Replies

The repeatable measurements are scientific, but the interpretations of those measurements as they relate to the unobservable, unrepeatable past are nothing more than inferences, or educated guesses if you will.

All science is *inductive reasoning*(i.e. inference to save dumb crevos the chance to misinterpret what I'm talking about) . Is there a single Crevo that's gone to a real college that actually teaches logic and rhetoric?

Boy, you get really upset when creationists point out that Darwood's fanciful creation myth is nothing more than materialist storytelling about the unobservable, unrepeatable past. Darwood was not a scientist, nor did he practice the scientific method. His only earned degree was in religion. All he had to go on was a few minor variations between finches, and from that this med-school dropout, turned reverend, turned amateur naturalist, presumed to reinterpret the entire history of biology based on almost ZERO data. And you guys fell for it...LOL! Even his main claim to fame--natural selection--was discovered by a creationist some 25 years before the pubication of Origins. But only Darwood could take this obvious force for biological conservation and turn it into a nature-god capable of fashioning super-sophisticated biological organisms. But I'm sure none of these absurdities make a dent in your devotion to the bearded Buddha of religious naturalism, as it is quite clear that you have made all the necessary sacrifices to become a life-long Temple of Darwin fanatic.

"...Is there a single Crevo that's gone to a real college that actually teaches logic and rhetoric...?"

If there is one, perhaps he can explain why apes and monkeys have identifiable "friction ridges" on their toes, feet, fingers and palms.

In Homo sapiens, we call ridges on one's palms "palmprints": on one's fingers, those ridges are called "fingerprints".

Apes needed "friction ridges" to enhance their grip on tree limbs.

Humans have them because?

> Is there a single Crevo that’s gone to a real college
> that actually teaches logic and rhetoric?

Yes, of course. Creationists must be tragically ignorant, simply uneducated, or just plain stupid if we don’t ascribe to your materialistic story of origins.

Evolutionists have nothing if they don’t have condescending invective.

Just like your pet theory, your narrative against your intellectual opponents has no basis in fact.

Many Creationists are college educated. Many Creationists hold advanced degrees. Many Creationists are successful in business, science, and engineering.

They are not the buck-toothed, google-eyed, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, drooling caricature you so much like to convey.

So is it *inductive reasoning* for the overwhelming majority of the 40 and under college educated to be whole 'hog' Bama supporters??? Pure science has NO predetermined unprovable foundations. Evolution is whole hog fundamentally based upon a belief that life popped out of a hot steamy pot of primordial pond scum. That belief has never survived the test of time.

==All science is *inductive reasoning*

If all science is inductive reasoning, then Darwood’s “T”oE is unscientific:

A second unsatisfying assertion in the review, that Darwin was a “ruthlessly inductive thinker,” ignores the impressive scope and depth of Darwin’s deductive achievements in “On the Origin of Species,” as noted by Peter Medawar 40 years ago in, ironically enough, “Induction and Intuition in Scientific Thought.” Throughout his great work, Darwin derives the deductive implications of his fundamental ideas for the natural world and compares reality to logically generated expectation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/books/review/Letters-t-DARWININFULL_LETTERS.html