Replies

Not sure wherer you pulled that from? As mentioned, I’m having trouble following linesof thought today- I’ll check back later & see if I agree or not- Did you read Wallace’s conversation with the scientist who claimed because static elements can form basic geometry patterns, then therefore an open system should allow for Macroevoltuion? It was quite humorous- apparently, snowflakes are ‘evidence for macroevolution’ in Schneider’s mind- here’s the link- be sure to also read through the links to the rest of the conversation to see how shallow Schneider really was, and also note how he tried consitently to AVOID the questions Wallace asked him, and to instead zero in to an irrelevent issue as though it would bolster his argument for Macroevolution- A common diversionary tactic by people from Talkorigins and DC & other liberal Creationist hating sites:

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_tw_01.asp

Her’s a teaser:

“My suggestion that we “cut to the chase” was intended precisely to bring Mr. Schneider’s line of reasoning to its logical end (without my agreeing to it), and then to invite him to substantiate his arbitrary conclusion (i.e., that “since the Second Law does not prevent decreases of entropy, it cannot be an impediment to evolution”). More than once I deliberately gave him opportunity to substantiate his conclusion as something more than a tautology of his beginning assumption by presenting two fundamental questions, [LINK: http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_tw_01.asp#twoquestions] the answers to which would determine the plausibility of the very same specific class of entropy decreases that he was inferring were commonplace in nature.

Regrettably, Mr. Schneider chose to react to those clear and thorough questions by doing precisely what he now has accused me of doing: by avoiding the issue and sidetracking the conversation. Can one really be blamed for refusing to continue an exchange with an opponent who practices such tactics?”