Moving the Goalpost (...when Darwinism is in danger of losing!)

Discovery Institute ^ | June 10, 2009 | Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

“Folks, this is one of the most exciting games in Super Bowl history! In case you just tuned in, here’s what’s happening: With only 8 seconds to go, the Buffalo Bills are trailing the New York Giants 20-19, but in the past two minutes Bills quarterback Jim Kelley has moved his team to the Giants’ 29-yard line, setting up kicker Scott Norwood for a field goal attempt. If Norwood makes it, the Buffalo Bills will win 22-20.”

Watched by tens of thousands in Tampa Stadium and millions more on TV, the Buffalo Bills line up for what will probably be their last play.

“OK, there’s the snap, and the kick. The ball is going, going—but it’s drifting wide to the right. Wait a minute! Some Bills players have pulled up the goalpost, and they’re moving it over—just in time! Norwood’s kick sails through the uprights! The Buffalo Bills win Super Bowl Twenty-Five!”

Of course, that’s not what happened in 1991; Norwood missed, and the Giants won. Football is played with rules and referees—and fixed goalposts.

Darwinism, unlike football, has only one rule: survival of the fittest. The fittest are those who survive, and Darwinists are determined to survive at all costs—even if it means moving the goalpost. In the June 2009 issue of Scientific American, Darwinist Steve Mirsky does just that...

[GourmetDan]

"Most Creationists consider dogs and wolves and being the same kind, yet is there any definition of “species” out there(and there are plenty to pick from) by which wolves and Chihuahuas would NOT be separate species? They are extremely morphologically different (much more so than, say, chimps and humans are) and cannot interbreed (I doubt, even with fancy lab work; I’d love to see pics of such a creature if anyone has them.)"

Wolves, dogs (including chihuahuas), coyotes and jackals all have 78 chromosomes in 39 pairs and interbreed to produce fertile offspring. Any lab work required for a wolf-chihuahua bybrid would be no 'fancier' than artificial insemination. As for appearance, a blend of both parents, as always.

While science may claim that morphological/behavioral differences do a species make, it is the ability to produce fertile offspring that really tells the story. That's what the article is talking about.

[goodusername]

“Wolves, dogs (including chihuahuas), coyotes and jackals all have 78 chromosomes in 39 pairs and interbreed to produce fertile offspring. Any lab work required for a wolf-chihuahua bybrid would be no ‘fancier’ than artificial insemination. “

—Got any evidence for the existence of wolf-chihuahuas? I’d love to see one.

[GourmetDan]

"—Got any evidence for the existence of wolf-chihuahuas? I’d love to see one."

This one is so simple that even you could do it.

First, get your female wolf. Then get your male chihuahua. Then ... well you should be able to figure the rest out all by yourself.

[goodusername]

I’ll take that as a “no”.

[GourmetDan]

"I’ll take that as a “no”."

Ah another fallacy.

This time the burden of proof fallacy.

Nice job.

[goodusername]

I suspect you just like to argue for the sake of arguing, as I’m rather certain that you don’t believe most of the stuff you post. But that’s not something I’m interested in doing.
You also like to have fun with the “list of fallacies” website you found last week but haven’t quite learned yet what they mean or how to use them.
You can find someone else to play with. Good day.

[GourmetDan]

"I suspect you just like to argue for the sake of arguing, as I’m rather certain that you don’t believe most of the stuff you post. But that’s not something I’m interested in doing."

I suspect that you are the one who doesn't believe most of the stuff you post. When you get caught in misrepresentation, all you do is make 'a' response because 'any response will do'. You aren't really interested in understanding where your logic descends into fallacy because you are determined to retain the paradigm you already believe. That much is obvious.

"You also like to have fun with the “list of fallacies” website you found last week but haven’t quite learned yet what they mean or how to use them."

You love your logical fallacies so much that you think that simply refusing to admit your own faulty lines of thought is an acceptable argument. You just wave your hands, make any response (not necessarily a valid one) and you think you have justified your mental paradigm. Pretending that you aren't engaging in logical fallacy when you are is simply self-deception. You apparently prefer that to facing the truth.

"You can find someone else to play with. Good day."

Clearly you are the one who is playing the game and when that is made obvious you think all you need to is make 'a' response (because any response will do) and run away. You're kidding yourself. I know that and you know that. Good day.