Okay, I'm going to post a couple of links to a review/debate thing done over at "talk-rational!" I haven't read but a couple of pages, and so far there is some moderately offensive language. You might find some that is much worse in a place like that.
Pop quiz! What, besides random mutations and "natural selection", do evolutionists claim was required for the mythical first cell to evolve into mankind?
The lead atheist is one "vox rat". No confusing this one with Vox Day!
On another forum an atheist proudly presented me with these two links. Bluff or blunder?
http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=546708#post546708http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=16942Okay, remember the pop quiz? Did you think of anything else beyond random mutations and "natural selection"? If you did, let me know. Another universal complaint is that Dr. Sanford attacks a "strawman" because he debunks the idea that man evolved due to rm + ns. Half of them admit he debunks it; others have enough sense to merely claim he attacks it. But when you see that accusation, you KNOW you're dealing with a bald-faced lair. You KNOW if they had any legitimate way to oppose him, they would not sacrifice 100% of their credibility right up front at the very start. But they all do the same thing (I don't plan to track down others unless there's a request. Actually it wouldn't take long, so ask if you're interested.)
Okay, now for some simple stuff. Let us review the relationship between apples and fruit. All apples are fruit. Some fruit is apples. Apples are a subset of fruit. I'm confident everyone understands this. Everyone of you, I should say. I learned this kind of thing in second grade, maybe third? Even today I don't suppose it's been moved up past 6th or 7th. And you really don't need to learn it in school - it's built into the language, if only you think about it.
But not everyone understands. Not the evosick
The Genome is the Book of Life. Where Did it Come From?
Newsflash: the genome is an instruction manual.
Enshrined in this title is the fundamental misunderstanding that there is a dichotomy between the “instructions” for the organism, and the organism itself. In fact DNA is an integral part of the organism, and that fact makes a critical difference to all that follows.
Of course there's a dichotomy. This is a set/subset relationship. The DNA is part of the cell; it is not the whole cell. "All that follows" is a joke. Although he would pretend his failure to understand a simple set/subset relationship constitutes some kind of flaw in Dr. Sanford's book, it never pans out. He can't turn it into a real beef; neither can he manage to conjure an illusion. I honestly think his strategy is to stun/confuse the reader, tricking them into thinking his junk contention is written by someone smarter than they are. That's all I can figure, honestly. People, sometimes when you read something, and it doesn't deliver, or fails to make sense, it isn't you. It's the writing. I hope most of you knew.
And that's not all. It's polywrong. Oh yes. Look again at the quotebox and you'll find a switcharoo of terms. Dr. Sanford's term 'genome' is replaced with 'DNA'. Okay, not really a big deal - unless you try to convince yourself the rodent actually knows what is what. The genome is not the same thing as the DNA. Printed text is to book as genome is to DNA. The genome is the code - the information encrypted within the DNA. The reason for the switch is unclear, because all he proceeds to really do is complain of a bad analogy without demonstrating a flaw.
Well, that's enough.
