Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do you think "undersized intellects" is an ad hominem?
So no? Seems to me that would qualify.
It began as an optional function in prokaryotes, which don't sexually reproduce. It's called "conjugation." One bacterium approaches another, and they transfer plasmids (bits of DNA) by means of pili. So originally just for transfer of genes, not reproduction. That came later. Would you like to learn more about that?
No, that's your definition, because you didn't know what it is and just imagined something. Darwin discovered that it's not by chance.
See above. Your imagination led you completely astray. If you're honestly interested, let me know,and we can discuss it.
Honestly, I think it harms one's credibility when one writes about becoming "politically protective of evo theory." If you were calmer and less aggressive, I think you'd be more credible. I'm guessing you consider my question about which of the four points of Darwinian theory have been refuted, to be a "loaded question." But I don't see how it is. It's a legitimate question of anyone who says that the theory has been discredited. So far, in this discussion, no one has been able to answer, even after I made sure that everyone knows what the points are.
Yes, one's credibility as an honest debater always comes into question if they repeat falsehoods that are "politically protective of evo theory."
And another from his primary source:
Honesty? Dishonest Darwinists who intentionally prefer to misconstrue that document to be other than what it actually is:
The Wedge Document shows that it's a religious doctrine. One of the self-proclaimed "governing goals" of ID:
I just quoted what they said. If you think that's misconstruing, then perhaps that should be a wake-up call for you.
Even if it was untrue, even if it was untrue and I knew it to be untrue, Johnson, being a lawyer, would correct you. It could not be slander.
Oh dear, now a resort to pure sophistry. Why don't you just do the right thing, as an honest man would, and correct your post?
It's just a fact. Why don't you just do the right thing, as an honest man would, and correct your post?
Think back. Several of us showed you the difference between evolution (an observed fact) and Darwinian theory, which is the currently best explanation for it. As we showed you, all theories are provisionally true, while evolution is a fact. And once again from an honest YE creationist familiar with the evidence for evolutionary theory:
toddcwood.blogspot.com
Even if your first sentence was correct, the second would be false. As Johnson himself (being a lawyer) would tell you.
Following the testimony of IDer Michael Behe, who admitted under oath that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science. They are no doubt soliciting applications from YECs for a third.
I think most people get confused about evolution (which we observe constantly) and universal common descent (which is a conclusion from genetics, not evolutionary theory). The former is a fact. The latter is an inference from evidence.In the meantime, there are bigger fish to fry and lots and lots of Screwtape to help folks peal off of their lives (including my own). I would suggest that folks of whatever age be more concerned about bigger fish than whether or not evolution is true.
