Creation/Evolution Non-Participant Commentary & InvitationsComment on existent debates, invite or challenge members to debates, and plan your debates here!
For those who are interested, I started this thread for non-participant commentary on the debate between myself and mark kennedy. This post will be my only contribution to the thread. Here is the link to the debate:
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
Sigh. Mark has been corrected a number of times on the exact same ERV stuff he posted in the debate. Yet he still posts it verbatim each time.
I hope you have more patience than I do Loudmouth.
Subbing and will watch the formal thread.
__________________ (The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos
I'm surprised MK in still posting here. Didn't he write off debating about evolution ages ago?
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Sigh. Mark has been corrected a number of times on the exact same ERV stuff he posted in the debate. Yet he still posts it verbatim each time.
Mark has said elsewhere that he views evolution and Christ's redemption as incompatible. Therefore, he is forced to repeat the same fallacies over and over again, lest he lose that which is most precious to him.
Probably not worth debating with him since he won't... can't... change his mind.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Mark has said elsewhere that he views evolution and Christ's redemption as incompatible. Therefore, he is forced to repeat the same fallacies over and over again, lest he lose that which is most precious to him.
Probably not worth debating with him since he won't... can't... change his mind.
How are they incompatible? It's only incompatible if you are a fundamentalist Christian that reads Genesis as a literal account as the origin of life, the earth, the universe and everything that surrounds us.
Seriously, did he give a reason?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It's only incompatible if you are a fundamentalist Christian that reads Genesis as a literal account as the origin of life, the earth, the universe and everything that surrounds us.
That's MK to a "T". Like all creationists, his attacks against evolution has everything to do with his religion.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
You'll have to ask him, but as I understand it, he feels that evolution somehow negates redemptive history and inherited sin. It doesn't, of course.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Mark has said elsewhere that he views evolution and Christ's redemption as incompatible. Therefore, he is forced to repeat the same fallacies over and over again, lest he lose that which is most precious to him.
Probably not worth debating with him since he won't... can't... change his mind.
That's why I've given up on him except for the periodic sniper response.
One of the great ironies I pointed out a year or so ago is that because of Mark's view on the limited number of species on the Ark he accepts hyper-evolution* up to even the order level, but because he cannot accept human common ancestry with our fellow apes, he rejects evolutionary theory as we know it.
* For the lurkers, in Mark's scenario some thousands of species on the Ark hyper-evolved into the millions of species we see on Earth and in the fossil record in the 4,000 years since the Flood but somehow, to him, brain growth in Homo over about 5 million years is utterly impossible.
__________________ (The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos
That's why I've given up on him except for the periodic sniper response.
One of the great ironies I pointed out a year or so ago is that because of Mark's view on the limited number of species on the Ark he accepts hyper-evolution* up to even the order level, but because he cannot accept human common ancestry with our fellow apes, he rejects evolutionary theory as we know it.
* For the lurkers, in Mark's scenario some thousands of species on the Ark hyper-evolved into the millions of species we see on Earth and in the fossil record in the 4,000 years since the Flood but somehow, to him, brain growth in Homo over about 5 million years is utterly impossible.
Such is the great paradox of creationists. Believing in magic probably helps.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
I am confused by Mark's latest post. Most of it shows clear evidence of a common ancestor for humans and chimps. I thought he was arguing against this.
As an aside, I went to a conference recently and saw the authors of the "human accelerated regions" present their work. All of it shows 100% support for evolution in general and the common descent of humans/chimps in particular.
Linear Mode
