Search results

I think what we can conclude from this thread is that arguing with AV is hardly a cakewalk.

Well, they occupy an "extreme" end of the spectrum of opinion on British participation in the EU .... i.e. that we shouldn't. How else should we define extremism?

I often wonder why it is the far right that seem to gain from the failings of the centre, rather than the left. The only thing I can come up with is that, after the problems in the 1970s with widespread strike action and so forth, the Left has been to some extent discredited. New Labour had to...

Well, firstly we don't know for sure what parameters are required for life to arise. What we do know is that all of the things you specify may well be required for life as we know it to arise. It's perfectly possible that another set of conditions, somewhere else, could bring forth life...

True, but the Creationist appropriation of the term "macroevolution" is defined so vaguely as to be useless. Like "kind" or other terms they pretend to use. Basically in Creationist-speak "macroevolution" is evolution above any level that can possibly be observed (or at least, not waved away by...

Kind of. But remember that macroevolution (which is defined as evolution above the species level) requires speciation, which itself requires a particular set of circumstances to happen (reproductive isolation between populations). Your analogy is better if you imagine yourself along with a...

The front of my local newspaper this week had an article about a proposed St. George's Day celebration. The image showed two of the organisers of this celebration standing underneath a Union Jack. I don't have a problem with people celebrating, but they should at least make sure they're...

If the question was phrased that way, I don't "believe" in evolution either. I accept it as a scientific theory, I agree with its conclusions, I regard it as an accurate and useful explanation for the diversity of life. But I don't "believe" in it. There's nothing to believe - it's just a case...

I'm sure it's already been said, but even if we were to find a fine-scale series of fossils, we would not be able to verify that they are in fact descended from one another. Creationists could still argue that God created each as a separate "kind."

A (Creationist) friend of mine once said to me in an email (quoting from memory): "Transitorial [sic] lineages have to be mapped at every stage of development in order to provide a meaningful sequence." In other words, he wants an unbroken chain of ancestors and descendants from A. afarensis to...

See you in twenty years' time.

I must say I'm surprised - no one has yet responded with "Well, before you had one gap - now you have two. SILLY EVILUTIONIST JUST DOUBLED YOUR WORKLOAD LOL!!!!1!!11!eleven!"

*Points to Babel Fish* You know the rest. Well, That About Wraps It Up For God.

There isn't any. That's what Occam's razor is for.

Actually, what RichardT's OP demonstrates is that using Google for academic research can be very, very bad. It's no surprise that Creationist websites feature high in the ranks of Google's "geologic column" searches, because there are so many Creationist websites. But, popularity does not a...

See the second quote in my signature (from a character created by Douglas Adams). Whenever I read that quote, I think of Darwin and evolution.

Which ones, specifically?

And a North Pole, Alaska. Well, they were close.

....You scour the "Popular Science" shelves of bookshops for Creationist works, and upon finding them, move them to "Humour." Any more? :D

I tend to just use the latter two categories. I think the "Creationist leader" could either be a "sheep" or a "Die-hard" Creationist depending on the state of his knowledge about Creationism. If he's spent his life only ever listening to Henry Morris, Kent Hovind et al, then likely as not he...