Replies

While in our geological minuscule lifetimes the meteors like Shoemaker Levy 9's collision with Jupiter (A totality of life ending event on earth that would go beyond dinosaurs), the rate of the moons recession (tide shifts that would minimize livable land space in the recent past), the delicate balance of the earth’s life sustaining capacity (absurd in geological time probabilities) among other evidence that suggests a young earth.

The text to which you respond is not about whether the earth is actually young. There is no reasonable way at this point to construe that the earth is young, as your pathetic attempts to do so reveal.

Just read slowly and let your mind interpret the sentence. As with most humor, the stinger has to be in the tail.

The correct stance on issues like an ancient Earth, the common ancestry of organisms, and natural selection can be worked out later, after we've convinced the public that they should be rejecting at least one of these. [4]

There's a footnote on the original. That was intended to document the veracity of the "parody," but it will do in a pinch for understanding what is being talked about.

The discussion is whether ID is real science at all or just a political Trojan Horse movement for the Young-Earth Creationists. Obviously (as you seem at times to concede) the YECs hope so, but they'll have to fight it out with the OECs, Behe, and maybe the panspermists.

For those who haven't seen it yet, Morton's Demon.

When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.

Vade,

The correct stance on issues like an ancient Earth, the common ancestry of organisms, and natural selection can be worked out later, after we've convinced the public that they should be rejecting at least one of these. [4]

1. The earth may or may not be ancient.(the jury is still not out for me)

2. Common ancestry of organisms, should be changed to similar DNA coding of organisms which shows a common programmer.(Observing complex cell replication processes leads me to believe ID over random mutations)

3. Diminishing species via extinctions leads to the questioning of natural selection as a mechanism that produced the variety of life we observe.

4. Every time a species goes extinct, it’s back to ground zero for our sad little friend.

5. Transitional species that no longer exist cannot pick up where their now extinct superior left off.

6. We observe no new species coming into existence to replace the massive amounts of extinctions.(sorry PETA)

You may be correct about my patheticness. But I do think on these things all the time. I consider these things to be consistent with the observable evidence. I have more pathetic zingers that cause me to question evolution, but I may be alone.

Thanks for entertaining my posts.