Rune Factory is calling, cough . . . So I will be brief.
Well apparently those who were so offended by the original post don’t want to make any substantial cogent argument.
Conclusion: You offended yourself in the first post and were unable to provide any real argument in the first post. Did we not provide you omnislashing examples? One of the finer points of debate (as opposed to a T-90 trucking over a naked creationist holding up a sign) is that one must provide point rebuttals. Monologues, oddly enough, are not like to this process.
Just because you call something a fallacy doesn’t mean that it is.
We demonstrated Intelligent Design and its kin to be a fallacy in logic. No one has defined Irreducible Complexity to a measurable term, and there really is no scientific material in relying on supernatural explanations (science, after all, must be naturalistic or it isn't
science). To bring it down to a Hellenic understanding, you are making up arguments that don't have anything to do with Evolution in addition to the previously stated, or just don't understand genetics for example. Did I not mention the evolutionary leap that was the nylon eating bacteria?
None of you give me any evidence that you know anymore about DNA than anyone else. You guys talk about word games, but you use some of the most twisted logic because you don’t want to face the weakness of the thing that you believe in.
You have demonstrated you know nothing of genetics, yet are unable to admit this. Bandying words like "information" around without knowing they are postively meaningless in your context is evidence of [a] BS. Did I not also mention that the length of genes is irrelevent to the actual complexity of the organism in question. Like I said: Most of that genetic "data" does absolutely nothing but occasionally mutate to another null-chain in replication.
The original post certainly did not invite anyone to express a faith in God or to believe in any particular faith.
Science doesn't care what you believe. It exists for the material realm alone, unless you want to start introducing the Chaos Gods and the Eye of Terror.
Likewise, creationism or intelligent design was never mentioned. It certainly does not suggest that you abandon your faith in creation, it merely asks about the validity, the veracity, and the credibility of the so-called evidence.
Yes: Material evidence like that stupid vitamin C gene absent in primates that indicates a common ancestor, provided that we are the only animals that share this 'defect' on the exact same locus (or that we exercise frequent bipedalism and have only two mammary glands). Or the fact that we expected to find midget or giant sized species on small islands. Evolution does have predictive power, a cornerstone of all true theories.
Seems to me that many purport to same parroting and strawman arguments that they claim to have been refuted.
It seems you do not understand the term "strawman" either, but you are a glamorous example of it. You are crying that evolutionary biologists have never provided evidence, but evidence has been provided in thousands of journals among multiple languages and disciplines (as well as common knowledge examples found in high school level textbooks). No one is going to hold your hand when crossing the street after the thousandth time, and I have a tendency to kick people into oncoming traffic for quick entertainment.
They have not been refuted at all. Show me the evidence.
I think we share a common ancestor with these guys. Considering some of them predated us and live alongside us, and the very fact that there was a point when modern humans did not exist, there is evidence for common ancestory. Very broad, but I am also very tired and have turnips to harvest and what not at this point.
Here's a question: do you really believe evolution has anything to do with advances in medical science or any other branch of science? Ridiculous. Another conclusory statement.
Disease vector control uses evolutionary components (and disclaimer: If you use the word microevolution instead of evolution, you will immediately demonstrate a very poor understanding of biology in general), and certain computer engineering disciplines use evolution as a model for development. Our first self aware computer intelligences may very well utilize programming wrought by evolution simulations conditioned to produce sentience. After all, evolution did make us [more] sentient than the other current organisms here on Terra.
I will say this, I will bet you a dime to a dollar that many of the so-called moral atheist herethink that it’s perfectly okay to extinguish pre-born human babies for any reason whatsoever. Now, those same people may cringe a little bit if the infant happens to be two or three years old, but really what is the difference based upon your foundation?
Weren't you arguing about strawmen? I call bunk. What in the name of the God Emperor of Mankind does this have to do with evolution? I'm not even an atheist!
When a person is mentally incompetent, physically challenged, or just old, but I bet they would think it’s okay to extinguish those too. Be careful folks, many of you who purport to support evolution are not too far from sounding like the Third Reich. Tell me something, what makes you so angry about all of this?
ACHTUNG! Strawman alert! That has nothing to do with evolution, that (Social Darwinism) was a Victorian Age concept based on a misunderstanding by several social theorists of the time. If you study your history, you'll quickly find out that Aryans have little to do with evolution. Neither does forced sterilization, because none of that would actually benefit humanity. No one here is arguing that but you of course, but I should not expect less from someone who cannot help but endulge in doublespeak.
For many here, I think your moral compass is a bit off. Who are you to say that any agnostic or atheist is moral? What do you base that on? What right do you have to determine who is moral and who is not? Based on your foundation, you have no right at all. In some societies, you are supposed to love your neighbor, and others, you eat him. Which one do you subscribe to?
Uh, back on track here: Evolutionary biologists are by and far neither. But if you want to get personal, Kurt Vonnegut's zombie could school you in moral and ethics. You've already demonstrated a distasteful lack of intellectual integrity by calling atrocity on the other side, executing said atrocity yourself and claim you are not doing it (calling strawman, using a strawmand and actually claiming not to exercise said fallacy).
The argument is on evolution, not your juvenile posturing on belief systems outside its domain.
Oh by the way, I guess I can jump to the conclusion that I win, since this is now the last word on the subject, and no one has responded. (I’m not so pompous as to believe that’s actually the case, as some of the previous posts).
Look at it this way . . .
You are acting little better than a child who can't play a game of plastic army men without winning. You are kicking and screaming in a very animated fashion after the shields of invincibility and death rays have run out of energy. You are bringing the green guys to the fight and their little green tanks on shoddy plastic wheels. I believe this is a very good portrait of what evolution denial is and stands for.
Meanwhile, evolution itself is a big burly German soldier with a mean accent and a fully loaded 7.62mm G3. The guns on the army men are not real, but the H&K rifle is.