IMPERICAL PROOF SCIENCE

Sent in by Kevin T

absolute origin what is it? of life that is,the universe is another story

put a frog in a blender turn it on puree......what what do you get?

frog soup right? ok....lets put it(the frog soup) in the perfect environment for lets say a couple trillion years or so...what do you get? a couple trillion year old frog soup...anyone disagree? let me continue....all the components needed to PUT the frog together again are all there however there is no way possible no matter how long you wait for it to become a frog again...anyone dissagree? the idea of primordial soup being an absolute origin is proposterous to say the least. with what we know about DNA today it is a statistical zero that life arose from nothing. how did the eye develope? in whole working all at once? anyone think thats possible? the eye is a very complex machine and requires many working parts all at the same time: optic nerve, pupil ,retina are you really saying it all just happened at once? complex machines dont just happen they are designed anyone disagree? the truth is evolution doesnt hold up to the standards of science....it is the best guess scenario science has to offer for now. you cant prove the existance of GOD either, it is a faith in something not being seen,in the beholding there in lies the truth. is the glass half empty or is it half full? or is it simply a half glass of water? all three are correct but its how we chose to view the evidence that matters....so who is right? now we see in a mirror darkly, then i shall know even as i am known

43 comments:

PerryStL said...

And what do you get if you put a big-assed dinosaur and some plants in a blender and wait a couple trillion years?

You get oil!

People use that oil to make gasoline so they can drive their Hummers to church and this whole process is so complicated that there's obviously a God designing everything.

Oh wait... Dinosaurs never existed because the world is only a few thousand years old...

So where did oil come from?

Okay, I understand... God made oil so people can drive Hummers to church and tithe so he can afford to make more oil.

Anonymous said...

Do you have to be illiterate to believe in a god?

Speaking from ignorance seems to be the other requirement.

Evolution is the process by which random genetic mutations are passed on when they lead to a positive (however small) breeding advantage for organisms. The cumulative positive genetic traits are passed from generation to generation over time.

How simple can it get?

Peregrino said...

For your sake, Perry, I sincerely hope that God exists and that He is watching over you night and day.

Peregrino said...

Sorry, Perry, I didn't mean you. I meant Kevin T, the author of this brilliant post. Kevin, if you have any sharp objects in your kitchen or garage or elsewhere, maybe you want to think about having a friend come over and lock them up somewhere where you can't reach them. Also, be careful going up and down stairs; and just because a bottle or can has a colorful label doesn't mean that it's safe to drink. Get somebody to read the label to you first. Oh, and don't forget to say your prayers, as many as you can.

TastyPaper said...

A sad series of strawmen and grammatical errors.

Micah Cowan said...

@ Perry,

That's more than a bit of a strawman; there may well be Christians who believe dinosaurs never existed, but I have certainly never met one, and don't think I've even heard of them.

In my experience with many, many hard-core Creationists, every one of them has believed that dinosaurs exist, but simultaneously with humankind.

@ Kevin T,

You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Not everyone who holds to the former believes in the latter, and arguments against abiogenesis do not amount to evidence against evolution.

FightingAtheist said...

It is sad to see someone discuss a subject they have not studied. Would you argue biology with a biologist? Would you not be willing to learn? I would venture to say you would argue religion with someone, though you probably have not studied to Bible beyond what you learned in church.

The information is available online, in books, and videos, even on youtube.

Study the subject before you start making statements that automatically invalidate your argument by showing your lack of knowledge.

Roger O'Donnell said...

Seems being Jesus' friend means never having to use a spell check...

As to the content... I think we should have a moment's silence for the life we wasted reading puerile drivel.

Spirula said...

how did the eye develope? (sic)

I know I shouldn't even bother with this halfwit, but since creationists got the idea that the human eye was a compelling argument from Darwin himself (of course, they didn't bother to go on to read the rest of his thought about the eye and how it did evolve). So there is a special case of irony in that these assholes use the human eye.

Anyway, to answer the disingenuous question: the human eye evolved gradually through the evolutionary history of our ancestors, beginning with simple photoreceptors, eventually adding the ability to generate images( at first indistinct to later sharply focused one), and later color vision. The evolution of the eye also took several alternate paths, so that we see various types of eyes in the animal kingdom (including the evolution of a complex vertebrate eye, and an evolution of a complex invertebrate eye (cephalopoda) that followed a very different pathway).

Virtually all of the intermediate stages can still be observed amoung extant species.

The mechanism: natural selection, not "random chance". Mutations of genes can be random, but their survival is not. Natural selection is anything but random. It rigorously selects for those traits that allow a population to survive and pass those traits on to their descendants. So the human eye did not appear suddenly, by chance, but rather, gradually and refined by natural selection.

Now you don't have any exuses Kevin. Asked and answered.

Spirula said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Spirula said...

Forgot to add, "imperical"? Is that some kind of joke?

And the human eye is hardly one of the most remarkable. I think the mantis shrimp and raptor eyes are far more specialized.

Jim Arvo said...

Good grief, Kevin T, those are some really ridiculous straw men you've erected. I'll briefly expose them for you, then you can attempt to shore them up if you wish, but with any luck you'll see the futility of it.

KT: "...lets put it(the frog soup) in the perfect environment for lets say a couple trillion years or so...what do you get? a couple trillion year old frog soup...anyone disagree?"

Well, not exactly. Most of the long molecules will eventually break down and you'll probably be left a mixture of short organic molecules. But if you still want to call that "frog soup", that's okay by me.

KT: "...all the components needed to PUT the frog together again are all there however there is no way possible no matter how long you wait for it to become a frog again...anyone dissagree?"

Yes, all of the original components are still there. The only difference is the organization of the matter. Without an input of energy, and without other molecules to mediate the assembly, you are right, the short molecules will not re-assemble into a frog. Check.

KT: "...the idea of primordial soup being an absolute origin is proposterous to say the least."

Hold on! That was a huge leap you just made. The "frog soup" story is vastly different from the idea of life arising from a primordial soup. For example:

1) The "primordial soup" implies innumerable pockets of chemicals in different concentrations, at different temperatures, with various inputs of energy. In your scenario, the "soup" is presumably a uniform mixture of ingredients that is left to sit. It's absurd to think anything interesting will happen under those conditions. Life requires an environment that is far from equilibrium.

2) Only a vanishingly small proportion of the "primordial soup" need eventually find its way into a living organism. In your scenario, all of the material is needed for the organism, which is absurd.

3) The process of abiogenesis need only account for the simplest living organisms, with evolution then bootstrapping to higher forms. In your scenario the molecules must magically assemble into a higher organism directly, which is absurd.

4) Neither abiogenesis nor evolution have any foresight; if the process were to start anew, the chances of ending up with anything remotely similar to what we see today is effectively zero. In your scenario, the outcome is a specific higher organism, which is absurd.

KT: "...with what we know about DNA today it is a statistical zero that life arose from nothing."

Again you are making an enormous leap from one idea to another, probably paraphrasing something you heard from a creationist (and, frankly, I suspect that neither of you understands much of what you're talking about). First, it's very likely that the initial life forms were NOT DNA-based. Second, even if they were based on DNA, the sequence would be minute compared to what we see today. Third, your assertion about the statistical likelihood is no doubt based on ab initio assembly, which is a radically naive idea; nobody in their right mind is suggesting such a thing. So, if you wish to critique present theories about abiogenesis, a good starting point would be to learn something about what those theories are. Otherwise, you will continue to attack ridiculous straw men.

KT: "...how did the eye develope? in whole working all at once? anyone think thats possible?"

Again you attack a ridiculous straw man. The possible development of the eye has been explained in detail in many places (e.g. "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins). No, all the parts that we see in eyes today are NOT necessary for a useful eye. Even a single light receptor (something akin to a single rod in the eye) confers an advantage to the organism.

KT: "...the eye is a very complex machine and requires many working parts all at the same time: optic nerve, pupil ,retina are you really saying it all just happened at once?"

No, of course not! Only creationists make such outlandish claims. The rest of us are more concerned with doing real science and trying to solve real puzzles.

KT: "complex machines dont just happen they are designed anyone disagree?"

It depends on what you mean by a "machine". Taken in the broad sense, which includes biological organisms, then obviously I disagree. Hundreds of complex self-assembling molecules have been identified and observed in the laboratory, and numerous adaptations in microorganisms have lead to radically new and useful structures and processes, such as the ability to metabolize nylon. So there are plenty of examples of highly complex things that arise through natural processes, without being "designed". The "argument from design" also has numerous other fatal flaws, so it never even gets past the stage of a logical fallacy, but that's another discussion.

KT: "the truth is evolution doesnt hold up to the standards of science..."

Once again I'll make my usual observation and then challenge you to prove me wrong. I wager that you are completely ignorant of what the theory of evolution is, and what the evidence has shown. In my experience ONLY those who have no idea what science has shown with regard to evolution can make such absurd statements. You can easily shoot down my conjecture by showing me that you've actually studied evolution, and know what the major lines of evidence supporting it are. Can you do that? I strongly suspect that you cannot. It sounds to me that you've only availed yourself of creationist literature, which leaves you totally in the dark.

KT: "you cant prove the existance of GOD either, it is a faith in something not being seen,..."

Nobody is demanding that you "prove" the existence of your god; however we do demand that you provide some EVIDENCE for her. Without credible evidence, we have no more reason to believe in your particular deity than Zeus, Osiris, Mithra, Isis, or Krishna, to name just a few. One could just as easily choose to have "faith" in any of them. If you think the onus is on us to disprove your fanciful notions, then I challenge you to disprove Zeus.

By the way, I don't expect you to actually take me up on any of the challenges I've issued; I predict that you will either ignore them, or twist them into something absurd that you will feel capable of attacking. But... please do try to prove me wrong.

By the way, please learn to spell "empirical".

freeman said...

"God made oil so people can drive Hummers to church and tithe so he can afford to make more oil."

Unfortunately, their god put the majority of the oil in control of Muslims. LOL

Yukkione said...

These people have such a fundamental misunderstanding of science and the principles it is based upon. Then they soak up pseudo science that is spoon fed them and regurgitate it all over the place. If The US falls it will be because of ignorance, not knowledge.

Steven Bently said...

Element Percentage of Human Body
Oxygen 62.81
Carbon 19.37
Hydrogen 9.31
Nitrogen 5.14
Sulfur 0.64
Phosphorus 0.63
Other 2.10
dust 0.00?

If your imaginary bible god formed people and animals out of dust, how come humans are approx. 75% water and 25% protein?

If we are made a out of dust, howcome we do not fall apart when we get wet?

If the sea animals are made out of dust, howcome they do not disintegrate in the water?

Xtain ans: Faith holds everything together.

ref: http://www.usefultrivia.com/science_trivia/biology_trivia_001a.html

Anonymous said...

Not only has science failed to provide naturalistic explanations for the mathematical form of nature, the coincidence of cosmological constants, and the emergence of living things, but also these facets of nature all demonstrate the essential element of design, namely, information. Various naturalistic explanations for this biological and cosmological information have been reviewed and found wanting.

Chance and intrinsic chemical properties of matter have both been considered and abandoned as unreasonable explanations for the complexity we see in the character of the universe and in biological systems. The ordering that results from a local decrease in enthalpy (as in a phase change) cannot account for cosmological or biological information but only for the kind of ordering that is seen in crystals.

Constraint of systems far from equilibrium can produce self-organization that takes the form of spatial ordering and/or cycling over time. However, neither biological information (e.g., aperiodic specificity in sequencing of biopolymers) nor cosmological information is created in such processes. The limited ordering and information produced in such systems is consistent with the information level of the constraints imposed on the system.

Self-organization in complex systems that consists of large numbers of chemicals coupled together have been demonstrated primarily in computer simulations. Again the complexity or information that can be produced in an actual system depends on logistically arranging the many chemical reactions that take place in a very complicated way so that the required coupling can occur. While this is not a problem in the computer, it would be a nightmare in a real system of 1,000,000 chemical reactions. In reality the information associated with the self-organization in such systems is almost certainly less than the informational requirements to make the necessary spatial arrangements. Again we see that there do not seem to be any free lunches in nature when one is trying to explain the origin of information.

Natural selection acting on mutationally induced random change in the genetic code can produce biological information where the steps are small, what we normally associate with microevolution. The origin of new systems such as sight, which begins with irreducible complexity of a light-sensitive cell, cannot be accounted for by mutation or natural selection alone. Only the gently rolling high pastures on the back side of Mount Improbable can be crossed by this process, and you cannot reach the top of Mount Improbable by passing only through gently rolling high pastures. No cosmological information (i.e., finely tuned cosmological constants) results from mutation or natural selection.

The similarity between such information in nature and the production of information by human intelligence argues persuasively for an intelligent creator or designer. Consistent with this hypothesis is the utter failure of all natural processes that have been identified to date to account for biological and cosmological information. Our best scientific evidence supports a universe that is designed and not merely a designoid.

Trust me, I've done my homework.

Anonymous said...

Here's the Link to most of Mr Salt's Post http://www.origins.org/articles/bradley_designoid.html

Mr Salt: Are you Dr. Walter Bradley? If so, you HAVE done your homework! Welcome!

If you are not, you have just stolen Dr. Bradley’s Homework from Dr. Bradley! Study his white paper and tell us in your own words what Dr. Bradley is saying. You have one day! Go!

Anonymous said...

Nice PRATT list Kevin.

We've all seen these claims before, and we've refuted, torn to shreds, spit on and burnt them (and finally pissed on the ashes) a gazillion times.
If you wanted to show how totally brainfucked you jebus morons are, you did a good job.

Anonymous said...

Either I weep for a failed education system, or...

the original post is a bizarre troll gone weirdly... right?

Anonymous said...

"irreducible complexity" LOL

Yukkione said...

It's not surprising to see Mr. Salt plagiarize. It's pretty common with his type. He proves my statement about the regurgitation of misapplied science and scientific terminology.

Anonymous said...

Why should a trust the scientific knowledge of a person who can't even spell
Empirical correctly

Anonymous said...

Not only has science failed to provide naturalistic explanations for the mathematical form of nature, the coincidence of cosmological constants, and the emergence of living things

Wrong! Tens of thousands scientists, all over the globe, doing research in all of these fields HAVE provided naturalistic explanations for all of these things. Additionally, they have the empirical evidence to back it up. And it has been published in thousands of peer reviewed scientific journals.

Why? Because they actually DID the research that could be falsified.

What they didn't do is sit around trying to find gaps in real scientist's work, and then insert gawd into it(disguised as a non-scientific, technobabble term like "irreducible compexity"). Like your phony "scientist" at the Discovery Institute and their chums.


BTW, Kudo's go to Jim Arvo for the dissection. Very nicely done. Wish I had that kind of patience.

Anonymous said...

mr. salt

You have given me enough information to decide that, indeed, life on earth was created. But, why should I beleive it was created by a supernatural being? I'll beleive it was created by space aliens. Or I could think of a lot of other beings to give credit for all that exists. Or I could wait until science and logic reveal that your IC features are not IC after all.

NAA!!! It's gotta be the aliens!

Jim Arvo said...

Hello Mr. Salt,

That was an interesting post. I'm going to leave open the possibility that you might actually know some science, although that's not entirely evident to me from what you've written, for reasons that I'll explain below. So, I'm going to do some prodding here. Let's see if you actually know what you're talking about or are just blowing smoke (the latter happens here quite a bit).

But first, I must point out that most of what you've written appears at this site, and was written by Walter Bradley, a professor of mechanical engineering at Texas A&M. (I see that jfraysse already beat me to the punch on this one above.) If you are Walter Bradley, then perhaps we can have an interesting discussion. If not, then your post amounts to plagiarism, as you gave no attribution. Please tell me which situation pertains, so I know who I'm addressing; i.e. someone with legitimate background in materials science or someone with no compunction about plagiarism.

WB: "Not only has science failed to provide naturalistic explanations for the mathematical form of nature, the coincidence of cosmological constants, and the emergence of living things, but also these facets of nature all demonstrate the essential element of design, namely, information."

Now, in this one statement we have a number of dubious assertions, and this seems to be a theme throughout what you've written. You speak of "the mathematical form of nature". I can interpret that in a number of ways, some reasonable and some not. Rather than put words in your mouth, please tell me what you mean by it.

As for the failure of science to account for physical constants and for the emergence of life, that's technically true but a bit misleading. There are a number of nascent theories about the emergence of life, albeit none that are broadly accepted or anywhere near complete.

You then jump to the assertion that the cosmological constants and (the emergence of?) life "demonstrate" an element of design, which you equate with "information". Not only is this a huge leap, which is dogmatically asserted, but it rests upon a vague notion of "design", and an unexplained connection with an undefined term, namely "information". As you should be aware, "information" is a very problematic concept, with a wide variety of meanings, including those espoused by Shannon and Kolmogorov, to name just two. Now, either you are being very sloppy and/or dogmatic here, or you do not fully understand the connotations of the words you are employing. I won't hazard a guess as to which it is. Feel free to elaborate.

WB: "Various naturalistic explanations for this biological and cosmological information have been reviewed and found wanting."

They "have been reviewed" and been "found wanting"? That's a curious use of the passive voice. Who did this reviewing? Who reached this conclusion and how? To which authority are you bowing here? I smell a wet dogma (with fleas).

WB: "Chance and intrinsic chemical properties of matter have both been considered and abandoned as unreasonable explanations for the complexity we see in the character of the universe and in biological systems."

Again we have some unstated authority lurking in the background here, who apparently knows far more than the rest of the scientific community combined. I also sense that the reference to "chance" here is the tired old straw man trotted out by creationists, but I can't say for sure. Please elaborate on what this means so I needn't guess.

WB: "The ordering that results from a local decrease in enthalpy (as in a phase change) cannot account for cosmological or biological information but only for the kind of ordering that is seen in crystals."

That is again a dogmatic assertion. At best one could state that under certain well-defined conditions, decreases in enthalpy lead to nothing more than regular structures (e.g. crystals). However, thermodynamics does not mandate this, and living organisms provide a ready counterexample. You went on to make further dubious statements about self-organization, jumbling it with universal physical constants and external constraints. Many of my complaints above apply to those statements as well; specifically, that they are dogmatic assertions that extend well beyond what is supported by the available evidence.

In the interest of time, I'm going to stop here until you respond to what I've said thus far. If you are Walter Bradley, then I expect you will wish to defend your statements, and not attempt to gloss over so many details. If you are a plagiarist who knows nothing of science, but simply cherry-picks essays from scientists who seem to share some of your worldview, then I expect you will not be back.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jim: I might have beaten you to the punch on the link, but you have beaten me on the evaluation of “Mr Salt’s” post. I was actually hoping to engage Dr. Bradley himself, as I think the discussion could be very interesting and I know of very few forums where these opposing views are openly debated – at least in a civil fashion.

Anyway, Thanks, Jim! I will get back to my “real job” now as I am somewhat of a novice in this area and you (and others) are much better versed and far more eloquent than I!

I will sit patiently by and watch the evolved scales (feathers?) fly as you, Spirula, and perhaps others, will hopefully be afforded the opportunity to engage Dr Bradley.

Hello, Dr Bradley! Please come converse with us! We promise to be polite!

Anonymous said...

Mr. Salt wrote / plagiarized:

The origin of new systems such as sight, which begins with irreducible complexity of a light-sensitive cell, cannot be accounted for by mutation or natural selection alone.

I remember the good old days of Intelligent Design when the human eye itself was "irreducibly complex," now we're down to eyespots on single celled organisms. If you ID folks aren't careful you're going to move the goalposts right off the playing field.

No cosmological information (i.e., finely tuned cosmological constants) results from mutation or natural selection.

Ah, so the speed of light is not the result of mutation. Glad you cleared that up.

The similarity between such information in nature and the production of information by human intelligence argues persuasively for an intelligent creator or designer.

Or serves as a good example of anthropomorphism (attribution of human characteristics to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.)

Anonymous said...

Kevin,

You are a retard.

Jim Arvo said...

Damn! There's really something to be said for concise responses. I've really got to learn to be less long-winded.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Jim! This is all YOUR fault! You scared the good “Mr Salt” (Dr Bradley?) away! You are a “Technical Bigot” of the highest order (terms used by idiots to describe competency) but I love it when you Blog that way!

Seriously, as you conjectured, I’m afraid “Mr. Salt” is probably a “drive-by”. I hate that when it happens! Too bad to, I was looking forward to more serious discussions!

I enjoy reading your postings as they appear both civil and sage. Thanks and have a great weekend!

Anonymous said...

Seems to me like Kevin T has been to the Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron school of creationist "science".

I bet he truly believes that the banana is "god's" perfectly created fruit as well! lol

You are a moron Kevin T. How about you stay away from crappy...eg: Answers in Genesis type sites. Their crap is so misleading and it appears you bought the crap hook, line and sinker.

Stupid is as stupid does though I suppose! :-P

Anonymous said...

Alan said:
If you ID folks aren't careful you're going to move the goalposts right off the playing field.

In the scientific community, the ID folks aren't even on the playing field. The closest they come to the game is watching the big screen at Hooters.

SpaceMonk said...

Jim Arvo said:
Damn! There's really something to be said for concise responses. I've really got to learn to be less long-winded.

No, no, it's good stuff.
I like it... :)

Jim Arvo said...

Greetings to jfraysse and SpaceMonk. Thanks for egging me on! :-)

I was just lamenting the fact that, after spending close to an hour writing a mini-essay, someone can come along and make essentially the same point in four little words: "You are a retard"! But, of course, I will continue to amuse myself by pounding out rebuttals, issuing challenges, and trying to believe that reason will some day prevail over magical thinking.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I am indeed, NOT Mr. Bradley. I'm Mr. Salt. I assumed that someone would figure that out right away. If I really wanted to get away with plagerism on line I most definatley wouldn't have copied and pasted the text right out of the site. If you really wanted to speak to Mr. Bradley I'm sure you could probabley E-mail him though.

jim arvo: I appriciate and repsect your honest, and well thought out reply. My post was just the conclusion based on the research of Mr. Bradley. I would imagine that you could find some aswers if you looked at the actual research and maybe checked out some of the references.

If you guys believe so much in the theory of evolution, you should challenge it by finding the smartest non evolutionists that you can find and see what they have to say. If you can prove them otherwise I guess that makes you a stronger evolutionist that you were in the first place.

You can challege me with clever put downs all you want. I won't say much back do to the fact that I'm not a very clever person when it comes to put downs, and I choose to not put people down anyways. I, personally, am not challeging you. I'm trying to get some of you to challenge yourselves.

Am I trying to use reverse psychology... YES.

Am I throwing myself into a fire only to be burned... MAYBE.

And if you're wondering if I'm that "try to be nice to them and maybe they will be nice to me" kind of person, you are correct.

and away we go!

webmdave said...

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but my OMFGIH factor is being challenged quite a bit lately.




Patience Dave, patience...

Anonymous said...

If I really wanted to get away with plagerism on line...

Plagerism is plagerism no matter what your intent. No mulligans are given. You quoted without attribution, therefore, you plagerized.

Jim Arvo said...

Mr. Salt: "Sorry, I am indeed, NOT Mr. Bradley. I'm Mr. Salt. I assumed that someone would figure that out right away."

I don't follow you. How would we have any way of knowing who posted that? Yes, it's easy enough to trace large chunks of copied text back to their origin using Google, but why put the onus on us to do so? Furthermore, it would have been perfectly legitimate for Dr. Bradley to post some of his own material here under a pseudonym.

I don't wish to flog a dead horse, but let me just say that the tactic you chose was not the best way to ingratiate yourself to us. Enough said.

Mr. Salt: "I would imagine that you could find some aswers if you looked at the actual research and maybe checked out some of the references."

Okay, I hate to say it, but that's one of the CHIEF reasons that attributions are useful!

Mr. Salt: "If you guys believe so much in the theory of evolution, you should challenge it by finding the smartest non evolutionists that you can find and see what they have to say. If you can prove them otherwise I guess that makes you a stronger evolutionist that you were in the first place."

By the phrasing of your remark, I assume you are suggesting that we have not done that. I'm happy that you think it's a necessary step toward making a truly informed decision, but I'm somewhat taken aback by your (apparent) presumption. The fact is, I take that very exercise very seriously in every discipline I undertake, both professionally and avocationally. For example, I consider Michael Behe and Michael Denton to be among the best opponents of evolution, so I have gone out of my way to read and understand their arguments. Other legitimate scientists have also challenged the theory of evolution, but few have made such a concerted effort as Behe and Denton. As for Behe's notion of irreducible complexity, I can tell you exactly why I believe his argument fails, and rather spectacularly so. In a nutshell, 1) it's an untestable theory (at least in some phrasings), and 2) there are exceedingly clear counterexamples in nature (e.g. the development of the mammilian inner ear from the complex reptilian jaw). More on that in another post if you wish to pursue it.

While we're on this topic, let me ask you this. Have you done likewise? Have you sought the best arguments in support of the theory of evolution, studied them, and understood them? If so, can you tell me what you think the best arguments are that favor the theory of evolution? If not, then I strongly encourage you to take your own advice.

Mr. Salt: "And if you're wondering if I'm that 'try to be nice to them and maybe they will be nice to me' kind of person, you are correct."

I've no quarrel with that. In fact, it's my stated intent to be at least as friendly to the visitors as they are to us (although I will be the first to admit that I frequently fall short of this).

Anonymous said...

The problem with this type of open forum, it can attract backwoods vagrants that by a stroke of luck have found a computer in the local municipal dumpster and then they log on to a website like this and post a pile of cut and paste garbage with the intent of looking ever so brilliant and clever.

I smell a Goldy...hmmm

Anonymous said...

Ok, let me see if I have this straight - Mr. Salt may be a lying, cheating plagarist who really doesn't know what he's talking about, but at least he's a nice and friendly lying, cheating plagarist who doesn't know what he's talking about.

And what has he got against frogs, anyway?

Anonymous said...

I wish at least one of you would learn to spell the word plagiarize.

mizlee at aol dot com

Anonymous said...

Spirula

lol, sad but true. But don't forget there's super secret research going on at the Discovery Institute, far away from meddling Darwinists, that's going to prove ID once and for all, or something like that.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I should have just copied it the way other people were spelling it.

Pageviews this week: