Replies

[[I’ll be back on Monday. Tomorrow, I’m going hiking and then watching football and drinking. As a “atheistic liberal” I’m not going to church.]]

I’ve NEVER referred to you as an atheist nor anyone else here on FR- not sure why you’re so sensitive about this?

[[This is how things are proven right or wrong in science.]]

You avoided the challenge- The point is that you can NOT provide ANY scientific evidence or data to show macroevolution, and yet you demand ID show data showing how God created species (which by the way, they do, as it’s much easier to show how somethign that is actually present comes about than it is to prove how somethign is assumed to have happened- given the fact that we weren’t there to see it happening ‘sometime in the past’ and hten later, have it stop altogether with no evidence left behind to show it ever actaully happened- this is what plagues Macroevolution- Evos claim it ‘happened sometime in the past’ and apparently stopped happening, leaving behind no evidence to study or test- Evos can noly make more assumptions, whereas ID’ists still have actual evidence to work from

[[Bring up the points one at a time. Reference the journal articles backing your point (not magazine articles, FR threads, or bible passages).]]

you can find htem online- Radio Halos aren’t too hard to find- Demski’s peer reviewed articles aren’t too hard to find- Nor are the peer reviewed publications of ID hard to find- By the way- Darwin’s hypothesis was never peer reviewed, pasteuer’s discoveries were never peer reviewed, nor were a great many other scientific discoveries- You like playing hte ‘peer review’ game- then youl ike moving hte goalpost stating that ‘it doesn’t count unless....’ When did the requirement becoem that only peer reviewed material coutns as science? and can be included in discussions about the viability or non viability of macroevolution? Many evolutionists won’t even touch the assinine claim that life could have violated the second law because they know how devestating the second law is to their hypothesis- and htey have stated so- but you won’t find any peer review article on life beign able to violate the second law- yet that is one of your side’s central arguments- that it ‘might have’-

So, if you’re goign to move hte goalposts, and demand that the only things that can be discussed are ‘peer reviewed’ articles, and hte only htigns that ‘count’ are peeer reviewed articles, that have been tested and that include experiment validation- then provide the peer review evidence and data showign Macroeovlution can violate the second law- did violate it, and left evidence of it which can be tested and confirmed- You wanna play the peer review game? Two can play your game- if you can’t prove life vioalted the second law with actual evidence and data- then by your own rules, you have no right even bringing macroevolution arguments to the table- IF you can’t prove life somehow purified hte dirty chemicals from which it suppsoedly got it’s start, with evidence and examples and data, then you, by your own rules set forth by you, have no right even suggesting life evolved- IF you can not show how code arose with data, experiments and evidence, then you have, by your own silly rules, no right bringing such arguments to the table- Gear up- If you’re goign to play your game- let’s play- I’ll demand that you drop your psuedoscience if you can’t provide any of thew above, and accuse you of the things you are accusing ID of

and btw- FACT is that ID IS peer reviewed- but because it doesn’t jive with your a priori bias, you can’t accept it and look down your nose at it claiming ‘it doesn’t count’- Well here’s a shocker- many scientific discoveries are not peer reviewed, and your little game falls flat on it’s face the same way Karl Popper’s goalpost moving ‘scientific requirements’ fell on it’s face- Macroevolution can not be falsified, tested, or predicted, yet it apparently is still accepted as ‘science’- while ID, which CAN BE tested, falsified, predicted, is ridiculed as ‘non sciecne’ even htough it meets popper’s bogus ‘requirments of science’ regarding origins

[[What the hell do “radio halos” have to do with evolution?
And what the hell are they?]]

They have everythign to do with the myth of Macroevolution and with creation- Go educate yourself!

[[First of all Evolution does NOT address how life started. It never has.]]

This is BS and you know it- it MUST invovle origins- the only reason you folks bring your silly claim to the table is because origins problems destroy your hypothesis- EITHER God created EVERY species uniquely, OR life emerged uniquely billions of times with species specific code- You can’t escape this problem by wavign away abiogenisis and claimign it has nothign to do with evolution

“But while evolution must be very adept at creating new codes, it must paradoxically also be unable to create new codes. The code must be frozen, otherwise it would not be universally shared amongst the species. So evolutionists must say that at one time evolution was adept at evolving the code, but later it became inept at evolving the code.

When did such a dramatic transition occur, and why? If the code is so difficult to evolve these days, why was it so easy to evolve back then? Again, evolutionists often appeal to the mythical chaos of early life to explain why the code was once so malleable. This brings us back to the tension between chaotic life forms and near optimal codes.”

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/09/origin-of-dna-code-did-evolution-occur.html