The story so far:
You: Hmmm. Apparently the big evolutionary players, like TalkOrigins and Nova, don’t agree with you. They believe Common Descent is absolutely the realm of science and anyone questioning their right to this claim are “religionists” trying to jam out-dated dogma down the public’s throat.
Check out your compatriots.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
Me:Common descent is science. Abiogenesis (studying how life might have originated) is also science. They are not the same field of science, however.
Steak is food.
Pizza is food.
They are not the same food.
OK?
Plus your current post.
My response:
1. We don’t do “tree of life” diagrams anymore.
2. No matter how you cut it or rephrase it, the origin of all life is not part of evolution. Maybe you thought I was being sarcastic, but I wasn’t. I was trying to clarify, and it looks as if it was still not clear enough. They are two separate subjects and I’m smart enough to know that my qualification do not extend to origin of life questions.
Maybe I am not catching your drift. Your evolutionary compatriots do not agree with you about the use of the “tree of Life”. Nova has the Penn. school board matter evolutionary experts displaying the tree of life during court. TalkOrigins has also has it clearly displayed on their website and they argue that it is the thing which most graphically depicts the central point of evolution.
My point... although you may say Common Descent is science, it is not reproducable by scientific experimentation and yet seems to qualify as science based upon the inferential speculation evolutionists do. Is this alright when it agrees with their inferences, but a defect when you see it done by the ID crowd. It seems evolutionists want it both ways. When they need to infer (outside of reproducable experimentation), that’s fine science. When anyone else infers, that’s religion.
And the argument that gravity is a theory (which evolutionists mockingly note when anyone questions Common Descent as a “theory”) is nonsequitor. Gravity is reproducable, but Common Descent is not. Evolutionists hold that Common Descent postulates all life originated from One living thing at the base (or root) of the tree of life (their words not mine or yours). Of course, they hold off saying where this One living thing came from, calling this last “little” step, abiogenisis. And, you see all of this as rock solid science (even though you do not dabble in the discussion of abiogenesis)? Please correct me here.