You guys who freak out about "Creationists" crack me up..
Do you mean evolution?
FYI, Darwin had as much to do with evolution as Benjamin Franklin had to with electric lights.
They both noted *something* interesting.
Franklin discovered that lightning was electricity and Darwin discovered that isolated families of plants and animals change to fill nitches in their environments.
That is all.
Is this person saying that higher intelligence is not a fact? It sure reads that way to me!
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nods of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record." (Gould, Stephen J. "The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181) So, because there is no evidence, Gould accepts the theory and comes up with the absurd idea of punctuated equilibria (evolution happened so fast there is no evidence)
It violates history in regard to mutations. Evolution is based on the idea that mutations are massive and beneficial, but human history shows mutations are overwhelming detrimential.
Dr. Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box) shows complex organism are have too many interdepental or organs and functions to have evolved from lower organisms. Creatures in the duckbilled platypus could not have evolved. The idea that complexity of the human eye could have evolved is "absurd in the highest degree."
Evoluton violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states ALL physical systems,including biological processes, go from order to disorder, use up available energy, decay and die. The sun doesn't change that fact. Raw energy from the sun increase etropy and causes disorder. The built in mechanisms that allow organisms to store and convert energy could not have evolved from lower life forms since the Second Law would have nipped evolution in the earliest stages.
So that he can bone up (no pun intended) on the state of the art in crevo discussions before uttering the same old tired canards...
Let's mention another aspect of these discussions that fascinates me: the psychology of the people on the other side. Nearly all are totally evidence-proof.
Ain't that the truth! I also find the rhetoric and psychology fascinating.
One thing I've noticed on many threads, is that D*m*cr*ts, drug warriors, and creationists all share several rhetorical flourishes:
1) They don't have opponents who simply disagree, who weigh the evidence differently and come to different conclusions. No, you're a Cl*nt*n-hating rightwing conspirator, or a spaced-out druggie who loves the Taliban and hates America, or an atheist trying to rationalize his sinfulness.
2) Part of this is ascribing motives to their opponents and then attacking that particular strawman.
3) They prophesise the most horrible consequences if you don't follow their prescriptions. "seniors starving", "everybody a junkie", "no possible basis for morals".
4) Flat-out ignorance and impermeabliity to evidence. Have you ever tried to pin a D*m down on exactly what it was that GW Bush (or Jeb, or Katherine Harris, or whoever) was supposed to have done to 'steal' the election? They *know* he did *something*, and that's enough! It's like getting a Woddie to admit that Anslinger appealed to racism when he was lobbying for the MJ tax act, or getting a creationist to acknowledge that very similar DNA sequences are found in different species, and that the tree of variations in the DNA pretty well matches the tree of life deduced by evolution.