derve, with all respect, partner, the "Debate" exists only in the minds of the ID-iots. Statistically, over 99.8% of Earth Scientists endorse the standard model of evolution
. Your argument against evolution simply has no basis apart from ignorance and religionist agenda.
I love your statement " ... Until creation scientists blow them away and they have to come up with a new origin ... "; I submit that firstly never has any such thing ever happened, and secondly that never can any such thing happen. To begin with, ID-iocy is not science, by any defintition, academic or legal, and then there is the insurmountable problem of there being no empirical research conductable under the tenets of ID-iocy, which is theology, not science. Not one, as in zero, zip, nada, none, instance of academically valid, peer-reviewed, accepted-and-published, investigated and duplicated piece of original Creationist/ID-iot research ever has been published. Not one, not ever - because there simply isn't any.
At this point, ID-iots often point to the infamous Meyers "Pre-Cambrian Explosion article"
... please do. The article has been withdrawn, repudiated by the journal which published it, and the editor who authorized its publication was terminated. Here is what the journal had to say of the article's publication:
The Biological Society of Washington
September 7, 2004
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings ("The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings. (emphasis added by timber)
We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), and that topic will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings. We are reviewing editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (www.biolsocwash.org) and contemplated improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of taxonomic biologists.
According to the PBSW's instructions for contributors, "Manuscripts are reviewed by a board of Associate Editors and appropriate referees." It seems, therefore, that Meyer's paper was not published in accordance with the journal's established review procedure.
Momma Angel wrote:
I didn't know making fun of others was actually part of a good debate ...
"Making fun of others" isn't a particularly well-regarded orensic technique, however, exposing to ridicule an assinine argument is perfectly legitimate. Generally the best way to deal with an absurdity is to demonstrate its inherent absurdity.
MA, going on disingenuously wrote:
I really wish you didn't think of the Bible as a comic book. It is not a comic book. It is the Word of God and it really does offend some when you call it a comic book
Granted the Bible is not a comic book; it has no illustrations. It is, however, a collection and redaction of myths common to the cultures of the Levant, Egypt, Greece, and the Mesopotamian Plains ... seasoned with a bit of (often mangled) history, but with no authentication or claim to authority other than that provided within itself. Now, I'll be the first to say that its a monumentally significant sociocultural artifact, deserving of great respect for the literary and philosophic traditions it has preserved, and worthy of respectful consideration for the impact it has had on humankind's development over the past 3 millenia or so, but thats it. Appreciated, respected, yes ... "The Word of God" ... says who? Says it. Period.
I'll repeat that while powerful, compelling arguments for the Christian Proposition can and have been made, none have been evidenced by any posting here on behalf of that proposition. The support so far offered here for that proposition, from an academic and forensic stadpoint, has been worthy of all the scorn and ridicule it has recieved on these pages. No doubt many, if not even overwhelmingly most, of the adherents of and apologists for that proposition on this forum are fine persons of excellent character and good intention. That in no way alters the fact support for the Christian Proposition, as presented in the discussions on these boards, predominantly has been pathetic, ridiculous, and fully deserving of dismissal and contempt, with occasional forays into such patent absurdity as to be considered inspired humor.