Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Introduction
----- Original Message -----
From: David Williams
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 8:12 AM
Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Introduction
> >> orval:
> >> Heck the only ones that really matter are where the
> >> law is concerned. Creationists have lost nearly every
> >> legal battle they have yet to wage.
> > Laurie:
> > To restate that, it really means that the evolutionary
> > establishment has succeeded, through Federal court
> > cases to have PREVENTED students in the Public
> > educational system from being provided with the
> > evidence and data...
David Williams: Federal Courts prevent students from being exposed to the
sectarian pseudoscience of creationism. Creationists are free to teach their
stuff to people who enter their churches. Creationist evidence and data is
LA> Since various evolutionists have admitted at various times and
in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their
evolutionary opponents in that decade of all those hundreds of open,
public, scientific debates, then the "pseudoscience" is clearly that off
All fossils are transitional fossils. Some are more transitional than
LA> So SOME evolutionists might claim thaat but noted evolutionist
Prof. S.J. Gould has honestly admitted that;
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in
the fossil record persist as the trade secret of
paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our
textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of
their branches; the rest is inference, however
reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.
(Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University), "Evolution's
erratic pace". Natural History, vol.LXXXVI(5), May 1977, p.14.)
From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
(Chandra Wickramasinghe, respected, scientist and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)
- --- In email@example.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Randy Crum
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:28 PM
> Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Introduction
> >> Randy C:
> >> The problem is that creationists accept what they
> >> call "micro-evolution" but reject "macro-evolution".
> > Laurie:
> > Micro-evolution is just a joke of course, since it
> > is usually just Mendelian "recombinations" and nothing
> > at all to do with evolution.
> RC: Actually that's completely incorrect.
> RC: But even if it was true, it would be evolution.
> LA> Recombinations is NOT evolution in the sense
> of "molecules to man" evolution.and anyone who
> knows anything about anything would surely know.
> LA> Thus you lose yet again!
> RC: The definition of evolution is:
> "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any
> change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool
> from one generation to the next."
> - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed.
> 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
> RC: Which is PRECISELY what you described.
> LA> Nothing of the sort. That is playing fact and loose
> with words. It is called the "bait and switch" fallacy and
> is only needed by those who have NO case at al or
> those who are doing a "snake-oil" deception.
> From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
> to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
> creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
> (Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981)
Ah Laurie, only you are allowed to use this tactic? Sucks when Karma rears it ugly head.