From: 69jpil69@gmail.com
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 01:07:16 +1100, MarkE wrote:
>On 11/12/2025 3:23 am, RonO wrote:
>> All the existing species could not have fit onto the Ark and be fed and
>> cared for, for a year by 8 people. The AIG even want extinct kinds on
>> the Ark, and they just claim that they did not survive or evolved into
>> something else. Whales have the breath of life, but they did not make
>> it onto the Ark, but the AIG think that ambulocetus was on the Ark.
>> Ambulocetus is the four legged cetacean (the walking whale).
>
>This is a fundamental issue. For example, as you know, Behe (and other
>ID proponents I think) accept some degree of common descent. So even
>just within ID there's not a consensus position.
What you describe above is *not* common descent as science uses the
term. Common descent means common descent of *all* life on Earth.
It's deceptive to use the same term to refer to ideas that presume
separate ancestry.
>Taking a meta-view for a moment, it seems that someone on either side of
>the origins debate (simplifying as binary positions) can regard the
>opposition as either:
>
>1. Having some validity, given the nature and complexity of the science
>and merit of some of the opposing claims and deductions
>
>2. Having no validity, and instead regarding opponents as either
>ignorant, stupid, or dishonest.
>
>Dawkins opts for the latter. And you?
ISTM wnen your opponents objectively demonstrate they are either
ignorant, stupid, or dishonest, it's quite reasonable to say so.
Here's a 2.5 hour video that shows, in excruciating detail, some of
the most vocal proponents of ID doing exactly that:
Enjoy.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
