punctuated equilibrium. And why did Mr Gould propose that theory? The Cambrian Explosion. Why is that a problem? Because it destroys the theory of gradual descent.

About the orgin of life, what I'm claiming is that you have no explanation for it and can't account for it. That leaves a gaping hole in your theory.

About the Lemur, the're still Lemurs. All this is an example of micro evolution, small variations with in a species, which nobody denies. If your citing this to prove macro evolution, one animal changing into another animal, I don't see how this helps your position because that's not what's happening. And we all know what will happen if the gene pool is expanded, they'll revert to back the most common characteristics. They'll do what Darwin's finches did and all animals do when the available gene pool is not limited. This is something every breeder knows.

So what does this prove?

Also. you start with the assumption that neo-Darwinian evolution is true and then set out to prove it. How does your argument not commit the fallacy of circular reasoning?

About "Common Ancestry"?

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and notes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” Stephen Jay Gould

“With few exceptions, radically new kinds of organisms appear for the first time in the fossil record already fully evolved. … It is not at all what might have been expected.” T. S. Kemp, Fossils and Evolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 253

“No one has found any such in-between creatures … and there is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed.” George Alexander, “Alternative Theory of Evolution Considered,” Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978

“If numerous species, belonging to the same … families, have really started into life at once, that fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.” Darwin, 344

It seems to me that the Cambrian Explosion, well, blows the theory of common ancestry apart.

So why is it more reasonable to conclude that the similarities are because of a theory that is least likely (common ancestry) than one that is more likely (common design)

What you fail to realize is what every breeder knows. All breeding spikes and then plateaus, there is a line that can't be crossed no matter how much breeding you do; dogs remain dogs and cats remain cats.

But the two biggest questions for Darwinism is where did life come from and where does genetic information come from. Since life and information are abstract realities there can be no naturalistic explanation for them. And if naturalism were true these abstract realities and all others wouldn't exist. Their very existence disproves Darwinism and naturalism because these theories can't account for them, yet there they are.

I know nothing of either topic. I just know how to get people fired up ;)

OK, so what you're saying is that what I thought was wrong with MJ is not really the case but that there definitely was something wrong with him ;)

Now that I know I have your attention, and that attention is serious, I will continue with my demonstration.

Go ahead and initiate a private debate bewixt us.

My argument is prepared and awaiting your reception.

I'm baffled at how a sentence that barely contained two propositions could in anyway be logically inconsistent

Consider the contrary sentence:

I’m convinced at how a sentence that barely contained two propositions is logically consistent. ( I think you see the problem)

However, in this instance, you are baffled that the quantity of the propositions contained within a sentence does not determine the quality of the sentence. Quality is not inferred from the quantity of propositions contained within your sentence.

Moreover, there are many sentences that are fallacious. Here are a few examples of grammatically correct sentences that fail to meet logical standards:

The local bookstore sells all classes of books. (What does a bookstore sell? Books! Not classes of books)

I cannot argue. (No man can arrive at this conclusion without arguing within himself)

“The money belongs to the people, and I think we should give some of it back to the people.” -G.W. Bush on tax cuts (circa 2002)

I will forego listing countless other examples that demonstrate illogical sentences.

Now, before I continue my analysis of your post, are you willing to concede that some sentences, regardless of the number of propositions, are fallacies of self-refutation or inconsistency? If so, I will continue my analysis of your post.

There will not be any productive dialog betwixt us for one simple reason: Exploring unfamiliar ways of thinking simply means to consider new ideas with the necessity of an open mind -- because we can't judge a priori the validity of a dialectic, belief or piece of evidence without first giving it a fair trial.

I will give you one opportunity to revise your answer. And if your answer still fails to demonstrate sound reasoning I will in-turn demonstrate your failure to reason. And until you can prove to me that you are reasonable I will not waste any additional time in reply to your babble.

I've personally studied logic in school and in my spare time by reading Russel, Popper and just basic logic primers. I also am a big fan of Skeptic Magazine and debunking, both of which demand a keen understanding of fallacy.

That is certainly no argument from which I would infer you have satisfactorily learned logic. Reading, studying, and being a big fan of any subject, are not the equivalent of knowing any given subject, competently.

On the contrary, it is your replies that seem to me to be fallacious. From false dichotomies to unsupported inferences,

Which is it, either my replies are fallacious or they are not fallacious? Are you using the word seem to suggest your uncertainty of the qualities of my replies?

you worsen your hypocrisy by being incredibly condescending and dismissive.

A hypocrite,yes, incredibly condescending and dismissive,yes, knowingly both,yes I am. Now, the hypocrite part of my behavior is true of all of us, but the condescension and dismissiveness of my replies is always a reciprocation of the same by my opponents, although I may at times be more assertive in that regards.

I'll gladly accept any challenge you off me and without the highfalutin patronage -- on the one condition that you are actually open to expanding your knowledge and exploring unfamiliar ways of thinking. If you aren't then it will only me an exercise in pretense.

TU QUOQUE

This is your first challenge: How can one explore unfamiliar ways of thinking? Please explain.

The faq you referred to does not explain why one up-vote actually equals two up-votes, one for each side!

Agreed, points are meaningless, i.e. to you and I, my contention reaches beyond our petty figures!

Oh, and for the record, one vote that equals two votes is fraud and is not democratic.

The facts and not the faqs are my metric of honesty.

Your statement is hands down the most arrogant and ignorant statement I've read or heard in my lifetime.

So, which is it, you are that intelligent or you are that moronic.

If I have misread your reply as being hostile please accept my sincere apology.

By the way, add-up the total of your argument points and compare them to the tally.

I down-voted all of my arguments!

THE PLOT THICKENS

I never worry about points. I got more than I know what to do with ;)

But thanks for the up votes ;)

No. Michael was born black. An Albino has to be born white. MJ turned white because of a disorder that he developed later in life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitiligo

I saw the wink but I was just making sure ;)

Why is it more reasonable to conclude common descent rather than common design from the similarity we see among species. I would argue that common design is far more reasonable. Here is why. This is a quote from the article and the full article can be found at the link below.

Conclusion

The methodology for inferring common descent has broken down. Proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution are forced into reasoning that similarity implies common ancestry, except for when it doesn’t. And when it doesn’t, they appeal to all sorts of ad hoc rationalizations to save common ancestry. Tellingly, the one assumption and view that they are not willing to jettison is the overall assumption of common ancestry itself. This shows that evolutionists treat common descent in an unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific and ideological, fashion.

Meanwhile, as far as the data is concerned, the New Scientist article admits, “Ever since Darwin the tree has been the unifying principle for understanding the history of life on Earth,” but because “different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,” the notion of a tree of life is now quickly becoming a vision of the past — as the article stated, it’s being “annihilated.” Perhaps the reason why different genes are telling “different evolutionary stories” is because the genes have wholly different stories to tell, namely stories that indicate that all organisms are not genetically related. For those open-minded enough to consider it, common design is a viable alternative to common descent.

The trouble with the fossil record is that they are the wrong kind of fossil; we need transitional creatures not fully formed and functional ones. We need a half bat half chicken fossil and there are simply none. If macro evolution were true there should be thousands of them.

But please tell me the natural process that writes genetic code. Because reason tells me that highly sophisticated language is the sign of intelligence, not matter. It always seems to me that a mind manipulates matter and forms it into complex things. Rocks stay rocks till somebody mines them and turns them into cars. I've never seen a rock say, boy I really want to be a car. In short, a will is the mark of mind, not matter. To move from the simple to the complex requires a mind to think it, a design to follow (teleology) and a will to do it. Natural forces can do none of this. Natural forces are simple; water flows down hill, wind blows and things fall. But worst of all. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.

You rejected my challenge and then proceeded to rely upon even more fallacies. I suspect that you are ignorant of much concerning deductive and inductive reason as well as the possible fallacies that occur in discourse. And as a consequence of that ignorance you will fail to recognize both valid and invalid inferences. These facts disqualify you from engaging in what you refer to as an intelligent conversation. Ergo, you are guilty of that which you accuse me, ie your own incredulity (unbelief) of evolution is further evidence of your ignorance on the subject.

You think I am incorrect, I know. I certainly won’t contradict myself in thinking otherwise concerning your ability to validly reason.

However, there is another possibility that I can’t eliminate. The possibility is that you are capable of logical discourse, but prefer to be deceitful and dishonest.

I did not down-vote your post.

Does the faq explain this:

(pasted from my argument)

Disputed -92 points

The faq you referred to does not explain why one up-vote actually equals two up-votes, one for each side!

Agreed, points are meaningless, i.e. to you and I, my contention reaches beyond our petty figures!

Oh, and for the record, one vote that equals two votes is fraud and is not democratic.

The facts and not the faqs are my metric of honesty.

10mins 31secs ago | Tagged As: I've always thought that

This process has been observed over shorter time periods by scientists in both controlled experiments and nature, and observed over much longer periods of time in the fossil record.

All of these finds have been validated by the fact that we now have the ability to sequence DNA, proving (beyond any reasonable doubt) the fact that evolution is the absolute best explanation for the evidence, and, despite over 100 years of study, has not been shown to be invalid in even one instance.

So now I would like to ask you a question. How do you account for the evidence (fossils, DNA, morphology, embryology, observed instances of evolution etc...)? It sounds like you either don't understand the evidence, don't understand the theory or (most likely) both.

Those five sentences contain no less than five fallacies in reasoning. If you can correctly identify two of them I will give an account of my understanding of what you are calling evidence.

By the way, the first parts of your reply are intellectually superior compared to your last BS.

Personally, I don’t care what you or any other person thinks about any given subject, what I care to address is the irrationality of believing the incredible.

I hope you accept the challenge!

The trouble with this theory is genetics. There is not a one to one ratio between trait and gene; it's more like a hundred to one. A hundred genes determine one trait. Please note that I'm simplifying for the sake of clarity. You would have to get a hundred beneficial mutations to get one beneficial trait. The odds are simply against this happening.

Besides we have names for mutations; leukemia, cancer etc etc. Take for example mental retardation; one flaw renders the creature dysfunctional. Mutations cripple and destroy; not improve. And this makes Neo-Darwinian Evolution self defeating since any mutation would be eliminated through natural selection.

However, the greater problem is that there is no natural means by which genetic information is created. Which means a mutation would be a loss of information, not the creation of it. Therefore there is no way for a creature to change it's self. That requires an intelligent outside agent acting upon it to write the code.

And finally you have the problem of entropy; things work towards a state of simplicity; not complexity. In short, the world is falling apart not getting better.

Wow THANK YOU! That's what I always try to tell people. -------------

We need to be clear about what kind of evolution is in question. If we are speaking of micro-evolution (small changes within a species) then there is no question; every breeder will tell you that it happens and everyone has seen it happen. But if you are talking about Macro Evolution (one species becoming another) it simply doesn't happen, never, without exception. Ask any breeder; cat's remain cats and dogs remain dogs. Darwin was wrong in his extrapolation when he concluded that small variations over time could lead to a whole new species; it doesn't happen. There is no evidence any where that shows it. All you have in the fossil record are fully formed and fully functional creatures; there are no transitional forms, none. When the anomalies of a scientific theory grow to large the theory should be abandoned.

Pardon my anger!

I up-voted all of your arguments and guess what? Lo and behold, my up-vote added points to the opposing side! What the fuck is goin on? The over-all tally is accruing up-votes on both sides of the argument when your side is up-voted. But, the up-votes are added only to your opponents when your opponents are up-voted! This bullshit has been going on for a long time and I'm now pissed!!! What a fucking joke!!! I hope you take the time to confirm the facts.

Your verbose argument has compelled (not begged) me to inquire of your understanding of 'Darwinian evolution'.

Would you care to debate propositions that require independent thought in regards to Darwinian evolution?

If so,

Proposition #1

Evolution is not Darwinian.

Just follow the link above (in the description), read the article and you too will become a convert ;)

lol That's pretty much my stance. Try to justify the unjustifiable and you'll get a laugh ;)

I know another example of a "race to the bottom." Our forefathers were smart, hard working individuals.... I guess you know where this is going ;)

The object of CD is to create debates that get people fired up. I put up this debate in order to get people fired up and get them to respond. I got a response from you ;)

So who's dumber? Me for putting up a debate in order to get people fired up and get them to respond or you for getting fired up and responding. ;)