[Not Insane]

--I don't defend it religiously. I defend it scientifically.--

You defend that it is THE ipso facto scientific explanation. And you do it with a RELIGIOUS FERVOR, for it doesn't warrant it. It is, after all, just a theory.

I skimmed your response and I must say this: It makes a point with which I think there is plenty of argument for and against.

The problem is that there is just too much to refute in your post. I just don't have the time nor inclination to do so in this forum. You've ratcheted up the time commitment too high. You take the pot, not because you have a winning hand, but because I didn't bring enough money (time) to call your last raise.

Don't spend it all in one place.

It was fun!

BTW, you're putting God in a box. He's bigger than that, and I'm not talking about the origin of species - that is just a fun thing to discuss. It is not relevant to the reality that matters.

[Right Wing Professor]

You defend that it is THE ipso facto scientific explanation. And you do it with a RELIGIOUS FERVOR, for it doesn't warrant it. It is, after all, just a theory.

He's defending science, perhaps the crowning human achievement, against attack from pre-Enlightenment religious fundamentalism. That's an absolutely essential fight. I, for one, am grateful he's willing to put in the time necessary for this defense.

The problem is that there is just too much to refute in your post.

The problem isn't the quantity, but the quality.

[Lurking Libertarian]

The problem is that there is just too much to refute in your post. I just don't have the time nor inclination to do so in this forum.

You don't have the time to refute all of it, so you won't refute any of it. You just want us to take it on faith that it's all refutable.

Okay.

[Ichneumon]

You defend that it is THE ipso facto scientific explanation.

Because it is. There's some legitimate disagreement over the various forces and events which might drive evolution, and how much each contributes (since all are probably at work at various times), but there's quite simply no alternative scientific explanation for the available evidence other than the established view that modern life developed via the change of species over time from at most a very limited number of primitive common ancestors several hundred million years ago.

And you do it with a RELIGIOUS FERVOR, for it doesn't warrant it.

Okay, I'll bite -- what distinguishes a "RELIGIOUS FERVOR" from other kinds of motivated behavior?

It is, after all, just a theory.

In that sense, so is religion. It's "just a theory" about how and why we exist.

I skimmed your response and I must say this: It makes a point with which I think there is plenty of argument for and against.

Too bad we'll never be able to judge the quality of the argument against it.

The problem is that there is just too much to refute in your post. I just don't have the time nor inclination to do so in this forum. You've ratcheted up the time commitment too high. You take the pot, not because you have a winning hand, but because I didn't bring enough money (time) to call your last raise.

Not my intent, I assure you. It contains but a single point, really. I just wanted to fully explain it and its implications, examples, possible counterarguments, etc. It's just an expanded form of the point I had already made to you in post 722:

Of course, many of the dissimilar cars made by GM have common parts under the skin. They're all MADE by the same company. It's not evolution, allthough it may appear to be by some.

No, actually, even a cursory examination would make clear that the very nature of the differences and similarities between different lines of cars would *preclude* an evolutionary explanation, even leaving aside the clear lack of transitional forms and a reproductive mechanism by which those objects could have come about via an evolutionary process.

For example, the electronic ignition on the 1999 model would be found to be an entirely de novo structure which shared no similarities (other than function) with the 1998 model. This would preclude an evolutionary transition.

There would, in fact, be *hundreds* of such "deal breakers" if you took a look at any two similar car models, even those made by the same manufacturer. And yet, biological systems do *not* show any such "would violate evolution" features, in either their structural makeup or at their molecular DNA level.

In other words, all known biological systems and DNA sequences are so far consistent with an evolutionary origin.

In a single sentence: A designer would frequently do things which would stand out quite clearly as being non-evolutionary in nature, just because he can, and evolutionary-type solutions would be too limiting for a designer free to build things to his own requirements.

It was fun!

Thanks, I enjoyed it too. There are a lot of "evolutionary skeptics" on these threads, but you're one of the most civil and least combative. I appreciate it.

BTW, you're putting God in a box. He's bigger than that, and I'm not talking about the origin of species

I don't know. I often feel it's the creationists who put him in a box, making too many presumptions about what he might do or want and why. My point here, in fact, is that I don't think it's defendable to put him in the "box" of *only* designing things which are consistent with evolution. Surely if he were doing the design, he'd be much more innovative than that.

[Stultis]

I skimmed your response and I must say this: It makes a point with which I think there is plenty of argument for and against.

If I may butt in, it warrants more than "skimming".

The problem is that there is just too much to refute in your post.

Not really. Get over the length (which is not really that great) and actually read it. Ichneumon was making a very small, and well chosen, number of crucial points.