Johnny Carson used to say "buy the premise, buy the joke". If you buy the premise that homo sapiens arose from 2 individuals, then you buy the joke. If you believe the evidence that our species arose gradually over time, then the premise is broken, and the joke is on you.

Thanks for this - I'm going to use it in one of my courses as a perfect example of poor logic. Really poor.

Since Michael Behe first proposed the bacterial f**gellum as an irreducible complex structure this has become a centerpiece of creationist dogma. However, it doesn't hold up. Examination of other bacteria demonstrates that components of the f**gellum motor network exist as independent structures doing other functions, and that gradually they fused, producing progressively more complex structures, leading eventually to the f**gellum. This is similar to the blood clotting cascade, another creationist-praised irreducibly complex process. That claim aside, other organisms accomplish blood clotting with fewer components, so there goes the "irreducible" part. In fact, the individual components of the clotting cascade are merely protein degrading enzymes that can be demonstrated doing other functions in earlier species before coming together in the clotting cascade. No irreducible complexity here, merely evolution.

To answer the question put at the title to this thread, evolutionists do what scientists do - they perform experiments to test the possible explanations for an observation. In this case, they find that the high iron levels found after death in dinosaur blood serves as an effective preservative by crosslinking proteins and nucleic acids. These structures will then remain intact as fossilization proceeds, and later (much later) acid extraction removes the mineral deposits, resulting in pliable tissue-like materials. Interestingly, preserved proteins can then be analyzed, and as a result we now know that there is present in the dinosaurs a form of collagen that is found today only in birds, giving support to the concept that birds evolved from dinosaurid ancestors. That's what evolutionary scientists do. Now, what do "creationist scientists" do?

He isn't molting. Cockatoos lose feathers continuously. The bald chest/abdomen is a result of plucking. This is an abnormal behavior that most cockatoos display after being in captivity. Birds in the wild don't do this.

At least try to get your mystical facts right. Day 6 of creation purportedly included man AND land animals. Perhaps you should try rereading your bible.

Thanks. Now that this is aired out you can be sure that either the FDA or the manufacturers will do something to avoid the inevitable lawsuits.

Can you please give me the link for the claim that "the FDA has admitted it knew of the defective design issue and its lethal potential TWO YEARS AGO. Despite that, it approved the design and is not doing anything about rescinding the approval until now, with bodies cooling in the morgue."

Physicians decline to treat patients all of the time for a variety of reasons. However, good medical ethics calls for giving the patient time to find another caregiver by continuing care for some stated period of time. This doc did not do that, just sent another physician, which is a mild breach of ethics.

Well, there's another 6:35 of my life lost in nonsense. Lennox simply speaks big words that don't mean anything other than...actually, I'm not sure what they mean. He lays out a dichotomy of a universe that, in the beginning was composed of particles and energy, and these progressed to life; or a universe created by an all-powerful magician, and Lennox concludes that the latter explanation "makes sense". That's all you have to know about his views, to know that he has arrived at a conclusion non-scientifically, then is using scientific verbiage to try to justify his religious view.

No, this is a different type of flood than the Noahical flood. The floods referred to in the article are the result of rupture of glacial dams, releasing tidal waves of water. The biblical flood resulted from rainfall flooding the entire earth. If you calculate the energy that would be released from such an amount of rain, it is mathematically impossible to have happened, notwithstanding the lack of evidence that it did.

Rac- You are cherry picking to create a misunderstanding. Margulis looked at mutation as a driving force and found that there were other drivers as well, including endosymbiosis and horizontal gene t***sfer. She did not exclude mutation, she added additional explanations.

So, what's wrong with the remaining 60% of Americans, that they believe that this confabulator (I've waited all my life to use that word) should have a public platform for his made up stories.

The current flu v*****e pr********ns do not contain mercury, and looking over the the list of ingredients at the CDC web site, I see no immunosuppressants. There are several immunostimulators in the various pr********ns, and many neutral components, but no suppressors of immune function. Nice try, but no conspiracy award for you this time.

Indeed, it has been a very long time, and some ideas seem to have been confused in the intervening time. The process of science does not prove anything. Rather, it proposes hypotheses that are to be disproven. After sufficient failures to disprove a hypothesis the consensus will be that it is now a theory, which is a strong statement that the data are consistent with a particular interpretation. Still not, nor ever, proven.