|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 04/08/2006 : 05:46:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Me! You have many on this site who will begin their worldview with life and matter already in existence. When asked on the origin of this life they will say, "It was just there, Bill. And why or how it got there is irrelevant, Bill." Now that is begining the whole conversation with bias. Not only is this a poor way to go about exploring the world, but it is a very anti-scientific approch to exploring this world. This type of behavour is what leads to indoctranation, rather then learning.
I think you're at best misquoting people. I doubt too many people here suggest that how life originated on earth is "irrelevant" in the broadest sense. However, in terms of discussing the diversity of life since its beginning, it is (in that narrow sense) irrelevant.
At present, we don't whether life arose through naturalistic means, hyper-intelligent seeding, or through supernatural magic. Moreover, as best as we can tell, the origins of life have no bearing on its subsequent evolution. However, since all evidence of said evolution points to naturalistic mechanisms, a naturalistic origin for life seems likely.
And besides, it seems like you are (or perhaps you are accusing me of) the pot calling the kettle black, and that side-steps the point. The real question is if you're willing to accept that evolution can happen via naturalistic means. |
 |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 06:23:20 [Permalink]
|
I continue to be amazed at the amount of lying, distortion, and logical fallacy that is utilized by religious extremists in order to defend their particular views of reality in the face of the overwhelming evidence that part of their belief system may not be what they were led to believe.
I don't understand why such people feel so threatened by evolution. The impact evolution has on religion or one's faith in god is zero. Unless, and this is the big one, one's "faith" is actually not a faith, but a strict adherence to a written text. Possibly a dogmatic faith, but not a true faith. A true faith, in my opinion, can easily adapt the latest findings by the scientific community into their view on god. Evolution would be just another tool that god used. Even abiogenesis, to use another unrelated topic, would be viewed as a tool of god. Or quantum mechanics, Big Bang theory, etc. As long as one realizes that god cannot be proven or disproven, and therefore has no place in a scientific discussion, then there would be no conflict. This is the case with the vast majority of religious believers. Scientists will continue to work without having to take god into account because they cannot. This, of course, does NOT mean that scientist are working to disprove god.
The idea that evolution, abiogenisis, Big Bang, and by association all of scientific methodology, is a worldview or a religion used to promote an atheistic viewpoint is a LIE. This idea is promoted by pathological liars who have lied so much and been lied to so much that such musings seem to make sense. This goes beyond a mere cognitive dissonance and into a pathological mental delusion.
At this point I must stress that I'm only referring to extremists in any religion, and not the mainstream. I will not allow myself to be labeled as a hater of religions or religious people.
Also, we should note that what I stated will be turned around by such people and applied to those of us who defend scientific methodologies. This would work, except that the evidence exists to prove otherwise. However, one must be aware of the evidence, which is why this tactic is used to varying degrees of success against an ambivalent and unaware populace.
Normally, one shouldn't have to worry about fringe groups who delude themselves in this manner, like the moon hoax believers or the UFO believers, etc. They typically pose no threat to the normal workings of the society in which they live.
This does not apply to the enemies of science. They are so scared and threatened that one part of their dogma (notice I did not use the word "faith") has been shown to be just a story used by bronze age preists to explain the world the only way they knew how, that they will resort to any means necessary to protect and promote their view. This includes using the government, courts, and the education systems. This is the real threat and it threatens the very fabric of our society and culture.
I wonder how much longer it will be before the enemies of science resort to violence. It has happened before, and there is no reason to suspect it won't happen again. Perhaps that will be the wake-up call for the vast majority that has little interest in this struggle. I hope it doesn't come to that.
And with that, I retire from posting in this thread.
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 07:33:27 [Permalink]
|
Dimetrodon grandis
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 10:31:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R.Wreck:
Bill, you have spent countless words here in a lame, vain, attempt to counter the theory of evolution. You have failed not least because you don't know nearly enough about it to mount any kind of a challenge. (By the way, have you ever even stepped foot into a natural history museum?).
Be that as it may, you have also failed to offer any kind of plausible alternative to evolution. It's time to put up or shut up, Bill. Tell us your explanation for the diversity of life on planet Earth. With details. Please remember it needs to be supported by all the available evidence. And references would help.
Let's hear it Bill. Here's your chance to tell it like you see it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill's reply:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESIGN
<snipped lenghty quotemining>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R.Wreck:
Who's the designer, Bill? Could it be a martian? What mechanism did it use to design and implement life as we know it?
And why such incompetence? Why do we have an appendix? Why are there blind fish with eyes? What about spina bifida? Or phenylketonuria How about Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis? A friend of mine died of ALS, and it's a real bitch of a disease. It slowly wastes your body, but leaves your mind perfectly healthy so you know what's happening and what's coming. And it's 100% fatal.
Your designer sucks, Bill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill's reply:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet man, in all his self-absorbed glory, can not duplicate the creation of bringing matter into existence from nothing, and then turn this matter into complex life. Heck, not only can man not duplicate it, he can't even come up with a plausible hypothesis on how it was done. Calamities on mars, which send the missing molecules for life from mars to earth on a cosmic asteroid shuttle system, is not plausible, but rather laughable. And evidence of your desperation for even a hypothesis for abiogenesis....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again with the non-sequiturs, Bill.
Please try to address the question. If you think the evidence supports design, then you must address the numerous examples of incompetent, bordering on malicious, design.
(bill) Sure, Wreck, I will answer your question as soon as you have answered mine. Where did Darwin's "simple Primordial Entities" come from and can you give me a basic description of them, before they began to evolve that is? Also, did these "simple life entities", that came about by chance, pop into existence with information already preprogrammed for natural and cumulative selection to use and if so who programmed them? Or did they pop into existence with no information at all for natural and cumulative selection to use?
The simple and intellectually honest answer about the beginnings of life on Earth is: "I don't know". Nobody knows how life here began. Nor does anyone know exactly what the first entities which could be called "alive" were like. Of course they contained "information", but that is no evidence for a designer. Things such as rocks and snowflakes contain "information" in the way their molecules are arranged. So the information argument to support a supernatural origin is nothing more than a red herring.
I don't completely rule out the possibility of a supernatural origin of life. Reliable evidence, however, for any supernaturally influenced occurrence at any time in the history of the planet is non-existent. Evidence that natural processes determine what happens is overwhelming. So I think it is reasonable to conclude that the origin of life is most likely due to natural processes.
OK, Bill, I've answered your question.
Now, you have posited that life was designed, presumably by some intelligent agent. I have pointed out examples of design that range from incompetent to malicious. Please address that. How do you explain such poor design? |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 11:01:33 [Permalink]
|
Archaeopteryx lithographica
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 04/08/2006 11:14:27 |
|
|
|
trogdor
Skeptic Friend
198 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 14:46:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Archaeopteryx lithographica
man filthy, you teach me so much when you're bored. (and show me pretty pictures!) |
all eyes were on Ford Prefect. some of them were on stalks.
-Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 16:33:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Now, you have posited that life was designed, presumably by some intelligent agent. I have pointed out examples of design that range from incompetent to malicious. Please address that. How do you explain such poor design?
Damn. Miss a couple of days, try to catch up, and someone asks one of the question that I intended to.
Bill is the typical creationist using typical creationist arguments. He relies solely on gaps in the cumulative knowledge gained through the hard work of science. He dismisses evidence when he clearly doesn't understand its significance, and misrepresent evidence when he considers it a threat to his christian creation model. He has even begun to use (misuse) quotes. Quotes that are never referenced making it a little more difficult for us to review the quoted text in context. Another typical creationist tactic.
And then he insist ..
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
BTW God=Reality, wether you like it or not...
and I simply want to know which one, and how he knows his is the real god and not just another creation of man. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 04/08/2006 16:36:48 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 18:39:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
man filthy, you teach me so much when you're bored. (and show me pretty pictures!
Glad you're getting something out of it, trog. My pleasure.
<shrug> Like all creationists, Bill's been fussing about transitional species. I am merely showing him some. Here's an interesting site concerning synapsid reptiles. It gots some pretty pictures, too. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2006 : 07:47:20 [Permalink]
|
Here is my take on abiogeneses for Bill.
Primordial Soup
What is that?
I don't know
I've never seen one of those before
Is it alive?
What's it for?
There's going to be a whole lot more
Invertebrates and vegetables
In this primordial soup
Invertebrates and plankton go
shoop shoop and loop the loop
How are you?
I'm not attached
I've got no backbone, here's the catch
When lava hits
The water spits
There's more of us
A whole new batch
Invertebrates and vegetables
In this primordial soup
Invertebrates and plankton go
shoop shoop and loop the loop
Simmer down eat divide
Turn around
Simmer down eat divide
Let's go to town
(We've only just begun… to live…)
Nucleic acids
Take a bow
You got us here, I don't know how
Evolution
Take a bow
The broth is thick so stir it now
Invertebrates and vegetables
In this primordial soup
Invertebrates and plankton go
shoop shoop and loop the loop
Slightly edited...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2006 : 12:52:52 [Permalink]
|
Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Generation. quote:
Abiogenesis
From EvoWiki.
See Abiogenesis in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The term abiogenesis simply means getting life from non-life and is used both for spontaneous generation and chemical evolution. While chemical evolution refers to the process by which the first living entities thought to have appeared on a lifeless Earth, spontaneous generation refers to the, now discredited, theory that small animals and bacteria are spontaneously generated at present time.
[edit]Biological evolution
Main article: Evolution is baseless without a theory of abiogenesis
It is worth noting that creationists frequently confuse abiogenesis with evolution. By pointing to problems or lack of knowledge about the former, they think they refute the latter. So, it is important to realise that how life arose is irrelevant to the validity of evolution. It matters not in the slightest to evolution whether the first living things came about through supernatural or natural means; the evidences for common ancestry of populations (including species) that make possible to infer a single phylogenetic tree of all life still the same in either case. Once there's life -- with heritable variation -- descent is allowed to accumulate modifications -- to evolve -- and populations will unavoidably eventually split, originating new species.
Spontaneous generation
The notion of spontaneous generation has had a long history, going back at least as far as Aristotle, and has often been regarded as self-evidently true. Thus, around 1620, the physician and early chemist Jan Baptista van Helmont published this recipe for making mice:
"for if you press a piece of underwear soiled with sweat together with some wheat in an open mouth jar, after about 21 days the odor changes and the ferment coming out of the underwear and penetrating through the husks of the wheat, changes the wheat into mice. But what is more remarkable is that mice of both sexes emerge (from the wheat) and these mice successfully reproduce with mice born naturally from parents? But what is even more remarkable is that the mice which came out were not small mice? but fully grown."
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 04/09/2006 13:07:42 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 08:58:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
I continue to be amazed at the amount of lying, distortion, and logical fallacy that is utilized by religious extremists in order to defend their particular views of reality in the face of the overwhelming evidence that part of their belief system may not be what they were led to believe.
I don't understand why such people feel so threatened by evolution. The impact evolution has on religion or one's faith in god is zero. Unless, and this is the big one, one's "faith" is actually not a faith, but a strict adherence to a written text. Possibly a dogmatic faith, but not a true faith. A true faith, in my opinion, can easily adapt the latest findings by the scientific community into their view on god. Evolution would be just another tool that god used. Even abiogenesis, to use another unrelated topic, would be viewed as a tool of god. Or quantum mechanics, Big Bang theory, etc. As long as one realizes that god cannot be proven or disproven, and therefore has no place in a scientific discussion, then there would be no conflict. This is the case with the vast majority of religious believers. Scientists will continue to work without having to take god into account because they cannot. This, of course, does NOT mean that scientist are working to disprove god.
The idea that evolution, abiogenisis, Big Bang, and by association all of scientific methodology, is a worldview or a religion used to promote an atheistic viewpoint is a LIE. This idea is promoted by pathological liars who have lied so much and been lied to so much that such musings seem to make sense. This goes beyond a mere cognitive dissonance and into a pathological mental delusion.
At this point I must stress that I'm only referring to extremists in any religion, and not the mainstream. I will not allow myself to be labeled as a hater of religions or religious people.
Also, we should note that what I stated will be turned around by such people and applied to those of us who defend scientific methodologies. This would work, except that the evidence exists to prove otherwise. However, one must be aware of the evidence, which is why this tactic is used to varying degrees of success against an ambivalent and unaware populace.
Normally, one shouldn't have to worry about fringe groups who delude themselves in this manner, like the moon hoax believers or the UFO believers, etc. They typically pose no threat to the normal workings of the society in which they live.
This does not apply to the enemies of science. They are so scared and threatened that one part of their dogma (notice I did not use the word "faith") has been shown to be just a story used by bronze age preists to explain the world the only way they knew how, that they will resort to any means necessary to protect and promote their view. This includes using the government, courts, and the education systems. This is the real threat and it threatens the very fabric of our society and culture.
I wonder how much longer it will be before the enemies of science resort to violence. It has happened before, and there is no reason to suspect it won't happen again. Perhaps that will be the wake-up call for the vast majority that has little interest in this struggle. I hope it doesn't come to that.
And with that, I retire from posting in this thread.
quote:
I continue to be amazed at the amount of lying, distortion, and logical fallacy that is utilized by religious extremists in order to defend their particular views of reality in the face of the overwhelming evidence that part of their belief system may not be what they were led to believe.
(bill) What evidence?
quote:
I don't understand why such people feel so threatened by evolution. The impact evolution has on religion or one's faith in god is zero.
(bill) With the lack of evidence that it puts forth, I would agree, there is no reason for me to feel threatened by ToE.
quote:
The idea that evolution, abiogenisis, Big Bang, and by association all of scientific methodology, is a worldview or a religion used to promote an atheistic viewpoint is a LIE. This idea is promoted by pathological liars who have lied so much and been lied to so much that such musings seem to make sense. This goes beyond a mere cognitive dissonance and into a pathological mental delusion.
At this point I must stress that I'm only referring to extremists in any religion, and not the mainstream. I will not allow myself to be labeled as a hater of religions or religious people.
(bill) ToE, Big Bang, abiogenesis etc... etc... are all tied into your naturalistic worldview. If you want to fragment them into sections of your worldview that must be rationalized fully independent of each other then do what you feel you must. I merely consider that a cover up and a cop-out for the obviously bankrupt philosophical belief you have in naturalism.
The naturalist will fully admit that abiogenesis is nothing but a hopeful theory rooted in their naturalist belief system. Based on some of their abiogenesis hypothesis that they offer I would hope they would acknowledge that they have "no idea" when it comes to explaining the abiogenesis theory. Calamities on Mars that created asteroid shuttle systems that conveniently, and coincidentally, transported the missing building blocks for life back to earth are not theories, or even a hypothesis for that matter, but rather is a fairytale and a sign of the desperation the naturalist will go to in order to try and conceive even a plausible abiogenesis hypothesis.
Next we will be lectured on how abiogenesis hypothesis/theory/just-so story = Evolution and that is the only answer that we need or should expect. Yet ToE is just as much a fairytale as the abiogenesis nonsense.
The fossil record should hold enormous amounts of intermediate fossils over the fossils that show critters in current state. Yet of the millions that did turn into fossil the intermediate fossil is strangely lacking in any kind of numbers, what so ever. Sure we have the evolutionist every so often try and push through a rubber stamped TF, as evidence for macroevolution, but this hardly negates the huge discrepancy with the volume of fossils found in current state to the lack of TF's found in the critters that did fossilize. Many evolutionist will acknowledge this:
Here is what Harvard professor Stephen J. Gould said as he promoted punctuated equilibrium:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.
(bill) Notice how he said rarity of transitional forms and not forms? In response to Gould, Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 09:33:10 [Permalink]
|
Poor Gould. It really did infuriate him that he was quoted out of context the way Bill just did. What Gould was talking about was not that no transitional fossils exist but that in his view they do not support the gradualism that Darwin favored. Gould was making a case for punctuated equilibrium where evolution occurs in starts and fits in much shorter time frames, geologically speaking, than gradualism suggests. So it would be expected that each gap would not be filled because of the lowered chance of any animals likelihood of being fossilized.
Bill will not get this. And like all creationists, he is cool using quotes out of context. God, creationists are such liars.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 09:59:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
ToE, Big Bang, abiogenesis etc... etc... are all tied into your naturalistic worldview. If you want to fragment them into sections of your worldview that must be rationalized fully independent of each other then do what you feel you must. I merely consider that a cover up and a cop-out for the obviously bankrupt philosophical belief you have in naturalism.
Bill keeps on insisting that scientist connect all of the dots from the Big Bang through abiogenesis through the Theory of Evolution. Even though scientist have substantiated the ToE with evidence and continue adding to it with more data as the years pass. He still insists that the cumulative knowledge gained through the hard work of science is wrong.
Fortunately for Bill his world view has a need for only one dot and that dot has the label "God did it".
edited: change a to the |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 04/12/2006 10:00:51 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 10:07:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Poor Gould. It really did infuriate him that he was quoted out of context the way Bill just did. What Gould was talking about was not that no transitional fossils exist but that in his view they do not support the gradualism that Darwin favored. Gould was making a case for punctuated equilibrium where evolution occurs in starts and fits in much shorter time frames, geologically speaking, than gradualism suggests. So it would be expected that each gap would not be filled because of the lowered chance of any animals likelihood of being fossilized.
Bill will not get this. And like all creationists, he is cool using quotes out of context. God, creationists are such liars.
Kind of hard to mis-interpret this:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.
Gould, S.J., "Evolution's Erratic Pace" Natural History, vol. 86.
In fact Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, interpreted it in just the same way that I did when he responded to Gould's clam of no transitional forms when he responded with this:
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it… Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils… It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.
Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89.
Geeze, the links that naturalists will go to in order to protect their sacred cow. Sad...
Edited to add quote source... |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 04/12/2006 11:18:34 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 10:45:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bill:
Geeze, the links that naturalists will go to in order to protect their sacred cow. Sad...
quote:
The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils. This theory, however, only pertains to well-documented transitions within species or between closely related species over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between periods of morphological stability. To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_link
A Critique of Wallace: "There are no transitional fossils"
quote:
"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." –
Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994"
I could go on Bill… And really, I don't care about this debate. But I do care about lies. And taking quotes out of context is lying.
Also, I care about the source of your quotes. I'll give you 24 hours to provide them before I take administrative action…
Kil
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
