I'd like to edit the previous post, but time has expired, so I will paste the edited post here:
Quote:To judge by what's been seen on this forum, folks'd think there are no honest evolutionists. This is not the case. I have encountered some myself. It would be a good thing if some show up here.
You are calling all evolutionists who have ever been on this forum liars. That was my point. Russ banned people for calling him a liar but let's put that point aside. Please find something specific that I said and explain to me how it makes me a liar.
I fail to see why you are denying over and over that saying no honest evolutionists have showed up here means that you are saying there are no honest evolutionists here. We both speak the English language. Let's just chalk this up as another example of you re-writing history the way you want it to be.
You are claiming that I was wrong/lied/etc about various things, again without giving specific examples. My information about glaciers comes from a family member who is a glaciologist. Maybe we should go back to that thread and discuss what exactly it is you disagree with.
The first thing you did that convinced me you were insincere to some extent was when you supported the cowardly attacks on the livelihood of Guillermo Gonzales.
If you want to resurrect that flogged horse we can go back to the thread where we discussed it. I gave you a lot of reasons why his university did not grant him tenure and they are quite straightforward and acceptable in academia. He's been made a poster boy by the Discovery Institute. There are other creationists working in the world of science who are getting on fine in their careers. No one bothers Michael Behe, he's got a cosy little spot at his university.
Neither has anyone ever explained how the story of post-abiogenesis evolution is in any way in conflict with ID.
Maybe because you've never asked this specific question. If an IDer accepted that heritable traits change over time in a population, usually through the process of mutation and natural selection, then no there's no conflict because that's evolution. We both know, though, that this is not what IDers claim, and the leaders of the ID movement are evlangelical Christian groups with obvious ties to creationist organisations. Remember
Of Pandas and People?
Selection is impotent when there's no disaster, and reality shows the disasters are avoided.
Go read about what natural selection actually is. We've been talking about it elsewhere and you've so far made it clear that once again you are criticising something you do not understand. I don't know why I spend time doing this -- I guess because there's virtually no one here left to do it and I don't like to see scientific ignorance spread like cancer all over. My toenail pliers are at the ready.
I expect you're a little more than mildly curious. This is a part of evolutionism
No, just mildly curious, because a) astrophysics as a science did not exist in Darwin's time and has nothing to do with fossils or natural selection, and b) knowing real things about this field of science as I do, I'd normally ignore comments like yours, but am wondering how you would attempt to defend them -- once you made it more clear what you were trying to get at.
Where
is your astronomy information coming from? Do you not understand how gravity can perturb a cloud of gas and dust and cause it to collapse? Or are you saying you don't believe that the universe came from a cloud of hydrogen (which astrophysicists don't believe either)? Hint: a) do some reading about astrophysics before you make silly claims like astrophysicists don't understand thermodynamics, and b) if you're going to claim something, make it clear what you are actually claiming, and why it's relevant to a creation/evolution discussion.
