possible chemical reaction, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and so on. It's your FAITH that makes one more true than the other. It's IGNORANT to think that just because we don't understand it, that our lack of knowledge somehow begets some necessity for another intelligent being at the helm.



Who ever said there was nothing to begin with? And if you can't generate something from nothing, then where did we all come from? "Humans obey conservation of energy but God does not"? If the Pope decreed that it shall be law that God follows conservation of energy, would we all cease to exist?

I challenge you to prove that intelligent design is any more plausible than the other arguments or theories, without going to the standard "it's just so complex that it must be intentional, ergo God" fallback. I don't buy that argument. Complexity does not inherently mean engineering created it.

LONG...

First of all, you missed the point of what I was trying to say. I didn't in anyway imply that because we don't understand the way it came to be, means that there is a God.

Second of all, It does make more sense than not, that intelligence is behind design.

A simple coca-cola can took intelligence to create. A mouse trap took intelligence to create. This discussion takes intelligence to create.

Listen, This very convesation presupposes that god exists. How so? Because reasons require that this universe be a reasonable one that presupposes there is order, logic, design, and truth. But order, logic, design, and truth can only exist and be known if there is an unchangeable objective source and standard of such things.

To say something is unreasonable, you must know what reasonable is. To say something is not designed, you must know what designed is. To say something is not true, you must know what true is, and so forth.

Like all nontheistic worldviews, you're borrowing from the theistic worldview in order to make your own view inetelligible.

Why, by the way, are you presupposing that an intelligent cause is impossible? By doing so, you're saying that the natural laws are the only game in town. Likewise, if a creationist rules out natural causes beforehand, then he also risks missing the right answer. But a scientist who is open minded to both natural and intelligent causes can follow the evidence wherever it leads. By the way, science doesn't really say anything, scientist do. Data is always interpreted by scientists. When those scientists let their personal preferences or unproven philosophical assumptions dictate their interpretation of evidence, they do exactly what they accuse the religious people of doing.


To go back to the first part of my quote, quoted by you. In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote something miraculous. His quote is as follows: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Well Mr. Darwin, we now know that there are many organs, systems, and processes in life that fit that description. Remember, even in darwin's day, the single "cell" was a black box of mystery. Even at the molecular level it's immeasurably more complex than darwin ever could've dreamed. Like a mouse trap, a removal of any one part of this system(the cell), would cause the entire system to fail immediately.

This principle is called Irreducible Complexity(ir·re·duc·i·ble /ˌɪrɪˈdusəbəl, -ˈdyu-/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ir-i-doo-suh-buhl, -dyoo-]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1.not reducible; incapable of being reduced or of being diminished or simplified further: the irreducible minimum.
2.incapable of being brought into a different condition or form.


A car engine is an example of an irreducibly complex system. If a change is made in the size of the pistons, this would require simultaneous changes in the cam shaft, block, cooling system, engine compartment, and other systems, or the new engine would not function. Living things are irreducibly complex, just like a car engine.

Systems that are so complex such as life forms, could in no way have developed in the gradual darwinian fashion. Why? Because intermediates would be nonfunctional. As with a car engine, all the right parts must be in place in the right size at the same time for there to be any function at all. You can build an engine part (and that takes intelligence) but you can't drive to work with only a partial engine under the hood. Nr could you drive to work if one essential part of your engine were modified but others were not. In the same way, living systems quickly would become nonfunctional if they were modified piece by piece.

There is no way life can come into existence by the darwinian method of slight, successive changes over a long period of time. Darwinism is akin to natural forces -- without any intelligent help -- producing a running car engine (i.e., an amoeba) and then modifying that irreducibly complex engine into successive intermediate engines until those natural forces finally produce the space shuttle (i.e., human being). Darwinism can't explain the source of the materials to even make an engine, much less how this complex creation came to be in the first place!

After all, we see that there is some weight to the complexity of things. Complexity takes intelligence to design. To believe that a mindless process is responsible for the changing of such complex entities, that my friend, is absurd.

[fullgrownbear]

Why is it not worth the argument? If indeed there is a creator, then there indeed are moral implications. This means there is a possibility of being held accountable for your actions.

Thankfully, God made a provision for forgiveness through sin by the sacrifice of his own son.

See? This makes sense. It's logical, and it coincides with reason.

[dragos13]

Honestly, I believe in evolution and what has been proven with science. There is no proof of a "creator" only faith that it is true. To say something makes sense is no more then just saying it fits with your opinion. Who is right and who is wrong, we will find that out in the end.

Does science not prove the steps of evolution? Does carbon dating not prove the length of existance for our world? How can you overlook suck info just to have faith in a very old book?

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

I talk to God all the time....she never told me how to vote.

I never talked to God.......but I saw Him a couple of times this last trip!

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

This discussion takes intelligence to create.

You are giving us FAR too much credit......

[fullgrownbear]

Honestly, I believe in evolution and what has been proven with science. There is no proof of a "creator" only faith that it is true. To say something makes sense is no more then just saying it fits with your opinion. Who is right and who is wrong, we will find that out in the end.

Does science not prove the steps of evolution? Does carbon dating not prove the length of existence for our world? How can you overlook suck info just to have faith in a very old book?

Evolution is not science. Science is something that can be re-created and observed. Evolution cannot be recreated and observed, thus, you must have faith in this theory just as much as I have faith in my more plausible theory of creation.

Evolution has not been proven, nor has any evidence of evolution been observed.

Continuing on, Evolution: From the goo, to you, via the zoo. What an amazing theory. Not really. It's the belief that all life forms have descended from a common ancestor, the first one celled creature, and all of this happened by natural processes without any intelligent intervention. God as not involved. It has been a completely blind process.

So this happened by natural selection, right? But the term natural selection is a misnomer. Since the process of evolution is, by definition, without intelligence, there is no "selection" at all going on. It's a blind process.

Consider a so called example of natural selection (evolution). Consider what happens to bacteria when attacked by antibiotics. When bacteria survive a bout with antibiotics, and multiply, that surviving group may and does have a resistance to the antibiotic. The resistant, surviving bacteria, possessed the genetic capacity to resist, or a rare biochemical mutation somehow helped it survive (rare because mutations are nearly always harmful). Since the sensitive bacteria die, the surviving bacteria that are resistant multiply, and are now dominate.

Darwinists (evolutionists) say that the surviving bacteria have evolved. Having adapted to the environment, the surviving bacteria provide us with an example of evolution. Fair enough, but what kind of evolution? The answer is critical. In fact, evolution is perhaps the greatest point of confusion in the creation-evolution controversy. This is where Darwinian (evolutionist) errors and false claims begin to multiply like bacteria if not checked by those who believe observation is important to science. Here's what the observation tells us: The surviving bacteria always remain bacteria. They do not evolve into another type of organism. That would be macroevolution, which has never even been observed to create new types (species.)

So - Observation of a scientific experiment is one of the most critical steps. If there is not an observation process in the experiment, how can we be sure of any theory at all? It remains just that, a theory.

Evolution has never been proven, because it has never been observed.

Here are a couple of definitions, the two types of evolution. (probably should've given these earlier)
Mircoevolution: Within a type. (within a species)
Macroevolution: Across types (across a species)

First of all, you must understand, there are genetic limits. Darwinists say that microevolution within types proves that macroevolution has occurred. If these small changes can occur over a short period of time, think what natural selection can do over a long period of time.

Unfortunately, genetic limits seem to be built into the basic types. For example, dog breeders always encounter genetic limits when they intelligently attempt to create new breeds of dogs. Dogs may range in size from chihuahua to great dane, but despite the best attempts of intelligent breeders, dogs always remain dogs. Likewise, despite the best efforts of scientists to manipulate fruit flies, their experiments have never turned out anything but more fruit flies, and usually crippled ones at that. This is especially significant because the short life fruit flies have allows scientists to test many generations of genetic variations in a short period of time.

Like I said, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. There is more evidence for intelligent design, and God, than not.

[Captain Obvious]

<cough> what??? "Mostly proven", there's the understatement of the century...

Well, I was trying to be subtle, but as we all know, sarcasm doesn't always translate via text. Guess i should stick to the obvious huh?


I chose to only post several factual numbers to show the shortsightedness of correlating faith and a political party.

I typically choose not to enter the debate of religion as it is driven by faith. You see, faith is like herpes, you either have it or you don't.

[jbnwc]

I usually would take the time to write a logical post on these types of topics, but this one started out from the start as a Christian bashing fest. Those of you who think you are tolerant but then openly and agressively attack one group for their beliefs are more hypocritical than even the worst of Christians. You wonder why Christians are agressive towards you? You blindly attack them and what would you expect them to do?? If you can't treat them with the respect and dignity they deserve, then why would you expect any in return?

[zetaetatheta]

Creationism is a myth! Myth--a sacred narrative in the sense that it holds religious or spiritual significance for those who tell it, and it contributes to and expresses systems of thought and values. Use of the term by scholars implies neither the truth nor the falseness of the narrative. To the source culture, however, a myth by definition is "true," in that it embodies beliefs, concepts, and ways of questioning and making sense of the world.

Evolution is a Theory! IMO Ed Pearlstein bests explains what a theory is, I quote:

"Only a theory" is what creationists like to say about evolution. And that seems to carry great weight with some people.

Such people don't understand what that word means to a scientist.

As used in science, "theory" does not mean the same thing as it does in everyday life. A theory is not a guess, hunch, hypothesis, or speculation. It is much more full-blown.

A theory is built upon one or more hypotheses, and upon evidence. The word "built" is essential, for a theory contains reasoning and logical connections based on the hypotheses and evidence. Thus we have Newton's theory of gravity and the motion of planets, Einstein's theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the cell theory of organisms, plate tectonics (theory of the motion of land masses), the valence theory of chemical compounds, and theories of evolution in biology, geology, and astronomy. These theories are self-consistent and consistent with one another.

Construction of good theories is a major goal of science.

Yes, a scientific theory can be wrong, as shown by experiment or observation, since one of its hypotheses might be wrong or the reasoning might be flawed or new data might come along that disagree with it. Or its validity might be limited (as are some of those listed above). So in science, a wrong theory gets modified, discarded, or replaced. This has happened, for example, in physics with the caloric theory of heat and the theory of the luminiferous ether, and in chemistry with the phlogiston theory of combustion.

In physics, which is my field, theories such as classical mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism are thought to be on excellent ground in both evidence and reasoning, but each of them is still "just a theory". Other theories, such as in cosmology and elementary particles, are still being developed, and do get changed as new evidence and reasoning come in. The fact that theories are subject to improvement is the great strength of science.

Supernatural creation is not a theory, but a hypothesis. Considered in a scientific sense, it has a fatal flaw: it is sterile. If someone asserts that there is a creator-god, one can ask "So what?" Nothing follows from it; it leads nowhere. Some religions have additional hypotheses, such as: only one creator-god, a great flood, the sun standing still, a virgin birth, a trinity, a resurrection, the efficacy of prayer; but no one of these is logically demanded, or even suggested, by the others. They are just added on.

Anti-evolutionists sometimes say that evolution has not been "proven". In a strict sense, no theory is ever proven in any field, with the possible exception of pure mathematics, since new data might come along that require a change, and there are always details that haven't been tested. Sure, there are things not yet understood about evolution, as in many other fields; but that is why scientists do research! I have encountered the statement - meant as a put-down - that scientists don't know everything. Well of course not, but we expect to know tomorrow more than we know today.

I’m with this dude, but I must admit that seeing Dr. Frankenstein create his monster (especially Mel Brook’s version), has me wondering, especially since Mel is a Jewish writer—kind of like those others in that other book.

[The Black Knight]

I usually would take the time to write a logical post on these types of topics, but this one started out from the start as a Christian bashing fest. Those of you who think you are tolerant but then openly and agressively attack one group for their beliefs are more hypocritical than even the worst of Christians. You wonder why Christians are agressive towards you? You blindly attack them and what would you expect them to do?? If you can't treat them with the respect and dignity they deserve, then why would you expect any in return?

You know I totally agree with you jbnwc, after reading all of the looking down the nose pot shots and vitriol here on the board. I've had it. I was going to respond to Vance's post and questions he had with a good post. But after reading all the BS spewing forth. I'm done

I don't even care at this point. I realize that I believe what I believe and I don't have to explain myself to anyone, let alone some people on a internet forum that I've never met in my life.

At this point, after the day I just had today. I really don't care about having to explain my religion, my beliefs and my life to a bunch of nobodies on the internet.

[dirkterrell]

Darwinists (evolutionists) say that the surviving bacteria have evolved. Having adapted to the environment, the surviving bacteria provide us with an example of evolution. Fair enough, but what kind of evolution? The answer is critical. In fact, evolution is perhaps the greatest point of confusion in the creation-evolution controversy. This is where Darwinian (evolutionist) errors and false claims begin to multiply like bacteria if not checked by those who believe observation is important to science. Here's what the observation tells us: The surviving bacteria always remain bacteria. They do not evolve into another type of organism. That would be macroevolution, which has never even been observed to create new types (species.)

I would recommend doing some research and your own thinking on the topic of evolution rather than just cutting and pasting from creationist literature (and without attribution I might add). It might open your eyes.

Dirk

[fullgrownbear]

That's the book that I've been using for my entire reference. See my first post. Anyway, I'm done. Pointless. People only hear what they want to hear. And the only thing that really needs to be opened here is some very closed minds.

[rforsythe]

LONG...

You weren't kidding!

First of all, you missed the point of what I was trying to say. I didn't in anyway imply that because we don't understand the way it came to be, means that there is a God.

Point taken.

Second of all, It does make more sense than not, that intelligence is behind design.

A simple coca-cola can took intelligence to create. A mouse trap took intelligence to create. This discussion takes intelligence to create.

Perhaps, but you're assuming that intelligence came before existence. It's plausible (not fact) that we all came out of the primordial soup, evolved, and developed our own intelligence to where we could make coke cans, mouse traps, airplanes, bridges, wheels, beer, and even have rational conversation beyond clubbing each other with big sticks. It's also plausible (not fact) that an entity more intelligent than ourselves waved a big hand in the sky and out we popped.

Listen, This very convesation presupposes that god exists. How so? Because reasons require that this universe be a reasonable one that presupposes there is order, logic, design, and truth. But order, logic, design, and truth can only exist and be known if there is an unchangeable objective source and standard of such things.

I see where you're going with that, I just disagree. I think that you and I can think logically and converse, is just how we're wired, built, grown, or whatever nomenclature you prefer. Whether that trait is passed down by God or a physiological or learned thing, depends on your view of how we all came to be. It does not, however, presuppose the existence of God all by itself. It positively supports both sides of the argument however.

Like all nontheistic worldviews, you're borrowing from the theistic worldview in order to make your own view inetelligible.

Why, by the way, are you presupposing that an intelligent cause is impossible?

Likewise, you missed the point of what I was trying to say. I never said intelligent cause was impossible. I just pointed out that without faith steering your closely held belief towards one side or the other, it's really a crap shoot because we as humans really know very little. We believe a whole shitload of stuff though. The beliefs, not the facts, are what guide most people through what they "know". Study theism in general (not just one religion) and that will become pretty apparent.

By doing so, you're saying that the natural laws are the only game in town. (snipped, char limit)Data is always interpreted by scientists. When those scientists let their personal preferences or unproven philosophical assumptions dictate their interpretation of evidence, they do exactly what they accuse the religious people of doing.

I agree completely. But I didn't say natural law was the only game in town. I wouldn't say that, because I don't necessarily believe that. Fact is I never stated in any way what I believe, and have the open mindedness to understand that no matter what I believe, it's just that -- a personal belief. I could be right, I could be completely wrong. I can still have a very objective discussion on the subject however.

To go back to the first part of my quote, quoted by you. In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote something miraculous. His quote is as follows: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Well Mr. Darwin, we now know that there are many organs, systems, and processes in life that fit that description. Remember, even in darwin's day, the single "cell" was a black box of mystery. Even at the molecular level it's immeasurably more complex than darwin ever could've dreamed. Like a mouse trap, a removal of any one part of this system(the cell), would cause the entire system to fail immediately.

This principle is called Irreducible Complexity(ir·re·duc·i·ble /ˌɪrɪˈdusəbəl, -ˈdyu-/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ir-i-doo-suh-buhl, -dyoo-]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1.not reducible; incapable of being reduced or of being diminished or simplified further: the irreducible minimum.
2.incapable of being brought into a different condition or form.


A car engine is an example of an irreducibly complex system. If a change is made in the size of the pistons, this would require simultaneous changes in the cam shaft, block, cooling system, engine compartment, and other systems, or the new engine would not function. Living things are irreducibly complex, just like a car engine.

Hm. Car engines are not irreducibly complex in my opinion. People are finding ways to remove and simplify components every day. Even if a change in one area requires changes in another, it doesn't mean the system is so complex that we can't understand it. In fact compared to life in general, a car engine is an incredibly simple assembly.

Systems that are so complex such as life forms, could in no way have developed in the gradual darwinian fashion. Why? Because intermediates would be nonfunctional. As with a car engine, all the right parts must be in place in the right size at the same time for there to be any function at all. You can build an engine part (and that takes intelligence) but you can't drive to work with only a partial engine under the hood. Nr could you drive to work if one essential part of your engine were modified but others were not. In the same way, living systems quickly would become nonfunctional if they were modified piece by piece.

You assume that many iterations of life didn't fail to be simply because the "next step" wasn't complete. I'm not arguing the complexity - far from it - but how it got to that level is the issue. Perhaps it was intelligence, but maybe biological intelligence, at a genetic level (which we also don't understand). Another thing to remember is that life adapts at amazing levels. Even our own bodies reconfigure nerves, cells, etc to rebuild when damaged or parts go missing.

There is no way life can come into existence by the darwinian method of slight, successive changes over a long period of time. Darwinism is akin to natural forces -- without any intelligent help -- producing a running car engine (i.e., an amoeba) and then modifying that irreducibly complex engine into successive intermediate engines until those natural forces finally produce the space shuttle (i.e., human being). Darwinism can't explain the source of the materials to even make an engine, much less how this complex creation came to be in the first place!

I'll concur that we don't know of a way that it could have happened, but that doesn't mean there is "no way that it did". Darwinism can't explain the material source, but other theories can. And again, it's purely a matter of faith as to which THEORY you believe. Christianity at its core, is nothing more than a theory. It's one that people have killed each other over for millenia, but like every other religion, it's based on the acceptance of an idea that is not fully supportable by fact. Likewise, any other theory of evolution is in the same boat, though science weighs heavily on it (even though science has been used many times to prove certain pieces of religious/biblical lore, or disprove them).

After all, we see that there is some weight to the complexity of things. Complexity takes intelligence to design. To believe that a mindless process is responsible for the changing of such complex entities, that my friend, is absurd.

Again, I never said the process was mindless (or really, what I think that process even is). But to believe as fact that a mythical omnipresent being that knows your thoughts and made you out of nothing is, to some, equally absurd. I'm simply pointing out that in an objective view of existence, many theories offer equal potential. Again, it's your faith that steers you one way or another. And that's ok! I just feel that as a truly intelligent theist of any religion, you must accept that your belief is what you "know", but that it may not be fact, and most definitely is not to many other people. You should be able to acknowledge it without having to prove everyone wrong. That deficiency is all too present in so many deeply religious people that it astounds me. To be intelligent, no matter what your belief, is to be content in your path but open minded to learning how others see the world.

To the other comments about "Christian bashing" and what have you, I hope those weren't directed towards me. If I came off that way, it wasn't my intent. My beliefs don't matter here, I'm simply trying to engage in an open discussion on various points. I hope that can continue.

[rforsythe]

That's the book that I've been using for my entire reference. See my first post. Anyway, I'm done. Pointless. People only hear what they want to hear. And the only thing that really needs to be opened here is some very closed minds.

See my last post. I'm saying this in the nicest way possible, but perhaps this goes both ways?

[fullgrownbear]

Thanks for taking the time to post back - I read your post and I have to say that we must agree to disagree at this point! I spent about all of the time I currently have available posting - and don't think I can continue on like that much longer.

Anyhow, if you'd like to read more about where I get my ideas and thoughts check out that book. It's a good read if nothing else. Highlight the question areas for yourself - and do some counter research. I've done both and this is where I stand.

[fullgrownbear]

And that statement wasn't directed toward you - I mean people in general are very stubborn at heart. We all are.

[BeoBe]

is this really suprising?

[rforsythe]

Anyhow, if you'd like to read more about where I get my ideas and thoughts check out that book. It's a good read if nothing else. Highlight the question areas for yourself - and do some counter research. I've done both and this is where I stand.

I'll do that.

[dirkterrell]

and do some counter research. I've done both and this is where I stand.

I'm not here to argue faith issues, as that is pointless. But when someone says "evolution is not science", that is something that can be intelligently discussed. When you say such things, it is very clear that you do not understand even the most basic things about both the theory and fact of evolution (and yes, it is both). I hate to see intelligent people being misled by ignorant (or worse, intellectually dishonest) writings.

Dirk

[fullgrownbear]

Evolution is a fact? Wow. The last time I checked something that has never been scientifically observed wasn't considered a fact, but a theory.

And just curious, what about that book is intellectually dishonest?

James

[dirkterrell]

Evolution is a fact? Wow. The last time I checked something that has never been scientifically observed wasn't considered a fact, but a theory.

Well, you make my point right there about how little you understand about evolution, and science in general. Scientists use the word theory in a way that is very different from the colloquial meaning of "a guess." Read this very well-written essay about evolution as fact and theory. And evolution (in the fact sense) has been extremely well observed.

And just curious, what about that book is intellectually dishonest?

I wasn't referring specifically to that book as I haven't read it. I'm referring to other things I have seen creationists do (like continuing to argue that the second law of thermodynamics refutes the theory of evolution).

Dirk

[fullgrownbear]

How little I understand about evolution? I understand it perfectly. From the goo, to you, via the zoo.

If that's your gig, so be it. I don't understand "little" about evolution, in fact, I am probably more educated than the general public concerning this issue.

It's a faith based system, just as creationism. However, it takes quite a bit more faith, and quite a bit less common sense to believe in evolution.

Anyhow - I will read the article later. Tired of going back and forth. Night.