Replies

I want to rant on and on at the "You can't make me see or understand" nonsense, but I'll defer to Nebullis's post 120. Says it all, really.

I'm sorry you feel that way, about the ranting I mean. I prefer dialog to ranting myself. The things you put in quotes are not a quote from me, not does it reflect my honest efforts to obtain understanding.

Nebullis's 120 does not 'say it all' but rather makes a series of assertions that she makes no attempt to back up with facts. Nor does she even attempt to refute the objections that I and others have raised. She simply brushes them aside with bald assertion. I hardly consider that 'saying it all'. How can you 'say it all' in a post that has not even attempted to address specific objections?

How can you 'say it all' in a post that has not even attempted to address specific objections?

It's in their rules of engagement, rule 42, which states:

When anti-evolutionists point out errors, inconsistencies, flaws or that the TOE is not falsifiable, change the subject, post a link with a title that appears to dubunk the anti-evolutionist but has little or no substance related to the subject behind it or state the anti-evolutionists doesn't understand what the they just read.

Let me know if you want a copy of their rules of engagement. It really helps to better understand from where these intelligent and well meaning but misguided folks are coming from.

The article puts some genetic detail on the framework that feathers evolved from scales. The creationist posts to this thread have been a barrage of squirmy "I see NOS-sink" denial. Bizarrely, that includes posts from a person whose professed belief system should be completely compatible with all the article's data and assertions but obviously is not. In any event, your honest efforts to obtain understanding will be aided by simply getting over your white-hot emotional objection to any inference that evolution has happened.

How can you 'say it all' in a post that has not even attempted to address specific objections?

Your "specific objection" is that the study isn't something else, something more spectacular. In this case, while they isolated the influences of three major genes on feather development and used what they learned to produce a new theory of feather evolution, your excuse for ignoring the whole thing is that they didn't experiment on a lizard and turn its scales into feathers.

Well, that's an idea for a later experiment. I suspect that if that is done, your excuse for ignoring that one will be that they didn't turn the lizard into a bird. Am I right? You can always move the bar yet again.

The general pattern of these threads is that, no matter no matter no matter what evidence is presented for evolution, there's always an escape clause for those who will see nothing. There's no evidence for evolution--if you're a creationist--in just the same way that there's no evidence against Clinton if you're a Clintonista loyalist.