Replies

The rightness or wrongness of these concepts is not my point.

However, it would appear that such is the point of the objections of creationists and/or Intelligent Design advocates as well as ardent evolution supporters.

It seems odd to me that you would be surprised by concepts that were discussed to death in the 1800s.

Not surprised, merely, dissatisfied with the logic previously posited (even the posits of the 1800's) and assumptions incorporated in those arguments. A great many of the posits (even the older ones) contain circular logic and the assumptions seem to require “cognitive leaps into the unknown.”

I read these threads for well over a year before jumping in, and I had college courses in the history of the evolution controversy.

I, too, have observed these threads for at least as long as you indicate you have. (I have observed a great deal of insulting and name calling proceeding from both sides of the issue without much true debate.) Where some modicum of debate existed, it has been the norm for both sides is to resort to the "battle of authoritative sources" trying to bolster their particular argument. Each side thinks that their “authoritative sources" are stronger than the other side.

While I cannot claim to have taken college courses exclusively devoted to the history of evolution, I do not consider myself to be completely ignorant of the topic. Nonetheless, I remain willing to read and be convinced by well constructed arguments on both sides.

Additionally, I remain willing to be convinced by irrefutable, overwhelming, evidence and valid logic on either side. To date, I have seen both valid and invalid logic presented by both sides and neither has produced irrefutable, overwhelming, evidence.

Sorry, I must, again, leave the forum to earn the money to pay for this pleasant past time. Will check back at a later time.

Regards,

Lucky Dog