Evolution 101-part 1: Definition FAIL

Evolution 101 (Of Wolves and Cabbages)

A Critical Review and some snarky comments by Rent A Friend 2000

Original material from  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02  The site is called Evolution 101, and will be presented by me with no editing (though plenty of editorials) and in those few places where parts were cut out for brevity, I make note of it being done. The original site is a collaborative project of the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education. Their words will appear in normal font. My words in BOLD.

Very simply put, I decided one day to read up on the basics of evolution, and so I googled “Icons of Evolution for Highschoolers.” One of the top search results was this web site which calls itself Evolution 101. I saw the URL, evolution.berkley.edu, and decided that I probably could not pick a better representative of the evolutionary sciences. When I saw the material before me was also due in part to the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education, I was certain of it.

This was the evolutionary sciences right from the people who really seem to believe it with all of their little hearts. This was not a version of evolution written by some Young Earth Creationists group, this was made by the people who make a monkey shaped cake every Darwin day, and string lights up on their phylogenic trees while singing carols to random chance mutations. This is where I would learn what evolution really had to offer.

And I can’t say I was impressed. As you read on, you’ll see I was actually very disappointed, though, to be honest, not very surprised.

When I was 14, I took an Honors level Biology class, and we were assigned a paper on a topic of our choosing. I wrote on how I thought evolution was not true and provided what I felt were many convincing proofs. I got an A, but more important was the note my teacher wrote in the margins. It said, “I can’t argue with any of your points, but I still think you’re wrong.” A tenured biology teacher in a public high school can’t argue against the points made by a 14 year old? This struck me as rather odd. He was given proofs against evolution, could do nothing to refute me, but stuck to his faith in evolution as fact. “Is this how evolutionists are?” I wondered. I thought, if there is anyone who should be able to make a good case for evolution, it is these authors of Evolution 101. Read on, friends, and prepare to be disappointed.

The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification.

Definition FAIL. This is put a little TOO simply. Everything that lives is descended from something of its own kind, and- save a few bacteria and other wee terrible beasties- most are not clones of their parents. This means, on this weak sauce definition, you, being descended from your parents (but being not their clone) are a living example of evolution. But that means this definition could be restated, “Biological Evolution is any living thing which is not a clone.” Kind of narrows the possibilities a smidge TOO much if you ask me. Also, I refuse to say I “evolved from my mother.” That sounds weird.

This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

Let’s see- encompasses changes in a population, or changes between kinds. So…. Evolution is anything that ever happens to living things. This puts the term on par with other excellent pieces of scientific jargon and terminology, such as “Stuff,” “Junk,” “Things,” and “Sorta.” Good job team. Let’s all break for a biscotti.

Also, “helps us to understand the history of life” seems to be their way of saying “is the religious dogma with which we will interpret the data if we bother with any.” It’s like I need a Darwin to English dictionary up in here. What Evolution NEEDS to mean in order to be a useful term is “An unguided natural process by which genetic information increases, resulting in additions or modifications to genotype and/or behavior that helps the individual to survive, reproduce, and pass on that genetic information.” This is evolution the process. Evolution the worldview is “the belief that all living things are the result of the evolutionary process, going back in time through common ancestors until arriving at a first universal ancestor, a single cell, which itself was the result of matter plus time plus chance, meaning that all life is merely a chemical process beginning with rain falling on rocks.”

Look at this, we’re in the first section and I’m already doing these people’s job for them.

Join me next week for Part 2.

Rentafriend2000@hotmail.com

Advertisements

About rentafriend2000
Rocking my 40's with a heart full of love and muffins, science and technology. Jesus loves me and wants me to totally rock! And I am here to help.

12 Responses to Evolution 101-part 1: Definition FAIL

  1. agnophilo says:

    So your whole point is that scientists are dumb because one line on the first page of an introductory book for children was not all-encompassing? This is like me writing an entire blog bashing you for not explaining your entire worldview in one sentence. It’s gibberish.

    And assuming your story about your high school teacher is accurate, one guy not having the answers to your questions doesn’t mean they’re not out there, nor does one person who accepts an idea being a closed-minded idiot mean that the same is true of all people who accept it. As for objections to evolution, I’ve never met one that couldn’t be refuted, and hasn’t been time and time again.

    • Thanks for writing in again.
      My point is not to attack any scientists- as once again I reject equivocating the term “scientist” with the believer in a faith “Evolutionist”- but I really don’t mean to attack anyone. As a science teacher myself, I reserve the right to be snarky with my peers, that is all. My point is that, in book after book, web site after web site, lecture after lecture, I hear the same VAGUE definitions for what Evolution is, and I discover that this paper thin definition is NECESSARY, because a better definition begins to show the holes in the theory (As you will see in later posts). I really do have a book which defines evolution as “Change over time.” This is COMMON, and completely useless as a definition.

      How did you like MY definition? Pretty good, eh? I think everyone should start using it. Maybe I’ll put it on T Shirts and start a merch table.

      I certainly know that one person of a particular faith not having answers doesn’t discredit the faith, but I hope you also remember that when your Christian friends say, “Oh, gee, I donno.” Because those answers are also out there. In short, if a tenured teacher of Biology cannot refute a freshman, then what is his faith based on, or how OBVIOUS is the evolutionary conclusion? I never said he was close minded nor an idiot, but it is certainly clear that his faith in evolution was NOT a result of open-mindedly examining the facts and coming to the conclusion that life created itself. If your faith is not likewise grounded, then I welcome you to keep reading these posts and pointing out my errors. I welcome critique, but of course you know I will question your answers, for I have never seen support for evolution which could not be refuted, nor an answer to such refutations which could not be shown to be in error. I think both of us may have the opportunity to learn a lot here!
      Looking forward to more discussion,
      Your Rent A Friend

      • agnophilo says:

        Evolution is a vague term. It refers to all changes undergone by all forms of life by all the varied mechanisms that effect species. Other concepts like natural selection or gene duplication mutations or speciation, genetic drift and so on are specific. Your beef is like saying that “atomic physics” is too vague because it doesn’t mention electrons. It’s an umbrella term.

      • Greetings once again. My beef is the fact that evolution refers to a specific, directional process of bio-history whereby ALL living things were supposed to have descended- or rather ascended- from a single celled organism, itself a chemical accident. It is NOT a category! Changes in life which REDUCE the genetic information, make it less able to survive or less able to reproduce or eventually to go extinct are all, on your definition here EVOLUTION because, in your words,”It refers to all changes undergone by all forms of life.” But obviously THOSE changes will not change bacteria into wolves, moose, cabbages and Oak Trees. It won’t even get a small dinosaur to become a bird. It’ll just kill off the dinosaurs. I have yet to see anyone try to explain how the dinosaurs merely “evolved” into fossils because we all know ‘evolving’ carries a specific intended meaning.

        Yet, here and in many other places the definition is watered down until it literally DOES NOT conflict with Biblical creation. Darwin stole the idea of Natural Selection from a biblical creationist who published on it years before Origin of Species, yet you will say Natural Selection fits under the umbrella of evolution. Does this mean evolution IS creation or vice versa? Ask yourself this, “When I use the word “Evolution” am I ever intending to mean “Biological processes which fit within the biblical model of creation by God 6,000 years ago,” or do I intend to mean “A process CONTRARY to the Biblical creation account which supplants the need for a creator God.” If you mean the first, then I suggest it is stupid to use the SAME WORD for all of these things. All that does is reduce the ability to meaningfully discuss things.

        My beef (Where’s the beef?!) is that using “evolution” in all of these ways is like me saying, “Science has PROVEN the possibility of time travel because it has PROVEN the existence of the atom.” Naturally, you will say, “How does the existence of the atom prove time travel possible? That’s silly.” And I will reply, “You’re just complaining because the term “time travel” doesn’t describe the time machine I will build or its functions.” Evolution is NOT an umbrella term, but it is used that way BECAUSE when you apply the actual definition, you must begin to see the absurdity which follows. As I will illuminate that absurdity in coming posts.

      • agnophilo says:

        “Greetings once again. My beef is the fact that evolution refers to a specific, directional process of bio-history whereby ALL living things were supposed to have descended- or rather ascended- from a single celled organism, itself a chemical accident. It is NOT a category!”

        Abiogenesis (the attempt to explain the origins of life) and evolution science (the attempt to explain what happened after) are two very different things, and while universal common ancestry is a part of evolution it is not required that all life have a universal common ancestor. Darwin did not know in his day whether all living things were related or whether there were several separate forms of life all things descended from – we now know only through genetic testing that all living things do share a common ancestry, though it is also possible due to single-celled organisms’ ability to exchange DNA, that life may have arisen multiple times and then blended together somehow or other, so that we have both common and (if you go back far enough) separate lineages. We know that multi-cellular organisms and even humans do incorporate bacteria as part of their anatomy, our cells have mitochondria which are basically bacteria embedded in our cells that extract energy from food for them. So we not only share a common ancestor with prehistoric bacteria, but we are actually part bacteria. This offends many religious people but only because of their preconceptions about humanity and contempt for nature.

        “Changes in life which REDUCE the genetic information, make it less able to survive or less able to reproduce or eventually to go extinct are all, on your definition here EVOLUTION because, in your words,”It refers to all changes undergone by all forms of life.”

        In the broad sense of the word, yes. Evolution is not a ladder from worse to better, it is a process of adaptation. What you are describing is a species failing to adapt in time to survive. I’m not sure what your point is.

        “But obviously THOSE changes will not change bacteria into wolves, moose, cabbages and Oak Trees. It won’t even get a small dinosaur to become a bird. It’ll just kill off the dinosaurs.”

        You seem to be referring to the common and debunked creationist claim that all mutations are harmful and new genetic information or complexity cannot arise – that is not true and I believe I’ve explained as much before. Genetic mutations can and do add, remove, and modify DNA and people are born all the time with bits that are too big or too much or grow too quickly or with more of something than they should have etc, just as they sometimes are born with too few of something. The claim that mutations are one-way and only take away from life is simply a fiction.

        “I have yet to see anyone try to explain how the dinosaurs merely “evolved” into fossils because we all know ‘evolving’ carries a specific intended meaning.”

        What? What do you mean evolved into fossils? If a meteor hit it could easily make humans go extinct. There are many natural disasters that could do so. If that happened it wouldn’t mean squat as far as whether we had evolved prior to that event. Evolution is a process of adaptation, it is not infallible, omniscient or omnipotent.

        “Yet, here and in many other places the definition is watered down until it literally DOES NOT conflict with Biblical creation.”

        Depends what you mean by biblical creation.

        “Darwin stole the idea of Natural Selection from a biblical creationist who published on it years before Origin of Species, yet you will say Natural Selection fits under the umbrella of evolution.”

        It does, it is one of the mechanisms of how life changes. And you’re right the idea of natural selection did not originate with darwin (nor did he pretend it did), he just explained better and more accurately than any of his peers the full effect it had on life.

        “Does this mean evolution IS creation or vice versa?”

        It depends what you mean by those terms. If by creation you simply mean the formation of new things in nature then yes. If you mean literal six day creationism then no. No science is “creation”. Star formation isn’t something that happened once long ago, it’s something that happens every day. The same is true of speciation.

        “Ask yourself this, “When I use the word “Evolution” am I ever intending to mean “Biological processes which fit within the biblical model of creation by God 6,000 years ago,” or do I intend to mean “A process CONTRARY to the Biblical creation account which supplants the need for a creator God.” If you mean the first, then I suggest it is stupid to use the SAME WORD for all of these things. All that does is reduce the ability to meaningfully discuss things.”

        Languages are not invented by committee, they evolve : P But seriously, the word “right” can mean morally right as opposed to wrong, right as in right handed, right as in a civil right, it can refer to the political right and so on and so forth. This is not too confusing however because we can generally figure out what words mean from the context in which they are used, and if not we can ask for clarification. You seem to be taking statements the wrong way, bashing that wrong version of them, and then acting as thought that was what the author meant. Which is like me attacking you for saying anything you do with your hand is morally correct because you said you were “right handed”.

        “My beef (Where’s the beef?!) is that using “evolution” in all of these ways is like me saying, “Science has PROVEN the possibility of time travel because it has PROVEN the existence of the atom.” Naturally, you will say, “How does the existence of the atom prove time travel possible? That’s silly.” And I will reply, “You’re just complaining because the term “time travel” doesn’t describe the time machine I will build or its functions.” Evolution is NOT an umbrella term, but it is used that way BECAUSE when you apply the actual definition, you must begin to see the absurdity which follows. As I will illuminate that absurdity in coming posts.”

        I can’t think of any aspect of biological evolution that hasn’t been supported with loads of predictions and tests.

      • Thanks again for writing in,
        I hope you’re also posting this conversation to YOUR blog, because right now you’re contributing more to my blog than I am. Which I appreciate. I make absolutely no money from this blog, but I’d be glad to give you have of that.

        Anyhoo, if you re-read the above conversation, you have missed the forest for the trees. In short, WHAT do you mean by EVOLUTION? When you claim it is a category and not a term, you are simply mistaken. “Birds” is a category. “Games” is a category. But unless the word Evolution has an actual definition, then how would you use it?

        It’s irrelevant what Darwin did or didn’t know. It’s also irrelevant whether you want to acknowledge a beginning of the first life from chemicals or if you want to jump into evolution AFTER life began. Once you have the first cell, it EVOLVED into all other living things. What does that word MEAN? And if “Evolution” doesn’t mean the same thing- the process by which the first cell changed (Necessarily by increasing genetic information and physical complexity) into all other things, then WHY would you use that word? It’s simply misleading to use the same word to mean so many things. All it does it muddy the waters. Which reminds me, Ian Juby (Canadian Genius) made a video about this very subject and, as usually, covers it a bit better than I do. Check that out, and let me know what you think.

      • agnophilo says:

        Life is complicated, it doesn’t change due to any single mechanism. Evolution is a general term that refers to the various mechanisms that change species. Those mechanisms however have specific names and descriptions, such as genetic mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, speciation, and so on. This is just semantics.

      • It is not semantics to ask for a definition to a word. This is key to understanding MANY of the points you have made about evolution, and certainly any of mine. Your definition above is, like the ones I object to on the Berkley Web site, too weak to be useful. You cannot argue against creationism on this definition because creationism DOES NOT TEACH that all life is IDENTICAL to the life God first created. No creationist in the world will try and argue that ALL life has been generation after generation of clones since the beginning. Once again, if you are going to say, “Evolution is a fact,” And “Biblical Creation is wrong,” then you HAVE to come up with a better definition of “evolution,” otherwise your two statements are not compatible. Certainly the second does not follow even if the first is true. I can easily say “Biblical Creation is TRUE and Natural Selection happens,” but on your definition above, I have just said, “Biblical Creation is TRUE and Evolution happens.” If this is really what you believe, then where is the debate? And if not, then WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “EVOLUTION”?

        For the rest of my readers, I’ll explain it again: Once evolution has been properly defined, MANY of the statements made against young earth creationists become OBVIOUSLY ridiculous. For instance, if we REALLY settle on this definition given above, then “To reject the various mechanisms that change species is to reject ALL OF MODERN SCIENCE.” To use the specific names, “To reject genetic drift is to reject the big bang model,” or “To reject speciation is to reject the laws of thermodynamics.” But as you will see in following posts, statements made in defense of evolution are just as ridiculous once the terms is properly defined.

      • agnophilo says:

        “It is not semantics to ask for a definition to a word. This is key to understanding MANY of the points you have made about evolution, and certainly any of mine. Your definition above is, like the ones I object to on the Berkley Web site, too weak to be useful.”

        I don’t understand why you’re angry, being pissed about a sentence not being what you want it to be is like being angry at the weather. An introductory paragraph about a complex scientific subject is pretty much by definition going to be pretty general. An introduction to geology would be like “well first the earth is made up of an outer layer called a ‘crust’…” to bash it for not explaining the specific chemical and elemental composition of earth’s crust in the very first sentence would be unreasonable. To explain anything complex you have to lay the basic groundwork and explain the basic concepts first. If you want expert-level specifics why are you reading what amounts to evolution for dummies?

        “You cannot argue against creationism on this definition because creationism DOES NOT TEACH that all life is IDENTICAL to the life God first created. No creationist in the world will try and argue that ALL life has been generation after generation of clones since the beginning.”

        Actually that is the very definition of special creation, the idea that living things were created in their present state. Modern creationists tend to bend on this issue because even common sense tells us that life is not static, but even a few years ago creationists very frequently claimed that, for instance, all mutations were harmful, not allowing for any change beyond birth defects. The language of this argument is still found in many creationist websites, though the claims have been amended.

        “Once again, if you are going to say, “Evolution is a fact,” And “Biblical Creation is wrong,” then you HAVE to come up with a better definition of “evolution,” otherwise your two statements are not compatible. Certainly the second does not follow even if the first is true.”

        That life changes over time and has changed a great deal over the last few billion years and that there were once only single-celled organisms followed by the appearance of gradually more complex organisms and eventually mammals, primates and humans and that every modern species shares a common ancestry and that natural selection is an important mechanism in how life changes are all demonstrable, testable facts. And that life was created in it’s present form or that the universe, life, planet earth, every star, galaxies etc are all approximately the same age is demonstrably false.

        “I can easily say “Biblical Creation is TRUE and Natural Selection happens,” but on your definition above, I have just said, “Biblical Creation is TRUE and Evolution happens.” If this is really what you believe, then where is the debate? And if not, then WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “EVOLUTION”?”

        I already answered this before, I said evolution is a general term and if you want to speak in more specific terms then fine. I also stated briefly what is true about natural history in my opinion in more specific terms so if you’re still unhappy then I can’t help you.

        “For the rest of my readers, I’ll explain it again: Once evolution has been properly defined, MANY of the statements made against young earth creationists become OBVIOUSLY ridiculous. For instance, if we REALLY settle on this definition given above, then “To reject the various mechanisms that change species is to reject ALL OF MODERN SCIENCE.” To use the specific names, “To reject genetic drift is to reject the big bang model,” or “To reject speciation is to reject the laws of thermodynamics.” But as you will see in following posts, statements made in defense of evolution are just as ridiculous once the terms is properly defined.”

        This is a strawman statement, I don’t think anybody says these things. Creationists are sometimes described as being hostile to science in general but that is because many of them openly are. They attack ideas like deep time which are by no means limited to the field of biology, they attack cosmology, geology, physics, pretty much all of the natural sciences. They also often portray science itself as evil, vilify scientists etc. I can give numerous examples of all of these from mainstream creationist and ID sources. There is also the quote to which you may be alluding that says something like nothing makes sense in biology except in light of evolution, or evolution is the backbone of biology etc.

      • I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but I feel compelled to interrupt the debate with a little critique: You continually respond to things I have not said, and miss the point of what I have said. A LOT of this feels not so much like you are trying to debate me as much as you are merely trying to pick a fight.
        First, I have NOT asked for EXPERT LEVEL SPECIFICS. I have asked for a useful definition of the word “Evolution.” I’ve even asked you what YOU Mean when YOU use the word, and you have failed to answer me over and over. To use your own example: “Geology is the science comprising the study of solid Earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and the processes by which they change.” This is a definition and you need go no further than Wikipedia to get it. I don’t know where you got the idea that I was asking for EXPERT LEVEL SPECIFICS, but it was not from me, as I have used the word “Definition” over and over.

        I ask again, “WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “EVOLUTION”?”
        And you reply: “I already answered this before, I said evolution is a general term and if you want to speak in more specific terms then fine.” You have NOT answered this, as you have provided no useful definition with which to clarify your own use of the word. You’ve said, “Evolution is a general term that refers to the various mechanisms that change species.” The same could be said of “Death,” or “Disease,” or even “Genetic Entropy.” Do you not see that your definition is not clear enough to separate evolution from anything else? Or do you not know that evolution cannot be merely ANY change that happens to ANY population? Surely you must know the evolutionary dogma at least this well, so why then do you refuse to answer this very simple question?

        Further in your reply you accuse of me of making a Straw Man argument when I merely quote you back at you with some clarifications, which I got from you. Keep in mind that you have said, essentially “To reject evolution is to reject all of modern science.” I merely replaced the word “Evolution” with what you suggested it is, and the term “Modern Science” with an example of a random part of modern science:

        Me: To reject speciation [one of “the various mechanisms that change species”] is to reject the laws of thermodynamics [part of “All of modern science”].”
        You: This is a strawman statement, I don’t think anybody says these things. Creationists are sometimes described as being hostile to science in general but that is because many of them openly are.
        1. I am not suggesting anyone says these things verbatim. I am suggesting that if you define “evolution” the way you (or Berkley) have, the original statement, once defined BY YOU becomes ridiculous. I am merely replacing a word with the definition you gave it. This is Reductio ad Absurdum, not a straw man. You’ve ENTIRELY missed the point I was making, which was to clarify to you the point you had made with the vague definition you provided. I’m not putting words in your mouth, I am merely telling you what you said to me.
        2. Do you see how you then immediately changed the subject? Who said anything about Creationists being hostile to science? That comes entirely out of left field. And what examples can you possibly give to defend such an assertion? I assume you are using the terms “science” and “evolution” equivocally again, otherwise this is GROSSLY wrong, seeing how most of the modern science you refer to was founded by and still done by young earth creationists. Even if there was a scrap of truth in this, it is COMPLETELY besides ANY point which was being made and I do not know why you chose to bring it up. It’s like you’re just tossing hand grenades.
        3. This is almost ironic when, in the same reply, you try to tell me that creationists believe that ALL LIFE has been CLONES of the previous generations for all of history (In your words, “that is the very definition of special creation”), when there has NEVER been a creationist in all the world who has said so, and I defy you to quote me one who has. Not even Linnaeus who, early in his career, thought species were the created kinds. THAT, my friend, is an actually Straw Man. At least I hope it is, for it doesn’t say much for your understanding of my position if it is not.

        You’ve done this on other posts as well. Over on Objective Moral Values, my ENTIRE POINT is that no evil can be condemned as evil on the atheist world view. There is, to quote Dawkins, “only blind, pitiless indifference.” I use Hitler seeking to kill most of the human race as a generally accepted evil because most people will still agree that what the Nazis did was bad. Far from debating this point, you toss out the idea that Hitler was a Christian which, even if it WERE true, does NOTHING to answer my main point-which is that your world view CANNOT condemn him, even if you personally wish to do so.

        Then I explained how JESUS and the BIBLE define what a Christian is, and where as you are more than willing to take Hitler at his word and call him a Christian, you refuse to take Jesus at HIS word and accept what Jesus said a follower of Jesus would be. This is absurd that you choose to decide who is a Christian based on the words of Hitler OVER the words of Christ. How do you decide who is a Muslim? Do you reject the opinions of Mohammad and the Koran over the proclamation of politicians on this as well? Once again, I cannot believe you REALLY think so, but you are merely arguing to “WIN” as if we are in a competition of some kind.

        And then you try to equate Jesus with Hitler by saying that Jesus condemning the religious hypocrites of his day verbally was THE SAME THING as Hitler saying the Jews were a poison which he attempted to slaughter until extinct. This is so ignorant that I don’t know where to start, and I am hoping you, at SOME level know that this is wrong. I can’t imagine ANYONE making this gross an error, and thus I shall assume you are arguing merely to argue which, while annoying and pointless, is at least not as self-incriminating. Again, I have to believe that this is you simply arguing to argue or trying to pick a fight, and not your actual opinion, as I cannot believe ANYONE is ignorant enough to state such things, even in modern America.

        Furthermore, you agree with my propositions that you know right from wrong, and you KNOW good and evil exist (you stated clearly that you know kindness is good and cruelty bad), but when I try and get you to address the central point of the blog post you chose to comment on, which is that atheism has no philosophical grounds on which to condemn anything as evil, you divert your answer to your refusal to use religiously weighted words like “Sin,” which is COMPLETELY besides the point. The point is not, would you call cruelty “sin” but WHY would you condemn cruelty at all? How can you, an atheist, say ANYTHING is good or bad, right or wrong, or whatever terms you choose to label them? I AM NOT ASKING WHAT LABELS YOU USE OR DO NOT USE. If you read what I wrote you would already understand that.

        Over on my post about nature showing design and thus, a designer, you bring up Thor and Zeus, neither of which I attempt to defend as real, and neither of which relates to the main point of the article at all. While you are probably trying to raise the question of WHO the designer is, 1. That is a secondary issue to the fact that design needs a designer, and 2. There is no way to try and argue that Zeus or Thor are even in the running as contenders. This is a red herring and one which I note you made no attempt to defend, making it little better than goading. If you wish to debate, then present a contrary position and some reasons. If you’re trying to pick a fight I am not interested.

        Your want to jump topics so much and avoid the actual topics you chose to comment on lead me to think you either need to take more time to read what you are replying to, or you are arguing merely to argue, which is not a worthwhile use of my time, it is a Monty Python skit (And a classic to be sure, but my point remains). And you make so many blanket assertions which, due to their nature BADLY need defending, but you do not, and so it seems that you are merely practicing cheap debating techniques to try to WIN at any cost instead of conversing so that truth can win the day. Let me end with the point of this critique. If you’re going to write to me, then write about the things I have actually said, not things you imagine I have said, or just whatever topics you decide to bring up regardless of the actual conversation. If you are going to write without considering what questions I have asked or what points I have made, then do that on your own blog. If you wish to debate, then present a contrary position and some reasons. If you’re trying to pick a fight I am not interested.
        I remain your obedient servent,
        Rent a Friend 2000

      • agnophilo says:

        And by the way I have never found a criticism of evolution that couldn’t be debunked (and usually they’re complete rubbish). Feel free to throw some at me and see if they hold water.

      • How about I just keep posting and you point out where I present false information or use poor logic? In the mean time, I would really suggest Ian Juby over at youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/wazooloo
        He’s a member of mensa, a robotics engineer, and a bit more fun to watch than the kids over at ICR or CMI.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

A Bit of Orange

Biblical Apologetics made Friendly

Reluctantly Aging

One man’s futile struggle against inevitability

A Bit of Orange

Biblical Apologetics Made Friendly

RaF Ministries News

What's new at Rent-A-Friend Ministries

Bible Science Forum

Creation Evolution Cosmology

Superhero etc.

ALL THINGS SUPERHEROES

Creation Science 4 Kids

creation science worded for all of us

christian ammunition

He that dasheth in pieces is come up before thy face: keep the munition...fortify thy power mightily--NAHUM 2:1

Surprised by Logic

Logic for the ordinary Joe and Jane

WordPress.com

WordPress.com is the best place for your personal blog or business site.

Rent-A-Friend 2000's Biblical Thinking and Good Times!

Part of the Creation Soapbox Apologetics Ministry

%d bloggers like this: