Response from Timothy Wallace:
Glad to hear from you again. And again, my response...
>>Exactly, which is why an attempt at a scientific explanation based solely upon a book of unknown and questionable origin is beyond all possibility. Criticize the bias in evolutionary theory if you like, but don't propose that a theory based upon a religion is superior.<<
I must assume that you refer to the Bible. Now I must ask:
1) What steps have you taken to determine that the origin of this book is both
of unknown and questionable origin?
2) Which portion of my essay (please cite the text) which finds its basis in
>>Not at all. I'm an agnostic simply because I cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a god. I'm interested in understanding things based upon principles that can be demonstrated. Religious/philosophical views do not affect that in any way.<<
How do you know that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god? What
measures have you taken to determine this? What criteria qualify as proof (or even evidence) in one direction or the other?
>>No; humans are biased, nonpristine, subjective things. True science is infallible and beyond criticism.<<
Those are some pretty big words! You treat science as if it were an entity all its own - even something of a perfect "god" - yet science is the product of human endeavor, is it not? How do you so boldly arrive at a science that is "infallible and beyond criticism" when it comes from the hands and minds of "biased, nonpristine, subjective" humans?
>>The unbased dismissal of science as nothing more than an alternative religion, when you should be criticizing the bias of specific individuals, is mud-slinging.<<
I can only assume that with these words you mean to accuse me of "dismissing science as nothing more than an alternative religion." You'll have to cite that portion of my text which you interpret as such before I'll be willing to address such an accusation. I have neither a need nor a desire to "dismiss" genuine science; it is a valuable and noble aspect of human activity, and I have said as much already in previous posts.
>>You do not have a scientific theory...<<
I don't? How (and by what right and criteria) do you dismiss scientific creationism as a scientific theory?
...And you DO? How (and by what right and criteria) do you qualify evolutionism as a scientific theory?
>>...You have a religious belief.<<
And you DON'T? It is a matter of human nature that EVERYONE has his religious beliefs - even an atheist. You say yourself that people are biased and subjective (see above). So how have you come to be convinced that your own bias and your own subjectivity (let alone your RELIGIOUS bias and subjectivity) in no way affect your perception of the empirical data of science?
The Origins Issue is outside of Science. It is Not Science versus Faith, but
faith in man versus faith in God. IF one wants to believe in evolution, one is
free to do so, but it is misleading others to represent one's Faith as Science
and discount all other faiths.
In any case, Science cannot give us true knowledge. Science knowledge is always
tentative, never arriving at the truth, always superceded by newer experiences.
The only way to know real Truth is from someone who is perfect and knows
everything perfectly, and that is God.
The entire issue (as you have perhaps unwittingly demonstrated) is Religious and
Not Science versus Religion. Evolution is an attempt to explain the origin of
the universe without resorting to God.
>>I'm sorry you misunderstood my statement. I still believe your assertions are incorrect, as well as insulting to science, but I should not have attacked you personally because of that.<<
Thanks for clarifying that. (And there's that deity - "Science" - again, whom I have apparently insulted?)
>>A scientific and philosophical account of man through a history-based understanding of God and his purpose is impossible.<<
In what class did you learn this profundity? The truth is not something that can be compartmentalized or locked up in the "history" cabinet, and thus kept entirely out of the "science" and "philosophy" cabinets. If there is ANY truth, it will prove true in EVERY field of knowledge and understanding which it touches.
>>You cannot combine the two in any way and preserve objectivity.<<
You'll have to explain that one.
>>Once again, you are wrong. An understanding of evolution requires no suspension of disbelief. There is objective evidence to support the theory...<<
Such as...?? I invite you (again) to take this discussion to a place of genuine meaning in terms of science by citing the "evidence" which you believe to be unequivocally in support of evolutionism.
>>There are only gospels to support yours.<<
My what? My theory? Well, if that's what you really believe (and I do mean "believe"), then you betray a shameful ignorance of the literature of creation science. No wonder you don't believe I have a "scientific" theory. You can't possibly expect me to believe that you have objectively examined this issue after you claim the only thing creation science has going for it are "gospels."
I think it is only fair to ask at this point what exactly it is that you have done to make sure that your belief in evolutionism is right, and that my belief in creationism is wrong?
>>Evolution might be wrong, but it requires proof to change the accepted theory...<<
I reiterate my request that you first offer unequivocal evidence that it is right. You have no business demanding that I prove a theory wrong unless and until you can produce some compelling, unequivocal evidence that you have something worth disproving.
>>I do not believe in evolution; I can see numerous objective discoveries which are explained by this theory...<<
You can repeat these claims as often as you like, but my response will be the same: Kindly iterate these discoveries, and kindly demonstrate how their evolutionistic explanations are unequivocal.
>>I can see no such things resulting from religion, or a history-based study of the life of Jesus and his intent for man.<<
Again you flaunt your ignorance. My essay doesn't rely on ANY "study of the life of Jesus" nor ANY direct reference to the Bible in particular nor religion in general. You seem to have read someone else's essay.
>>No, of course not, but I have not seen any objective evidence to support creationism...<<
Where have you looked?
>>I have seen things to support evolution...<<
(Again) They are...?
>>I believe that evolution is the best available explanation at present.<<
And this is based on what personal research? What evidence?
>>I have read the Bible and numerous writings concerning it, in addition to many other religious and philosophical works. I have never seen anything objective or scientific in any of them. This doesn't mean they're wrong, but it does mean they are subjective and an inadequate base for further modern scientific inquiry.<<
Your logical fallacies are showing:
You assume that because you've never seen anything objective or scientific in the Bible, therefore the Bible contains nothing objective or scientific. That's faulty logic, friend.
You assume that because you've never seen anything objective or scientific in the Bible, therefore it is subjective and inadequate for scientific inquiry. That's more faulty logic, friend.
You haven't exactly qualified yourself as one who should be expected to discern objective or scientific matters in the first place, so you can scarcely claim the right to determine - objectively - what qualifies as objective, subjective, scientific, or adequate for modern scientific inquiry.
>>In addition, I would contend that your arguments against the established base of evidence upon which evolutionary theory is based is a standard religious indoctrination-level justification for dismissing science and all it explains, based on absolutely no personal objective, in-depth research whatsoever.<<
Once again, I challenge you to demonstrate where and how I have sought to "dismiss science."
Once again, I challenge you to produce even a PORTION of the "established base of evidence" that you are convinced is unequivocal and compelling.
And on exactly what basis do you make the arrogant claim that I have done "absolutely no personal objective, in-depth research whatsoever"??
>>That resembles mud-slinging. Now the only question that remains is whether you encourage it as well?<<
Mud-slinging is: "you are more than brainwashed; you are delusional. Have fun in your little world of denial and ignorance ... polluting young minds with drivel like you have written...insane ramblings..."
A comment that you "missed" my pointagaindoesn't exactly "resemble" quite the same thing, now, does it?
>>Perhaps in your readings you missed the repeated conflicts between established religious doctrine and scientific fact throughout history (Galileo and Copernicus come to mind). However, that was the result of a political church attempting to protect it's own theories (which were not based on objective evidence). However, these theories were based upon the Bible initially, so Biblical Christianity has been in conflict with religion. Perhaps you have a new interpretation which is not, but either way, I cannot see how an objective view could be based upon subjective evidence.<<
If you said all that in order to make an actual point, then you'll have to clarify it for me before I can respond. (Of course I am aware of historical conflicts, and of course I am aware that the Church was involved in conflicts, and of course I am aware that at various times various people have used the Bible to "support" their beliefs - even scientific beliefs... ...And? )
>>There is no possible way to empirically discredit creationism, as it is not an objective view.<<
Huh? Perhaps you can explain your logic...
>>Flood stories pre-date the Bible...<<
Oh? Please explain.
>>...and the existence of Jesus Christ is entirely possible.<<
How kind of you.
>>However, regardless of whether this did happen, it in no way supports religious views objectively.<<
Again, you'll have to do better than that.
>>Such as? Thermodynamics? If you believe so, you are wrong. They [evolutionism and thermodynamics] are not in conflict.<<
Again, please explain.
>>We aren't dealing with something very simple here. There are still many ambiguous elements, but there is not any evidence which suggests the theory is completely off base...<<
No? Well then there should be no problem citing the evidence which suggests the theory is ON base, should there? Please do so.
>>...Most theories evolve (Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics) and it is likely evolution will do the same...<<
Evolutionism has indeed already evolved considerably, or it never would have survived as long as it has.
>>All of the conflicts which have arisen are easily accounted with revisions in evolutionary theory.<<
Yes indeed, like billion-year "corrections" to previously "established" time scales, like circular reasoning as a survival mechanism for the tottering trio: evolutionist geology, evolutionist paleontology, and radiometric dating...
>>The objective historical elements of the Bible should be rationally resolved with any theory, of course. However, Genesis is not objective as there is no evidence to suggest that it is historical.<<
No? When is the last time you cracked open an archeology book? There has been a steady INCREASE over the years, and today there is more evidence than ever before suggesting the historicity of the Genesis record. Your claim is entirely unfounded and based on ignorance. (I will be happy to point you towards several URLs and/or publications documenting the historicity of the Genesis record upon request.)
>>No, but objectivity is [a requisite attribute of science], and religion is not [a requisite attribute of science].<<
Objectivity is certainly desirable, but (again) in your own words: "humans are biased, nonpristine, subjective things" ...so there's no guarantee of objectivity, no matter what your beliefs are.
And (again) we ALL have our religious beliefs, and (again) there's no guarantee that "biased, nonpristine, subjective" people can divest themselves 100% of those beliefs as they approach the empirical data produced by science.
>>Yes [I can honestly say that I have conducted my examination of the creationist perspective with as much objectivity as I am able...studying the various claims personally to the best of my ability, and/or researching the published support and/or criticisms from qualified practitioners and/or respected authorities in the appropriate disciplines, and I do not subscribe to the bias of my choice because of ignorance concerning the opposing point of view]...<<
The balance of your comments make this "honest" claim extremely difficult to swallow, as you have yet to go beyond generalities and ideological patter to address the particulars of a scientific discipline, apparently prefering to make sweeping generalizations and indefensible claims.
>>...and I know that the truly historical elements of the Bible are not in conflict with evolution, while those that are have no historical basis.<<
I see. And how have you come to "know" which elements of the Bible are "truly historical" and which ones are not?
>>All of these are demonstrable. If I have doubt of their validity, I am capable of proving that these are true. Can you say the same of Genesis?<<
You're ignoring my point again: You trust that these "facts" are "true" WITHOUT having firsthand experiential knowledge of them. I was responding to your pretense that observation were the only source of knowledge.
There is obviously plenty of evidence indicating to your satisfaction that the things I suggested are "true facts" without your having made the necessary observations to confirm them personally. You accept them as "knowledge" without having observed them, based on the evidence.
Likewise, the historical, literary, archeological, and other evidence supporting the historicity and scientific validity of the Genesis record has steadily GROWN over the years (and continues to do so), while evidence allegedly disputing that record has dwindled. Without directly observing the events cited in that record, one is faced today with an ever greater basis for accepting the record as reliable and true.
>>Any knowledge which I doubt and I can confirm.<<
Please demonstrate. You say, "I know that the truly historical elements of the Bible are not in conflict with evolution, while those that are have no historical basis." Kindly show how you propose to "confirm" this knowledge.
>>...Knowing how genes are inherited is useful in a practical sense, while knowing God is not...<<
Is this another statement of "knowledge" which you are able to confirm? Unless you can claim to have known God personally, your statement is (yet another) logical fallacy, for you use the absence of a specific personal relationship as a basis for dismissing such a relationship as useless.
>>I am making the point that regardless of God's existence or will, it is not helpful in understanding things objectively, and thus not useful practically in application. God's love is entirely useless when trying to devise high-temperature superconductors, for instance.<<
Again, you are arguing from ignorance, claiming that because you don't know personally of God's existence and will, therefore such knowledge is not useful.
[The words of Christ speak to this: "Seek and you shall find ... If any man is
willing to do His will, he will know whether the teaching is of God, or whether
I speak from myself ... To him who has shall more be given, but to him who
doesn't have, even what he has shall be taken away"]
>>A lovely example of why creationism is useless. What exactly is subjective, nonhistorical quote supposed to prove?<<
This has nothing to do with creationism; it has to do with the Living God's promise that if you really want to know Him personally, He will know it and He will reveal Himself to you; that if you want to know what the truth about His will is, you must be willing to do it.
You can call this stuff "useless" all you want, but it is an empty assertion as long as you have made no personal effort to investigate it.
>>Here you express your ignorance of genetics. A mutational change is not necessarily an error. It can often cause beneficial changes to an organism. For instance, a mutational change causes the slight modification of a protein in ribosomes (which build proteins in cells) and thus makes it unsusceptible to a specific variety of anitbiotics...<<
... but only at the expense of information loss (an ERROR), which weakens the mutant variety as a whole. The only reason it thrives is because it's all that's left after the normal organism has been killed off by the specific antibiotic. But don't just take my word for it:
Francisco Ayala, "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, vo. 239 (Sept.1978), pp. 56-69: "A mutation can be considered an ERROR in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein." (emphasis added)
Theodosius Dobzhansky, "On the Methods of Evolutionary Biology," American Scientist, vol. 45 (Dec. 1957), pp. 381-392: "On the contrary, the mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, DELETERIOUS to their carriers... Therefore the mutation process alone, not CORRECTED and guided [sic] by natural selection, would result in DEGENERATION and EXTINCTION." (emphasis added)
Christopher Wills, "Genetic Load," Scientific American, vol. 222 (Mar. 1970), pp. 98-107: "...Any increase in the mutational load is harmful, if not immediately, then certainly to future generations."
>>Mutation creates genetic diversity, and the ability of those changes to allow an organism to survive and/or thrive in an environment is what leads to change.<<
While genetic mutations can contribute to genetic diversity, they are NOT the main source of that diversity - it is contained within the genetic material itself, not caused by mutations. But don't just take my word for it:
Francisco Ayala, "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, vo. 239 (Sept.1978), pp. 56-69: "It therefore seems clear that, contraray to Darwin's conception, MOST of the genetic variation in populations arises NOT FROM NEW MUTATIONS... Indeed RECOMBINATION ALONE is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input." (emphasis added)
Motoo Kimura, "Population Genetics and Molecular Evolution," Johns Hopkins Medical Journal, vol. 138 (Jun. 1976), pp. 253-261: "...Examples showing that negative selection is at work to eliminate variants produced by mutation abound. ...Elimination of deviants to keep the status quo...is the most common type of natural selection..."
Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution (Canbridge: Harvard University Press, 1970), pp. 8-9: "RECOMBINATION is by far the MOST IMPORTANT source of genetic variation, that is, of material for natural selection." (emphasis added)
>>Over a long period of time this leads to a wide variety of organisms, speciation...<<
This is mere conjecture. You are spouting extrapolated evolutionist theory here, not observed facts of genetic science.
>>I suggest you read some things concerning chaotic systems. Highly complex (apparently random) states result from simple starting conditions, and from this complex system, highly ordered properties exhibit themselves.<<
Will do. Meanwhile, please see the January 1998 Feedback page of my site for a
discussion on GAs.
>>And Genesis is more reasonable?...<<
Genesis at least has plenty of corroborating evidence.
>>Evolution is a slow process....<<
That depends very much on which evolutionist is talking, now doesn't it? (Read any Stephen Jay Gould lately?)
>>The only way this can be shown is with computer modeling, due to the time frame. However, the models do not imply any intelligent addition to the system, as the model is basic, but complex, and order results from it.<<
Sorry, but there's no way a "computer model" will pass for a completely random process. Not gonna happen. If this is the "only way" to validate the notion of biological evolution, then it can't be done by an entirely natural, random, unguided process - and so it is not what it is claimed to be.
>>The computer model represents this complex system, which would and has developed on its own with enough time.<<
There ISN'T "enough time" - even in the currently suggested scenario. But don't just take my word for it:
Louis Lafont, review of "Chance and Caertainty: Evolution in the Light of Modern Biology" by Georges Salet, "Permanences," no. 94 (Nov. 1972): "In other words, for a given event, there is a probability-limit, below which one may be certain that this event will NEVER occur within a fixed time limit ... the geological eras in question would have to be milliards of times longer than even the most generous estimates make them...for the 'mutation-selection' mechanism to have produced even a single new organ."
Hubert Yockey, "Self-Organization of Life Scenarios and Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology, vo. 91 (1981), pp. 13-31: "...The information content of amino acids sequences cannot increase until a genetic code with an adaptor function has appeared. Nothing which even vaguely resembles a code exists in the physico-chemical world. One must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of the origin of life exists at present."
Fritjof Capra, "The Web of Life" (New York: Anchor Books, 1996), p.228: "It has been estimated that those chance errors occur at a rate of about one per several hundred million cells in each generation. This frequency does not seem sufficient to explain the evolution of the great diversity of life forms, given the well-known fact that most mutations are harmiful and only very few result in variations."
>>Evolutionist. This is an example from molecular genetics. We are all very similar, and evolution is very clearly demonstrated through the comparison of these gradual changes in genes. The "Eve Hypothesis" is the result of extreme similarity between all human mitochondrial DNA. The branching between races implies a common source of mitochondrial DNA for all humans. Basically, it says that we are all the descendants of a small group of woman...<<
Basically, it says that we are all descended from ONE woman (no conflict between empirical science and Genesis here!).
>>...and our subsequent evolution...<<
Now you're switching back to speculative conjecture again. The genetic data says nothing about evolution - it has to be assumed and piggy-backed onto the facts.
>>...DNA shows the branching between species, indicating that all life probably came from only a few initial cells.<<
Again, pure speculation. Those who advance the various "branching" theories have based their ideas on evolutionist presuppositions in the first place, so the whole concept is "proven" via circular reasoning. Besides this they don't all agree with each other (and the concept itself is far from unanimously accepted by the scientific community at large). If their theories were based solely on genetic data alone, there shouldn't be any error or speculation involved, but there IS diagreement among them, because each proponent is using a different biological attribute as a basis for his respective scenario.
>>Chaos is inherent in complex systems and from this order arises. It is not a claim; it is demonstrable. Chaotic systems have inherent order. Examples include snowflakes, organic compounds from primordial soup, society, consciousness, etc.<<
Concerning snowflakes, please re-read the thermodynamics section of my essay (or the one on thermodynamics). As for your claim in general that "chaos is inherent in complex systems and from this order arises," you'll have to do much more than say so to make a convincing argument. "Organic compounds from primordeal soup" is nothing more than a speculative scenario - a matter both unknown and unknowable. As for your allusion to Social Darwinism, I should remind you that this is where Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union had their roots (e.g., Hitler relied heavily on Darwinian termonology in "Mein Kampf" and Marx offered to dedicate "Das Kapital" to Darwin, but was declined), the ugly, inevitable consequences of unbridled practice of Social Darwinism being the outcome of these.
...and consciousness is a demonstrable example of "chaos inherent in complex systems" and "chaotic systems having inherent order"??? Do tell!
>>From our ability to observe the reactions occuring in the brain, most of its action is "apparently random". My argument is that it is not...<<
You haven't demonstrated or explained this so-called "apparent randomness" of brain activity - in fact you now jump ahead of yourself to argue that it "is not" random. Please explain.
>>...We can't predict what it will do... This is a perfect example of order from complexity.<<
Again, you are arguing from ignorance: "Because we don't know, can't predict, it must be random." Then you jump (again) from a logical fallacy to a completely unconnected conclusion - "order from complexity" ...you certainly sound convinced yourself, but you seem to have left logic (and me) far behind.
>>Perhaps it is unlikely that is should have occurred, but as long as there is the possibility, it cannot be denied on the statistical improbability. In the proper conditions, life might be a very common occurence.<<
You're reaching. This is no evidence; it's wishful thinking.
>>It is absurd to assume that a being must have caused everything.<<
ONLY if you start with the presupposition of atheism - and in which case you have fallen victim to another case of circular reasoning.
>>What caused the being?<<
Another atheist question. God, by definition, is the First Cause, and nothing exists beyond Him. To presume to have such comprehensive understanding and exhaustive knowledge as to so question the existence or character of God is an act of immeasurable pride and arrogance.
>>For all I know, God may be the collective consciousness of the Universe, but regardless, it isn't knowable...<<
It's not? How do you "know" that it isn't knowable? (Is this still more of that "knowledge" that you are able to "confirm" at will?)
>>The question is not whether there is a God, but how did things happen in the realm we can understand and utilize.<<
That depends on who is asking, and whether he is interested in the truth, or just wants to substantiate his beliefs with a collection of "God-free" data that helps him explain as much as possible without facing the thought that he is a created being and not just an autonomous, amoral, random "accident."
>>No, once again you misconstrue or ignore scientific evidence to the contrary. The idea of order from complexity seems contradictory to the laws of thermodynamics, but it does occur. Therefore, it must not be.<<
Another logical fallacy (I'm really getting tired of these!): You presume evolution to be true; you acknowledge that it contradicts thermodynamics; you award yourself the freedom to say the facts "must not be" facts, based solely on your initial presumption.
>>Perhaps an ordered state is lower energy than a complex system, which is not disordered by any means. What we consider to be highly ordered may be less ordered than the complex system it originates. However, it happens, so there must be an explanation...<<
Again you have said nothing. You're reaching for a "perhaps," a "may be," a "there must be an explanation..." But there isn't one.
>>There is evidence to support evolution in an observable timescale.<<
Please cite and describe this "evidence".
>>There is evidence to indicate all life on this planet developed from a single origin. There are mechanisms to explain how this occured.<<
Please cite and describe this "evidence" and (especially) these "mechanisms".
>>There are currently no other objective and scientific theories which account for this evidence.<<
Yes there is. The data fits the creation model as well as - nay, better than - the evolution model. This is why I invite you to talk about the data, and not just the general theoretical nonsense. You've tried genetics; how about the fossil record, geology in general, radiometric dating, or pick one yourself. If you have studied the creation model as thoroughly and objectively as you claim to have done, perhaps you'd prefer to cite a few cases in which the data simply contradicts that model. That would be really saying something.
>>What do you mean what evidence?<<
Exactly what I said. You can say "evidence" all day, but you have yet to cite anything compelling or unequivocal.
>>I have qualified these statements, as have many others. There is evidence to support these statements. You are unwilling to acknowledge this evidence.<<
There you go again. I will happily acknowledge your evidence if you will just start describing the evidence itself in detail, instead of promising that it's "out there" somewhere.
>>You take all of the evidence available and distort it, whether out of ignorance or intent, I do not know. You do this on every topic...<<
These are bold accusations, which you have not substantiated. I suggest you begin citing, explaining and correcting my "distortions" - or withdraw your (otherwise bogus) claim.
>>You claim adaptation in organisms is due to elements existing within a gene pool, but the diversity of the gene pool is the result of mutational change...<<
You have asserted this fallacy more than once. I have shown both above and in my original essay that evolutionist authorities don't seem to share your dogmatic beliefs, and I have offered detailed explanations as to why. Your persistence in parroting your belief as if doing so negates what I have presented is a poor reflection on your alleged objectivity and a betrayal of an apparently limited knowledge of the subject. If you won't go to the trouble to cite corroborating documentation and/or offer a more detailed explanation as to why your assertion is a true and thorough refutation of my position, then kindly refrain from further repetitions, for they alone are not convincing.
>>You claim thermodynamics prevents the order we represent, but the presence of the sun as well as the complexity from which we arose account for that.<<
Please document this claim - or withdraw it. (And again, please see my paragraph immediately above.)
>>Now rather than simply defend evolution...<<
So soon you've abandoned a defense??? If the evidence is so abundant and obvious, you should have no trouble citing item after item of unequivocal, compelling evidence to which I should have no answer or alternative creationist explanation. Why do you decline so soon to deal with the facts??
>>...I must ask how you can possibly consider the historical study of the bible as an objective alternative?<<
Alternative to what?
>>A literal interpretation of the bible's events is easily contradicted by simple scientific observation...<<
>>...and a metaphorical interpretation is obviously not objective. How can that be the basis of an objective study?<<
I don't advocate a "metaphorical interpretation" - you'll have to ask someone who does, if you want an answer to your question.
I must caution you: I have no problem maintaining a friendly dialog based on honesty, logic, reason, and a genuine willingness to examine one another's viewpoints as objectively as possible. However, I will not long entertain endless strings of arguments based on logical fallacies, unfounded accusations, and sweeping generalizations. Telling me how wrong I am is meaningless unless you are willing to demonstrate the validity of your claim without resorting to circular reasoning and faulty logic. Bold, baseless, one-sentence dismissals are inadequate, inappropriate, and arrogant.
If you would truly like to continue this dialog, I suggest that you dispense with these smokescreens and start dealing directly with the evidence you seem to think is so abundant. My "Five Misconceptions" essay deals accurately with the empirical facts of science in the areas which it discusses. The "Thermodynamics" essay takes that topic even further. It is a waste of my time for you to repeat the same fallacies which I have already addressed in those essays. You could make further dialog worthwhile by introducing some relevant data that either proves me wrong, proves evolutionism right, or both. Otherwise, you'll do us both a favor by concentrating on your schoolwork.