Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Scars on chimp genes not accidents

Expand Messages
  • Caroline Pollak
    ... Instead of Creator , try Creating Beings otherwise you exclude Creatrix or Creatress . Don t forget humans & most all species come in TWO genders,
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 1, 2005
       >>>these scars on the chimp and human genomes were put there on purpose by the Creator when He created each of them.<<<
       
      Instead of "Creator", try "Creating Beings" otherwise you exclude "Creatrix" or "Creatress". Don't forget humans & most all species come in TWO genders, not one as a male "creator". 
      [The suffix "or" is masculine. "ix" & "ess" are feminine]
       
      So obviously it would follow that it takes two to tango on a creationist human ancestral level. Not just one all by his masculine humanlike lonesome.
       
      It's only humans who need deities anyway. Animals, fowl & fish sure don't & never have. So the male deity, "God" is only a humanly imagined storybook character deity & nothing more.
       
       What an abusive insult to human mothers everywhere to use "creator" or "God" only. I can't wait for that blasphemous female-blasting chauvinist, misogynist male deity to be erased from humanity's mind forever. And the sooner the better for all of us before the Islamic male deity creator "Allah" erases our minds & bodies for us.
       
      If the Shintos in Japan got into this debate, they'd be using "Creatress/ Creatrix" 
      & "mother/daughter" & "she, her, hers" & "Goddess" & "Lady". They believe their cosmic sun Goddess Amaterasu created everything.
       
      So Judeo-Christians have no monopoly with their lone male deity having created everything. There's plenty of other creating deities in other various global cultures  as well that would be equally as valid if any creating being exists at all.
       
      . But the point is they all only represent either the feminine or masculine archetype in Creation from a human viewpoint & nothing more.
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 7:21 PM
      Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Scars on chimp genes not accidents

      In a message dated 2/27/2005 4:43:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, doldridg@... writes:
      Yes, but if you found a duplicate of Mt. Rushmore (to turn a favorite
      creationist argument back upright), would you conclude that it had been carved
      to the same pattern or that it was an accident?
      Bill: You make my point here beautifully, Dave, these scars on the chimp and human genomes were put there on purpose by the Creator when He created each of them. The scars are quite possibly as complex as the features of Mt. Rushmore so they couldn't have happened by randomness. The scars are design features and not accidents.
             Would an intelligent person examine the engine of a Toyota and compare it to the engine of a BMW and conclude they had to have been built at the same factory?
             The creationist rebuttal to similarity of design features and similarity, in places, of DNA is that similarity of function requires similarity of design. An ape leg is similar to a human leg because they have similar function hence similar design features and to a degree, similar DNA.
    • Dave Oldridge
      ... of ... Rushmore The scars do wonderful things like give us scurvy. Are you saying that God is actually some kind of malicious incompetent? While I m sure
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 1, 2005
        On 28 Feb 2005 at 22:21, DNArefutesEvo@... wrote:

        >
        > In a message dated 2/27/2005 4:43:39 AM Eastern Standard Time,
        > doldridg@... writes:
        >
        > Yes, but if you found a duplicate of Mt. Rushmore (to turn a favorite
        > creationist argument back upright), would you conclude that it had been
        > carved
        > to the same pattern or that it was an accident?
        >
        >
        >
        > Bill: You make my point here beautifully, Dave, these scars on the chimp and
        > human genomes were put there on purpose by the Creator when He created each
        of
        > them. The scars are quite possibly as complex as the features of Mt.
        Rushmore

        The scars do wonderful things like give us scurvy. Are you saying that God is
        actually some kind of malicious incompetent? While I'm sure Leon might accept
        such a claim, my theology would nix it!

        > so they couldn't have happened by randomness. The scars are design features
        > and not accidents.

        That's the same as saying that Mt. St. Helens is a design feature.

        > Would an intelligent person examine the engine of a Toyota and
        > compare it to the engine of a BMW and conclude they had to have been built
        > at the same factory?

        No, but if parts made of the same exact alloy and to the same exact
        specification, with the same exact flaws were found, one would have to conclude
        that copies were made.

        > The creationist rebuttal to similarity of design features and
        > similarity, in places, of DNA is that similarity of function requires
        > similarity of design. An ape leg is similar to a human leg because they have
        > similar function hence similar design features and to a degree, similar DNA.

        Yes and ape scurvy is identical to human scurvy. But are you sure you want to
        claim that's a design feature? I do think there is a point where creationist
        apologists, in their zeal to attribute everything to special divine
        intervention cross the line into outright blasphemy, often without realizing
        that they have done so.

        You see, the problem with claiming everything as a "design" feature is that you
        then assume the responsibility of explaining the desires of your designer-of-
        choice in terms of the actual features of the so-called design.

        Dave Oldridge
        ICQ 1800667
        VA7CZ



        --
        No virus found in this outgoing message.
        Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
        Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.2 - Release Date: 2/28/2005
      • Leon Albert, Prof. of Anthropology, ret.
        ... From: Dave Oldridge To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Scars on
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 18, 2005
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:51 AM
          Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Scars on chimp genes not accidents

          On 28 Feb 2005 at 22:21, DNArefutesEvo@... wrote:

          >
          > In a message dated 2/27/2005 4:43:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
          > doldridg@... writes:
          >
          > Yes, but  if you found a duplicate of Mt. Rushmore (to turn a favorite
          > creationist  argument back upright), would you conclude that it had been
          > carved
          > to the  same pattern or that it was an accident?
          >
          >
          >
          > Bill: You make my point here beautifully, Dave, these  scars on the chimp and
          > human genomes were put there on purpose by the Creator  when He created each
          of
          > them. The scars are quite possibly as complex as the  features of Mt.
          Rushmore

          The scars do wonderful things like give us scurvy.  Are you saying that God is
          actually some kind of malicious incompetent?  While I'm sure Leon might accept 
          such a claim, my theology would nix it!

          > so they couldn't have happened by randomness. The scars  are design features
          > and not accidents.

          That's the same as saying that Mt. St. Helens is a design feature. 

          >        Would an  intelligent person examine the engine of a Toyota and
          > compare it to the engine  of a BMW and conclude they had to have been built
          > at the same  factory?

          No, but if parts made of the same exact alloy and to the same exact
          specification, with the same exact flaws were found, one would have to conclude
          that copies were made.

          >        The creationist  rebuttal to similarity of design features and
          > similarity, in places, of DNA is  that similarity of function requires
          > similarity of design. An ape leg is similar  to a human leg because they have
          > similar function hence similar design features  and to a degree, similar DNA.

          Yes and ape scurvy is identical to human scurvy.  But are you sure you want to
          claim that's a design feature?  I do think there is a point where creationist
          apologists, in their zeal to attribute everything to special divine
          intervention cross the line into outright blasphemy, often without realizing
          that they have done so.

          You see, the problem with claiming everything as a "design" feature is that you
          then assume the responsibility of explaining the desires of your designer-of-
          choice in terms of the actual features of the so-called design.

          Dave Oldridge     
          Leon: Exactly so! And, once having IMAGINED and PROJECTED such an inherently inscrutable alleged "designer," different human IMAGINATIONS, in different individuals and cultures, go on to attribute to that imagined being (OR BEINGS) various HOSTS of blatantly mutually incompatible characteristics. Meantime, science seeks to study and explain what ACTUALLY IS going on in the world. This study INCLUDES the subject of the imaginings of various Homo religiosis! This includes, of course, the category of H. religiosis to which Dave Oldridge belongs, despite the fact that he, like virtually all religionists, seeks to define HIS PARTICULAR religion, and even ALL religions, as "sacred" ground, off limits to "mere" scientific investigation and explanation.   
        • Caroline Pollak
          From: Leon Albert, Prof. of Anthropology, ret. From: Dave Oldridge To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:51 AM Subject:
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 18, 2005
             
            Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:51 AM
            Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Scars on chimp genes not accidents

            On 28 Feb 2005 at 22:21, DNArefutesEvo@... wrote:

            >
            > In a message dated 2/27/2005 4:43:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
            > doldridg@... writes:
            >
            > Yes, but  if you found a duplicate of Mt. Rushmore (to turn a favorite
            > creationist  argument back upright), would you conclude that it had been
            > carved > to the  same pattern or that it was an accident?
            > Bill: You make my point here beautifully, Dave, these  scars on the chimp and
            > human genomes were put there on purpose by the Creator when He created each
            of them. The scars are quite possibly as complex as the  features of Mt.
            Rushmore
             
            Caroline: CreatOR?  He? Who're you trying to kid? It's not working without a Creatrix/She..or four female faces carved in another mountain. So since neither He or She exists except as human beings who make this stuff up...well....figure it
            out for yourself with your innate intelligence.

            The scars do wonderful things like give us scurvy.  Are you saying that God is
            actually some kind of malicious incompetent?  While I'm sure Leon might accept 
            such a claim, my theology would nix it!
             
            Got that right! God, the male-ego deity, is definitely maliciously incompetent out of some mens' malicious incompetent minds.

            > so they couldn't have happened by randomness. The scars  are design features
            > and not accidents.

            That's the same as saying that Mt. St. Helens is a design feature. 

            >        Would an  intelligent person examine the engine of a Toyota and
            > compare it to the engine  of a BMW and conclude they had to have been built
            > at the same  factory?

            No, but if parts made of the same exact alloy and to the same exact
            specification, with the same exact flaws were found, one would have to conclude
            that copies were made.

            >        The creationist  rebuttal to similarity of design features and
            > similarity, in places, of DNA is  that similarity of function requires
            > similarity of design. An ape leg is similar  to a human leg because they have
            > similar function hence similar design features  and to a degree, similar DNA.

            Yes and ape scurvy is identical to human scurvy.  But are you sure you want to
            claim that's a design feature?  I do think there is a point where creationist
            apologists, in their zeal to attribute everything to special divine
            intervention cross the line into outright blasphemy, often without realizing
            that they have done so.

            You see, the problem with claiming everything as a "design" feature is that you
            then assume the responsibility of explaining the desires of your designer-of-
            choice in terms of the actual features of the so-called design.

            Dave Oldridge     
            Leon: Exactly so! And, once having IMAGINED and PROJECTED such an inherently inscrutable alleged "designer," different human IMAGINATIONS, in different individuals and cultures, go on to attribute to that imagined being (OR BEINGS) various HOSTS of blatantly mutually incompatible characteristics. Meantime, science seeks to study and explain what ACTUALLY IS going on in the world. This study INCLUDES the subject of the imaginings of various Homo religiosis! This includes, of course, the category of H. religiosis to which Dave Oldridge belongs, despite the fact that he, like virtually all religionists, seeks to define HIS PARTICULAR religion, and even ALL religions, as "sacred" ground, off limits to "mere" scientific investigation and explanation. 
             
            Conclusion: Creationists have no place in the fields of proveable science. Or to put it another way, creationists are not true scientists.   
          • drvr2hrdwr
            ... From: Caroline Pollak Caroline: CreatOR? He? Who re you trying to kid? It s not working without a Creatrix/She..or four female faces carved in another
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 18, 2005
               
              ----- Original Message -----
               
               
              Caroline: CreatOR?  He? Who're you trying to kid? It's not working without a Creatrix/She..or four female faces carved in another mountain. So since neither He or She exists except as human beings who make this stuff up...well....figure it
              out for yourself with your innate intelligence.
              Neil:  So God doesn't really exist, but if God did exist the only possible God would have to have a female element?
               
              What a massively confused set of assertions.
               
              Caroline, you are correct in saying that God doesn't exist.  But if one wishes to speculate about a God or Gods any speculation can be made.  God might be a He, She, or It.  There could be multiple Gods of various gender combinations,  There could even be a polysexed God.  It is all just idle speculation.  No particular speculation of an omnipotent God is any more likely than any other.
               
               
               
            • drvr2hrdwr
              ... From: Caroline Pollak To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Scars on
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 18, 2005
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 3:52 PM
                Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Scars on chimp genes not accidents

                 
                Caroline: CreatOR?  He? Who're you trying to kid? It's not working without a Creatrix/She..or four female faces carved in another mountain. So since neither He or She exists except as human beings who make this stuff up...well....figure it out for yourself with your innate intelligence.
                Neil:  So God doesn't really exist, but if God did exist the only possible God would have to have a female element?
                What a massively confused set of assertions.
                 
                Caroline, you are correct in saying that God doesn't exist.  But if one wishes to speculate about a God or Gods any speculation can be made.  God might be a He, She, or It.  There could be multiple Gods of various gender combinations,  There could even be a polysexed God.  It is all just idle speculation.  No particular speculation of an omnipotent God is any more likely than any other.
                I did NOT mention "God" at all in my above original statement. You did!.
                Neil3: Call it whatever you like.  The IDer, or creator is just a sneaky way to refer implicitly to God.
                 
                 
                 
                 
                So you're just really talking to your massively confused, undereducated self.  
                 
                "CreatOR" & "He" are both male referencing words. 
                Neil3:  Not by the modern use of the words.  Creator does not reference sex, necessarily.  You may cite the etymology, but that is not the definition.
                 
                 
                 
                Meaning mainly humanlike male. Because "Creatrix" & "She" are both female referencing words to denote the gender of a "deity" or "ID" or "architect", all of which latter words are neutral (nongendered). So if you're insisting that a "God" can be any gender or polysexed, then so also must "Creatrix" & "She" & "Goddess" mean any gender or polysexed. All things being equal, that is. Otherwise "Goddess/Creatrix/She" remains female so "God/Creator/He" is still male as humans create & defined these labels.
                Neil3:  But not as they are actually used in modern times.  We don't live back when those words were first used, we live now, and God can be He, She, or It by modern usage.
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                So if I or anyone else had said "So Goddess doesn't really exist, but if Goddess did exist the only possible Goddess would have to be a male element?" Then you get to say the same thing to me as you just did. So it would always be a win-win for you & a lose-lose for me or anyone else who made the "Goddess/Creatrix/She" statement.
                 
                Just another massively confusing patriarchalist male trick. We women who do not worship the almighty he-male, creator god or the men who think they are the only ones who create & define words aren't falling for it anymore. So get a clue. Any intelligently educated person knows that the words for a neutral or polysexed primordial superbeing are: Deity (nongendered/polysexed), Deities (multiple/plural), Creating SuperBeing (singular), "It" (neuter or polysexed). 
                 
                But then I guess I have to assume there are no intelligently educated people (mostly males) in this group. Then you ought to be thanking me for educating you, not trying to make me think I'm stupid which I most definitely am NOT!
                Neil3:  You put Venus, femininity, and a long list of positive human traits in one group. 
                You also put Mars, masculinity, and a long list of negative human traits in another group.
                 
                That is one of the stupidest things I have seen in some time.  But that kind of ignorant prejudice always looks stupid in print.
                 
                 
              • Caroline Pollak
                From: drvr2hrdwr From: Caroline Pollak Caroline: CreatOR? He? Who re you trying to kid? It s not working without a Creatrix/She..or four female faces carved
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 18, 2005
                   
                  Caroline: CreatOR?  He? Who're you trying to kid? It's not working without a Creatrix/She..or four female faces carved in another mountain. So since neither He or She exists except as human beings who make this stuff up...well....figure it out for yourself with your innate intelligence.
                  Neil:  So God doesn't really exist, but if God did exist the only possible God would have to have a female element?
                  What a massively confused set of assertions.
                   
                  Caroline, you are correct in saying that God doesn't exist.  But if one wishes to speculate about a God or Gods any speculation can be made.  God might be a He, She, or It.  There could be multiple Gods of various gender combinations,  There could even be a polysexed God.  It is all just idle speculation.  No particular speculation of an omnipotent God is any more likely than any other.
                  I did NOT mention "God" at all in my above original statement. You did!. So you're just really talking to your massively confused, undereducated self.  
                   
                  "CreatOR" & "He" are both male referencing words. Meaning mainly humanlike male. Because "Creatrix" & "She" are both female referencing words to denote the gender of a "deity" or "ID" or "architect", all of which latter words are neutral (nongendered). So if you're insisting that a "God" can be any gender or polysexed, then so also must "Creatrix" & "She" & "Goddess" mean any gender or polysexed. All things being equal, that is. Otherwise "Goddess/Creatrix/She" remains female so "God/Creator/He" is still male as humans create & defined these labels.
                   
                  So if I or anyone else had said "So Goddess doesn't really exist, but if Goddess did exist the only possible Goddess would have to be a male element?" Then you get to say the same thing to me as you just did. So it would always be a win-win for you & a lose-lose for me or anyone else who made the "Goddess/Creatrix/She" statement.
                   
                  Just another massively confusing patriarchalist male trick. We women who do not worship the almighty he-male, creator god or the men who think they are the only ones who create & define words aren't falling for it anymore. So get a clue. Any intelligently educated person knows that the words for a neutral or polysexed primordial superbeing are: Deity (nongendered/polysexed), Deities (multiple/plural), Creating SuperBeing (singular), "It" (neuter or polysexed). 
                   
                  But then I guess I have to assume there are no intelligently educated people (mostly males) in this group. Then you ought to be thanking me for educating you, not trying to make me think I'm stupid which I most definitely am NOT!
                • Caroline Pollak
                  From: drvr2hrdwr From: Caroline Pollak Caroline: CreatOR? He? Who re you trying to kid? It s not working without a Creatrix/She..or four female faces carved
                  Message 8 of 11 , Mar 18, 2005
                     
                    Caroline: CreatOR?  He? Who're you trying to kid? It's not working without a Creatrix/She..or four female faces carved in another mountain. So since neither He or She exists except as human beings who make this stuff up...well....figure it out for yourself with your innate intelligence.
                    Neil:  So God doesn't really exist, but if God did exist the only possible God would have to have a female element?
                    What a massively confused set of assertions.
                     
                    Caroline, you are correct in saying that God doesn't exist.  But if one wishes to speculate about a God or Gods any speculation can be made.  God might be a He, She, or It.  There could be multiple Gods of various gender combinations,  There could even be a polysexed God.  It is all just idle speculation.  No particular speculation of an omnipotent God is any more likely than any other.
                    CAP: I did NOT mention "God" at all in my above original statement. You did!.
                    Neil3: Call it whatever you like.  The IDer, or creator is just a sneaky way to refer implicitly to God.
                     
                    Caroline: God & Creator are still masculine. Goddess & Creatrix are feminine.
                    CAP: So you're just really talking to your massively confused, undereducated self.  
                    "CreatOR" & "He" are both male referencing words. 
                    Neil3:  Not by the modern use of the words.  Creator does not reference sex, necessarily.  You may cite the etymology, but that is not the definition.
                    Caroline: That depends on which groups of people using the words & whose dictionary written by whom is being used. If you're talking to a bunch of creationists who believe in the biblical father/son male deity, that's GOD. Also the Koran's Allah is GOD. But other religions & mythologies have both a God & a Goddess in them as Creator & Creatrix & as He & She.  So they obviously aren't going to be using "God/Creator/He" for both genders. And some use only "Goddess/Creatrix/She" & eliminate God altogether.
                     
                    Caroline: Just because it isn't done in this group doesn't mean that everyone in the whole modern world agrees with YOU!. CreatOR is still male and Creatrix or Creatress is still female. Like it or not, that's just the way it is.I have bunches of books here in my library with Creatrix & Creatress in them as She. Some are written by modern day men & some by women. So yours, your scientific male friends, especially the biblical creationists' definition, isn't the only one by far. It's only yours & theirs & you are all wrong! 
                     
                    CAP: Meaning mainly humanlike male. Because "Creatrix" & "She" are both female referencing words to denote the gender of a "deity" or "ID" or "architect", all of which latter words are neutral (nongendered). So if you're insisting that a "God" can be any gender or polysexed, then so also must "Creatrix" & "She" & "Goddess" mean any gender or polysexed. All things being equal, that is. Otherwise "Goddess/Creatrix/She" remains female so "God/Creator/He" is still male as humans create & defined these labels.
                    Neil3:  But not as they are actually used in modern times.  We don't live back when those words were first used, we live now, and God can be He, She, or It by modern usage.
                    Caroline: See above. You are wrong!! I can quote you from many modern day books I have here that prove you are wrong. Goddess is still She & God is still He. Creator is still male is as HE. Creatrix/Creatress are still SHE. As long as there are people in the world that still use all those titles or labels to designate either gender, you are voted down. Sorry. Get educated & read some books besides all patriarcharlist misogynist male books & talk to someone else for a change instead of all patriarchalist male deity, god-worshipping people.  
                     
                    CAP: So if I or anyone else had said "So Goddess doesn't really exist, but if Goddess did exist the only possible Goddess would have to be a male element?" Then you get to say the same thing to me as you just did. So it would always be a win-win for you & a lose-lose for me or anyone else who made the "Goddess/Creatrix/She" statement.
                     
                    Just another massively confusing patriarchalist male trick. We women who do not worship the almighty he-male, creator god or the men who think they are the only ones who create & define words aren't falling for it anymore. So get a clue. Any intelligently educated person knows that the words for a neutral or polysexed primordial superbeing are: Deity (nongendered/polysexed), Deities (multiple/plural), Creating SuperBeing (singular), "It" (neuter or polysexed). 
                     
                    But then I guess I have to assume there are no intelligently educated people (mostly males) in this group. Then you ought to be thanking me for educating you, not trying to make me think I'm stupid which I most definitely am NOT!
                    Neil3:  You put Venus, femininity, and a long list of positive human traits in one group. 
                    You also put Mars, masculinity, and a long list of negative human traits in another group.
                     
                    That is one of the stupidest things I have seen in some time.  But that kind of ignorant prejudice always looks stupid in print.
                     
                    Caroline: Venus & Mars are not always merely feminine & masculine & not always either positive or negative. I was only giving an example of some basic things the astrological glyphs or symbols mean. They mean other things too. But I haven't got time to teach it to you. Too bad you are so stupid that you cannot even hope to ever understand a complicated symbolic artful, mathmatical languistic science like I & millions of others can. I wish you a better education & broader perspective on life. And hope you get your head out of your masculinist, prejudiced "god" box some day.
                  • Leon Albert, Prof. of Anthropology, ret.
                    ... From: Caroline Pollak To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 7:49 AM Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Scars on
                    Message 9 of 11 , Apr 14, 2005
                       
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 7:49 AM
                      Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Scars on chimp genes not accidents

                       
                      Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:51 AM
                      Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Scars on chimp genes not accidents

                      On 28 Feb 2005 at 22:21, DNArefutesEvo@... wrote:

                      >
                      > In a message dated 2/27/2005 4:43:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
                      > doldridg@... writes:
                      >
                      > Yes, but  if you found a duplicate of Mt. Rushmore (to turn a favorite
                      > creationist  argument back upright), would you conclude that it had been
                      > carved > to the  same pattern or that it was an accident?
                      > Bill: You make my point here beautifully, Dave, these  scars on the chimp and
                      > human genomes were put there on purpose by the Creator when He created each
                      of them. The scars are quite possibly as complex as the  features of Mt.
                      Rushmore
                       
                      Caroline: CreatOR?  He? Who're you trying to kid? It's not working without a Creatrix/She..or four female faces carved in another mountain. So since neither He or She exists except as human beings who make this stuff up...well....figure it
                      out for yourself with your innate intelligence.

                      The scars do wonderful things like give us scurvy.  Are you saying that God is
                      actually some kind of malicious incompetent?  While I'm sure Leon might accept 
                      such a claim, my theology would nix it!
                       
                      Got that right! God, the male-ego deity, is definitely maliciously incompetent out of some mens' malicious incompetent minds.

                      > so they couldn't have happened by randomness. The scars  are design features
                      > and not accidents.

                      That's the same as saying that Mt. St. Helens is a design feature. 

                      >        Would an  intelligent person examine the engine of a Toyota and
                      > compare it to the engine  of a BMW and conclude they had to have been built
                      > at the same  factory?

                      No, but if parts made of the same exact alloy and to the same exact
                      specification, with the same exact flaws were found, one would have to conclude
                      that copies were made.

                      >        The creationist  rebuttal to similarity of design features and
                      > similarity, in places, of DNA is  that similarity of function requires
                      > similarity of design. An ape leg is similar  to a human leg because they have
                      > similar function hence similar design features  and to a degree, similar DNA.

                      Yes and ape scurvy is identical to human scurvy.  But are you sure you want to
                      claim that's a design feature?  I do think there is a point where creationist
                      apologists, in their zeal to attribute everything to special divine
                      intervention cross the line into outright blasphemy, often without realizing
                      that they have done so.

                      You see, the problem with claiming everything as a "design" feature is that you
                      then assume the responsibility of explaining the desires of your designer-of-
                      choice in terms of the actual features of the so-called design.

                      Dave Oldridge     
                      Leon: Exactly so! And, once having IMAGINED and PROJECTED such an inherently inscrutable alleged "designer," different human IMAGINATIONS, in different individuals and cultures, go on to attribute to that imagined being (OR BEINGS) various HOSTS of blatantly mutually incompatible characteristics. Meantime, science seeks to study and explain what ACTUALLY IS going on in the world. This study INCLUDES the subject of the imaginings of various Homo religiosis! This includes, of course, the category of H. religiosis to which Dave Oldridge belongs, despite the fact that he, like virtually all religionists, seeks to define HIS PARTICULAR religion, and even ALL religions, as "sacred" ground, off limits to "mere" scientific investigation and explanation. 
                       
                      Conclusion: Creationists have no place in the fields of proveable science. Or to put it another way, creationists are not true scientists. 
                       
                      Leon: You've got it, Caroline, except for your misconception that science (save for math and logic) seeks "provability" in any absolute sense.  


                      ****Invite your friends to join the group!****
                      This group is open to all and anyone can join this group by sending a blank email to:
                      creation_evolution_debate-subscribe@...
                      and then respondng to the email sent to them from egroups.



                      volution_debate-subscribe@...
                      and then respondng to the email sent to them from egroups.






                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.