[quote=Thane;14467]It's very simple. We ARE "fundamentally different" than animals.[?QUOTE]
in what way?
Quote:
I wasn't quoting from that internet writing actually. Now, let us argue and discuss who we're quoting and citing and what we can "dismiss"
|
Oh? Maybe it was this one, then:
WEBCommentary(tm) - THE PROBLEM WITH EVOLUTION
or this:
Videos - THE PROBLEM WITH EVOLUTION morphology
There are several sites that quote Mr. Edward Daley, who is the author of those words.
Quote:
|
Thats always a good way to ignore shortcomings of your own argument. Find a way, ANY way to dismiss items that expose the weaknesses of your argument.
|
You have not addressed any aspect of my argument for evolution, only made snide comments and ad hominem attacks on Darwin.
Quote:
Ah. They're shouting from the fringes of "biology" are they ?
Here's the truth.
That is your opinion. It's not fact. There is not, and never WILL be a consensus about evolutionary theory among academics.
There's not even a consensus among academics about the meaning of the TERM "evolution".
|
Maybe- I’ve truthfully never seen a consensus among more than five people, outside of a Quaker meeting. However, no one is publishing scientific articles on creationism. If you search the literature, the only debate involving creationism is philosophical, not scientific. There are thousands of papers in peer reviewed journals investigating, expanding and debating the specifics, mechanisms, and details of evolution, but none that do this with creationism. Creationism is a sterile field, scientifically.
The difficulty with the term evolution (as the article you posted earlier eloquently pointed out), is that it can mean many different things in common usage. In biological terms, it means ‘descent with modification’, in modern terms ‘the change in gene frequency over generations’ it can be debated whether evolution refers only to changes brought about due to natural selection (another often misunderstood concept) or includes those due to nonselective forces, like gene flow and genetic drift. It does not address the origin of life itself, that is a separate field of investigation altogether.
Quote:
|
I'm not sure what your point is in pointing this out. That you seem focussed on getting rid of any ideas of "creationism" I find interesting. In a perverse way :-) What is your fascination with making sure nobody beleives in "creationism" ?
|
I really don’t care what you believe- I just enjoy engaging in the whole evolution debate, occasionally. What is your fascination with making sure no one believes in evolution?
Quote:
|
And yes, whether you like it, beleive it or accept it or not, academics ARE still debating this concept.
|
Academics may be, but biologists aren’t.
Quote:
|
There are too many to name. Obviously your religious faith in science and the theory of evolution will blind you to any honesty in discussing them. My interest in this is waning.
|
If there are so many, it should be easy to name one- pick the one you know the most about, and feel you can defend.
Quote:
What might be FUN is exposing your hero Charlie boy for what he really WAS.
(…)
|
Darwin very likely was racist- western culture was quite racist at that time; just read most anything written in the Victorian era for an example. That, however, does not invalidate his scientific work, not does any subsequent misuse of the theory.
If you really want to discredit evolution, you need to show the flaws in the idea itself. If you can’t attempt that, then the ‘debate’ becomes boring.