Tuesday, July 15, 2008

The Theory of Evolution and the Taco Bell Trick.

What you can learn about the Theory of Evolution, human perception and marketing from Taco Bell.

I spent last weekend at a friend's family home tucked away in the wilderness north of Manhattan. Nature, is in full effect there. The place is teaming with life. I saw deer, hedgehogs, turtles, snakes, chipmunks, fish, frogs, a muskrat, birds and insects galore. Not to mention the abundant plant life. I ate 3 different kinds of wild berries off of bushes while I was there.

A particular aspect of evolutionary theory gets overlooked that I find fascinating, the fact that all living things are made of the same stuff. When I look all the wildly different species of animals I don't see "different things", I see the same "stuff" organized into different configurations.

The same material compounds that produce a lamb, are reconfigured by the process of evolution to make a snake, a chimp, "man" and so on. It's the same stuff, shuffled by the surprisingly simple operational rules of evolution.

It's kind of like Taco Bell. The menu consists of a selection of choices composed of the same ingredients. It's the same stuff, just pressed into different shapes. The menu items have different names like burrito, chalupa, taco, quesadilla... but it's just beans, cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, sour cream and your choice of beef or chicken held together in a shell or wrapper of ground maize.

On a strictly observational level you can't always tell one species of living thing from the next. Could you tell the difference between the internal organs of two animals roughly the same size? Probably not. Pieces of animal remains, particularly bone fragments are often confused for those of a human.

Take slices of apple and potato, eat them with your eyes closed and your nose plugged and tell me the difference. Most people can't.

The other aspect of evolution that I thought about over the weekend was the differences between things have a high degree of variability and things that are low on that scale. The first animals I saw on our drive up were cows. Both humans and cows are mammals. On an organ level we share most of the same basic parts but they're ordered into very different configurations. The cows all look pretty much the same, very uniform in overall construction except for the asymmetrical patterns that are random and different from cow to cow.

The same process at times produces wildly different things with basic similarities, like cows and humans. Those species seem relatively stable with gradual changes over long periods of time. Except for things like facial features and cow patterns which are shuffled with a high degree of variability from individual to individual. What determines what maintains high stability versus a high degree of variability? I don't know, I didn't study science.

Despite the fact that all human faces are, superficially, very much alike the level of information and meaning in the nuanced differences is extremely high. You would think, given how similar human faces are and how many you see over the course of a lifetime that mistaking strangers for people you know or met in the past would happen way more often than it does. Those nuanced differences are so important and meaningful that sometimes they can get you to fall in love with their possessor, they can create "profound meaning". This insight is lost on marketers that place too heavy and emphasis on functional benefits and people in advertising that complain about having a commodity product to work on.

What is clear to me is that the visible, observable differences (like shape, size, color) have more impact on our perceptions and our mental constructs than the material differences.

Recent genetic research backs me on this: Human Complexity And Diversity Spring From A Surprisingly Few (Relatively Speaking) Genes

An interesting quote from that article:
In April 2003, scientists completed the massive Human Genome Project, recording for the first time in history the location and sequence of every gene in the human body.

One result of the international project came as a bit of a shock. Scientists discovered that the body has only 30,000 genes, far fewer than the 50,000 to 140,000 they had expected to find.

Moreover, scientists learned that some less complex, less diverse organisms had more, or proportionally more genes than human beings. The rice genome contains 50,000 genes and the fly contains 14,000, to cite two examples.

Everybody gets hung up on the "we came from monkeys" thing but there are bigger more troublesome implications that our moral frameworks and emotional constructs may be inadequate to deal with.

Racism, sexism... prejudice of all manner spring from reactions to observable differences in appearance and culture. Reason ands science tell us that were all essentially the same and we should strive to treat each other accordingly. Civilized humans embrace this but would they extend it to all living creatures?

If rice is (at least) as complex as us genetically maybe we aren't so special after all. This is at the heart of the nagging, existential worry of nihilism produced by science.

The world we live in, experientially, is shaped more powerfully by our reactions to what we observe and how we describe it than by what is there. Those traps of the mind are hard to escape even when we have science and reason to show us the way.

It is a lot harder to think outside the bun than Taco Bell would have you believe. They're living proof.


Chris said...

Hello my name is Chris. I just wanted to respond to some of your implications regarding Evolution and Taco Bell. J

First, the ingredients being similar if not the same on the Taco Bell menu is not the point so much as it took Intelligence to create these meals. What I’m saying is a burrito may have just as much cheese inside of it as a taco but it takes a thinking mind to construct these things. You don’t just throw random ingredients together and Presto! you got the chalupa value meal.
That’s sort of like typing a whole bunch of random letters on a keyboard hoping to write a complete sentence. If you guide it with your intelligence it’s no problem. But if you choose them randomly the likeliness of you creating a sentence is extremely, well, unlikely.

Secondly I noticed you see things the way they are…similar in the fact that everything is essentially made out of the same stuff. Even though I don’t completely disagree with that statement I find that argument very unconvincing given the utter complexity of life just on a molecular level alone. Given genetic similarities one would expect far more relational evidence linking us to chimps, which quite frankly just does not exist.

What I contribute to seeing this world we live in as being made up of the same “stuff” is a common designer. Call it God call it Yoda call it what you will, it still remains evident that in my opinion we where created, not just randomly blindly selected.

And thirdly, from all this, another question arises that demands an answere and that involves the “stuff” itself, or the “ingredients” that make up what we are. Who or what caused or created the stuff needed for life to began in the first place? This my friend is an evolutionist nightmare. Now of course theories do exist on this topic but they have been proven wrong and been refuted so strongly that not even a child wouldn't agree with the evolutionary formula for life:

Dirt + Water + Time = Life

Evolutionist theorize that the above formula can enable everything about us to make itself-- with the exception of manmade things, such as cars and computers. Complicated things such as the building plan needed to build a Taco Bell required thought, intelligence and careful workmanship. But everything else about us in nature such as hummingbirds and the human eye(which is extremely complex) is declared to be the result of accidental mishaps, random confusion, and time? You will not even need raw materials to began with. They make themselves too….

So in conclusion it’s quite clear that the evolutionary theory is just as flawed as the Taco Bell analogy you used to support your belief. By no means am I trying to be malicious in any way I’m just hoping to spark some dialogue within the mind about some alternate viewpoints and I’m always open for a good clean debate over this topic. Have a good one.

blackcobra said...

chris, i think you're giving the inventor (whomever that is) of the taco bell style menu a little more credit than is deserved. intelligence to put a flower tortilla around meat, rice, beans and cheese? perhaps a tinny bit of imagination. but a mentally handicapped rhino, with some ingredients and some time to kill, will play around with some basic ingredients and come up with taco like concoctions.

now,... souffle, or gnocchi, or cheese,... inventing those things took intelligence. and imagination. and of course trial and error. just like evolution.

Chris said...

So your saying that evolution required three things intelligence, imagination and trial and error, so lets review them:
1)Intelligence. Now i must say i'm quite surprised to see you agree that to produce the things we see in this world intelligence was required...i totally agree there. Now where our opinion branchs off is probably where i believe God was the "inteligent" agent responcible and you think...well..what do you think? That the "primordial soup" had in intelect high enough to know to produce itself into a living organism? So please clarify what kind of intelligence was involved in evolution.
2)Imagination... So the fish imagined he'd one day jump out of the sea and fulfill his dreams of walking on dry land... and slowing but surly the more the fish imagined the more little feet grew and eventually the fish's imagination actually produced the little feet required! Not only that but since the fish is incredibly smart(given your statement about how evolution is the result of intelligence) He produced the perfect formula for breathing on dry land. Boy this could go on forever..
3)trial and error. Now we ask the question where is the evidence for trial? and what where the error's? If this actually occurred you would have a fossil record that shows transitional forms between species... partial evolution in the transition from on thing to another. The problem is the fossil record shows only fully formed fossils that if not already extinct are identical to the species we see today... show me this trial and error process you talk about because as of late scientist are STILL looking for it.
Is it so implausible to think that maybe the intelligence you refer to is a higher being? Or that an awesome God couldn't have imagined the awe inspiring cosmos and world we live in? And if those 2 things are possible is it also possible that God wouldn't need trial and error to create his masterpiece because a God that can create life in the first place seems smart enough to do it right the first time.

Bob Ichter said...

Chris, First of all, how can you find the argument that life is " essentially made up of all the same stuff", less than convincing? If you were not scientifically illiterate, you would know that, yes indeed, life is made up of different combinations of the " same stuff"....those of us that have had some basic biology courses call it DNA.... and in fact everything in this world is made from different combinations of about 118 elements...this you would realize after a basic course in chemistry.
As for our " designer "...
your argument seems to state that our world is SO complex, that it could not arise out of chance, because nothing so complex could just appear randomly...that something or someone more complex and powerful had to create it.
If that is true Who or what created the " designer "...because by your definition, anything as complicated as our universe, or "life" must have a creator, and that creator would have to be more complicated and powerful than the universe itself. So, who created your "god".
This is called the watchmakers argument....
For some badly needed eye opening information, I would suggest to you, Chris, that you read the god delusion by Richard Dawkins...you can also watch some of his lectures on youtube....start with his talk at the " Ted " symposium, called " things are queerer than we can imagine...it will blow your mind. Bob

Chris said...

Bob, i am well aware of DNA and I've researched the THEORY of macro-evolution and Intelligent Design quite extensively. So rather than respond with a jargon filled rebuttal in my first responses, I purposely "dumbed down” my examples in correspondence with the original post. So as to appear not so "scientifically illiterate" to you I’ll explain further in a way that makes you feel smarter.

We’ll start with your opening sentence:

“Chris, First of all, how can you find the argument that life is " essentially made up of all the same stuff", less than convincing?”

This statement is vague and contradictory to your proceeding statements because than you wrote”

“ yes indeed, life is made up of different combinations of the " same stuff".…”

Which is exactly what I’ve been saying all along… With all that aside I cant help but chuckle at the basic biology courses you must have taken which taught you about 3 more elements that don’t even exist…. Could one of them be called evolution? for the record there are only 115 not 118 which aren’t even in sequence. Elements 1 to 112, Hydrogen to Ununbium are known, with Ununbium only being discovered in 1996. Elements 114, 116 and 118 have also been discovered more recently, bringing the total to 115 known elements.

You also seem to be asserting the world ISN’T very complex, when referring to my comments you wrote:

“your argument seems to state that our world is SO complex…”

Now I’m really starting to wonder if you have any idea of what your talking about. The incredible complexity of life becomes obvious when you consider the message found in the DNA of a one-celled amoeba (a creature so small, several hundred could be lined up in an inch). Even your sacred Richard Dawkins admits that the message found in just the cell nucleus of this tiny amoeba is more than all thirty volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica! But rather than list hundreds of examples of the complexity of life I’ll assume one is enough(if not let me know)
Furthermore, one of the most fundamental observations in all of science has been that life arises ONLY from similar existing life! Scientist have been unable to combine chemicals in a test tube and arrive at a DNA molecule, much less life-- including the now discredited Urey-Miller experiment-- have not only failed but also suffer from the illegitimate application of intelligence. So Bob, why would you believe that mindless processes can do what brilliant scientist cannot do?
Also your definition of the watchmaker argument by Dawkins was very unconvincing and vague at best, so for the sake of the argument you tried to make I’ll provide the actual argument Dawkins presents and why it’s totally absurd.
The "blind watchmaker," is the Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection, so called "because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view"……But since blind people DO have plans and purposes, we might more accurately say that the watchmaker is comatose. If the "comatose watchmaker" actually can make all those biological watches, and if it works by preserving genes that have mutated randomly, then evolution all the way from molecule to man is a purposeless process that required no supernatural guidance.

As cited by Phillip E. Johnson

Why should we believe that the comatose watchmaker can do what Dawkins says it can do? The most widely cited examples of natural selection in action are remarkably unimpressive. Moth populations vary in color distribution, finch beaks vary in average size from year to year, and so on. All involve cyclical variations in fundamentally stable species; none provides any indication that the affected population is in the process of changing into something fundamentally different.As well as variation, the watchmaker must provide an immense quantity of genetic information. To his credit, Dawkins acknowledges the problem forthrightly; a single cell contains more information than all the volumes of a vast encyclopaedia, and our bodies contain trillions of cells working in an orchestration of coordinated functions. All must be provided by random mutation, since natural selection does not supply anything.

Darwinists have to believe that the information supply problem can be solved by supposing that random mutations supply information in tiny bits, but this is a fallacy. It is easier to imagine a random assortment of letters forming a single intelligible phrase than that shuffling a giant pile of letters could produce a book of instructions for building a computer. Unlikely as it may be that the book could appear through one colossal statistical miracle, it is no less unlikely that it could appear through a succession of millions of small miracles.

Dawkins must realise at some level that the task is hopeless, because he continually tries to solve the problem by smuggling an intelligent designer into his illustrations. For example, he explains that a random letter generator can produce a coherent sentence like Shakespeare's "Methinks it is like a weasel" if one programmes the target phrase into a computer, and the computer then selects the first "m" to appear in the first space, the first "e" in the second space, and so on. Of course it can, and a properly programmed computer with a sufficiently rapid random letter generator can also produce the complete works of Shakespeare in a matter of hours. It is nearly as fast as printing the whole thing out from memory, because that is exactly what it amounts to.

The real problem that the comatose watchmaker presents is how such a dubious mechanism could attain the support of so many intelligent people when it is so clearly at war with the evidence. Selective animal breeding is guided by intelligence, working by protecting specialised breeds within a species from the destruction they would face if natural selection were allowed to operate.

The pattern displayed by the fossil record is one of sudden and mysterious jumps followed by prolonged periods of stability, not the continual gradual change expected by Darwinists. The leading American fossil expert Niles Eldredge has candidly lamented that "Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that is how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." Yet Eldredge also describes himself as a "knee-jerk neo-Darwinist" - in spite of, what he knows about fossils.

The molecular biologist Michael Behe, author of _Darwin's Black Box, has challenged the Darwinian mechanism at the molecular level. Behe argues that Darwinism emerged in an era when the complexities of the cell were not understood, and that molecular systems are "irreducibly complex".

If Behe is right, there is no step-by-step adaptive path up Dawkins's Mount Improbable, and the reason that organisms look designed seems to be that there really was a designer.

When he thought it safe to do so, Dawkins wrote that he would cease being a Darwinist if anyone could show him an example of irreducible complexity. After Behe called his bluff, he withdrew into a position that is unfalsifiable. It is lazy and incompetent, he now says, for a biologist to argue that the apparent design in biology is real. Instead, Behe should be discovering the Darwinian mechanisms that will solve all the problems. But what if such mechanisms do not exist?

The reason that some scientists defend Darwinism so vigorously despite its empirical troubles is that it grows directly out of the materialist philosophy that has taken hold of the scientific community. If there is no God, and if matter had to do its own creating, then something at least roughly like Darwinism has to be true. Dawkins himself makes this point by his doctrine of Universal Darwinism, which asserts that the Darwinian mechanism is the only one that can, in principle, explain life's complexity. Other scientists accept this materialist starting point to avoid being ridiculed as vitalists or creationists. As long as materialism rules the dialogue, Darwinism-in-principle is effectively unfalsifiable. Only the details are open to debate. That leaves us with an intriguing situation. If materialism is true, Darwinism has to be true. But the empirical evidence, when it is considered without a huge materialist bias, is against Darwinism in every speciality. Maybe it is time to draw the conclusion that materialism itself is not true, if we have the courage to face the alternative

Anonymous said...

am i on the right blog? since when has the sherman foundation become a bastion of intellectual discourse on existential meanings of life? what ever happened to posts about the gnarly impact seagulls can have on ordinary life? or, infamous cock-drag-drive-bys?

what gives sherman? this is killing me.....

Bob Ichter said...

Chris, I spent quite a lot of time last night responding to your last post...but some how it never was posted...lost in the ether, I suppose.
I won't spend much time recreating it, but:
my first statement was not vague or contradictory...you do say
"Even though I don’t completely disagree with that statement I find that argument very unconvincing given the utter complexity of life just on a molecular level alone."

Secondly, the periodic table, in all its elegance shows us there are at least 118 elements - there are claims of discovery for all the ones that are "missing" but some have not been confirmed yet.
There are probably more.

the analogy of typing random words and getting a coherent sentence compared to evolution are disingenuous. You are not factoring in the extreme amounts of time at work. Our pea brains can not begin to fathom what can occur over millions and billions of years.
the evidence of evolution is all around us...for example drug resistant bacteria.
the fact that the fossil record doesn't show the smooth evolution that you seem to require for evidence, doesn't negate evolution, it merely shows that only a small fraction of things become fossilized.

I understand that someone with deep faith of a "god" will rarely be persuaded by rational scientific arguments....the superstitious beliefs start too early in life and run too deep. Organized religion [ charlatans and con men ] make sure that they get thier hooks in you BEFORE you are able to think for yourself.

The thing that bothered me the most about your post though, was the fact that you rattled off a lot of arguments about the finer points of evolution while neglecting to answer my main question.

you confused " The blind watchmaker" with the classic argument called " The watchmaker".

I know you know both arguments, but if you don't, then google it.
the question is:
Who made the watchmaker? Who made god?

lastly, I would argue that even if there is an " intelligent designer"...and that would be kind of cool...the gods that all organized religions worship bear no relationship to the " designer"... they are all a bunch of made up bullshit designed to control and fleece our fellow human beings. So when the knuckle-dragging bible thumpers start spouting off about "intelligent design" or creationism...I know what they mean....we have a corner on "god", we know the way, and if you don't follow us, you're doomed....when in reality, they are doomed to live in fear, ignorance, intolerance and superstition.

see ya. Bob

Chris said...

Now you throw in one of evolutions magical ingredients, Time. Or as I like to refer to it, the agent in which Darwinist confidently explain away there inadequate evidences for the origin of life. We see that evolution can only occur:
1) By a sequence of production of matter from nothing.
2) By generation of living organisms from non-living matter
3) By living organisms into more advanced life (by natural selection and mutations)
And even given TRILLIONS of years in which to do it, evolution cannot do any of that.
“It is no secret that evolutionist worship at the shrine of time. There is little difference between the evolutionist saying ‘time did it’ and the Creationist saying ‘God did it.’ Time and chance is a two headed deity. Much scientific effort has been expended in an attempt to show that eons of time are available for evolution”—Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 137
To say that life originated in some seawater in some yesteryear—“because the sand and seawater was there long enough”—is just wishful thinking. It surely isn’t scientific to imagine that perhaps it came true when no one was looking. There is no evidence that self originating life or evolving life is happening now, has ever happened, or could have happened. So Bob would I be totally wrong to think that it takes just as much belief in your Time as it does my God? It looks to me like you would need to have just as much FAITH in time as I would need in God for the origin of life.
“ An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going”—Francic Crick(an evolutionist), Life Itself: It’s origin and nature ,p 88.
But it’s not only time that you claim caused life because by insinuating time created life your also implying chance. Hence time and chance created life. So what’s the problem with chance…boy..here we go.
Here’s an analogy I use from Micheal Behe based off the results atheists and theists alike calculated as the probability that life could arise by chance from non-living chemicals. Behe has said that the probability of getting one protein molecule(which is about 100 amino acids) by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row. And one protein molecule is not life. To get life you would need to get about 200 of those protein molecules together! So I don’t know Bob, which is harder to believe in, Time and Chance or God.
Than you use resistant bacteria as proof for evolution. Which is fine I probably would have used this argument as well had I not studied the topic closely? And by no means do I want to come off as a jerk towards you but man you would really save me a lot of writing if you would just research the argument for some of these topics… because I’m not the only one. That and I haven’t played my playstion in 2 days gathering info for these responses! But that’s no excuse for me to dodge the question so here is my (as well as many scientist) argument for resistant bacteria as proof for evolution. Bacteria resistance to antibiotics:

A)Not due to mutations, but complex enzymes that inactivate the poison

B)Some cases due to spontaneous mutation, but no morphological change – no evolution
The resistance was already present

C) In some cases a dormant gene is activated due to an environmental factor. This is called a programmed gene expression. Since the activated gene for resistance was already present (but dormant) no new information is added.

None of these are examples of evolution. They are all genetic variation/natural selection. For the sake of space here is just one article refuting Darwinist claims that resistant bacteria is proof for evolution, visit http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/848 Towards the end of the article are some helpful diagrams.

For your argument that transitional fossils not being discovered yet is due to few fossils available, I began with a quote from evolutionist T.N. George,

“There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is outpacing integration.”—“Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,” in Science Progress.

Bob once again I feel as if you haven’t done your homework on this one. So here are some facts that may put things into prospective.
A) Over 300 different kinds of dinosaurs have been discovered in ONE place in Utah
B) In Geiseltal Germany, the remains of over 6,000 vertebrates have been discovered
C) Great masses of amphibians have been found in the Permian beds of Texas.
D) 800 billion (wow) fossils of amphibians and reptiles have been found in South Africa
E) Old Red Sandstone in England has Billions (not hundreds, not thousands, not millions..go ahead look these things up) of fish fossils spread over 10,000 square miles.

There are heaps and heaps of fossil specimens in the collections of paleontologists and museums. Men have searched for fossils since the beginning of the 19th century and the facts remain the same, no evidence for evolution in the fossil record.

What strikes me the most is that you presume that because I believe in God my judgment and free thinking ability has been clouded, lol. Maybe it’s the other way around, my ability to observe factual data and draw up my own conclusions has been hindered by bad science (i.e. macro-evolution) and it’s Darwinian influence. That somehow the data presented MUST fit the mold of a theory outdated and out proven by modern technology makes science look bad. I can’t apologize though, that the evidence for macro-evolution being non-existent gave me no choice but to follow the footprints of the facts which led right to the door of a creator. And while I agree that religion itself has become the sort of a thing to be despised, to over generalize and include me in some of the rhetoric religiosity has been known for seems quite unfair. My God fearing morals are a result of a true interpersonal relationship with a creator which is as real to me as the facts above.

My apologizes for not responding to the question of who created the creator. This wasn’t done on purpose as you probably know these responses take time and that’s not something I have a lot of but planned on addressing nonetheless.

For this we start with the Law of Causality which is the very foundation of science. Since science is the search for causes the question arises…who made (caused) God? But since something undeniably exists today, then something must have always existed: we have 2 options: the universe, or something that caused the universe. The problem for the atheist is that while it is logically possible that the universe is eternal, it does not seem to be actually possible. Scientific and philosophical evidence such as The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Expanding Universe, Radiation from the Big Bang, The Great Galaxy Seeds, Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, Radioactive Decay, and the Kalam Cosmological Argument, tells the universe cannot be eternal. So by ruling out one of two options you are left with the only other option—something outside the universe is eternal. So there are 2 possibilities for anything that exist 1) it has always existed and is therefore uncaused, or 2) it had a beginning and was caused by something else (i.e. the universe). So according to the overwhelming evidence, the universe had a beginning, so it must be caused by something else—by something outside itself. Notice that this conclusion is consistent with theistic religions, but is not based on those religions; it is based on good reason and evidence. So I argue the First Cause must be
A) Self-existent, timeless, immaterial (since the First Cause created time, space, and matter, the first cause must be outside of time, space, and matter). This makes him without limits, or infinite.
B) Extremely powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing
C) Very intelligent, to design the universe with such incredible precision
D) Personal, in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space-material universe, (an impersonal force has no ability to make choices.)

So claiming to know who “made” God seems irrelevant based on the above argument. And yes a certain degree of faith is required to believe in a creator but I strongly suggest it takes much more faith to believe in evolution. If you’d like to discuss these topics via email let me know…we seem to be taking up a lot of space on this guy’s blog. Talk to you later Bob.

Bob Ichter said...


saying time is not relevant to evolution has to be the stupidest thing I've ever read. It happens over the course of lifetimes, the short life time of a bacterium, or the longer life of a primate. That is why it takes "time".
your rebuttal regarding the evolution of bacteria is completely false. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Your quoting from creationist slanted books endlessly just bores me...I couldn't even be bothered to read all your post. Go back to Bob Jones "university", you will feel at home. While you are there, maybe take a course in writing....your posts are littered with misspellings and grammatical errors. Idiot

Anonymous said...

Hey Chris and Bob,

Why don't the two of you just get a room somewhere and settle this issue mano-a-mano. And, don't forget the K-Y, although I have heard that a good ole cow lick will suffice just fine. See "Brokeback Mountain" for empiricle evidence in support of my claim.


Bob Ichter said...

Hey anonymous, or as I like to refer to you, Ricardo Cabeza...

Sounds like you've had your share of the mano-a-mano love ....not that there's anything wrong with it, but please don't try to project your love for the el dicko grande on me. Dude, if you want it that bad, I'm sure you can find the real thing, instead of just fantasizing about two strangers...

Idiot Chris said...

I gotta say Bob I'm quite surprised at your sudden anger. I thought we were having a healthy debate. But I do feel that in order to answer your last comment properly I'd just be repeating my self.... so if your up for it here are 2 more articles the first is a favorite of mine because evolutionist and creationist alike use the 'evolution train' analogy but this one clearly shows a more accurate stance on the issue. Hopefully this article can show you why even with unlimited amounts of time macro-evolution (i.e fish to philosopher) does not and can not happen. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/evolution_train.asp#r12

I also thought that after reading that you'd still want more insight about bacteria resistance and why i think it's not proof for Darwinist claims of evolution i recommend this article http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/superbugs.asp

Unfortunately i can almost guarantee you wont even give these articles the light of day based on the fact that they are Christian scientist...but scientist nonetheless. Also, from all the quotes i used yesterday only ONE(the first one in the article) was from a creationist, all the rest are from evolutionist.

And i don't know why it matters if I'm 100% grammatically correct in the first place, this is a blog not an english paper. I don't see you making grammatically perfect comments. It just seems to me that instead of debating the issue at hand you've began 'reaching' for a way to slander me an an attempt to avoid an intellectual response. I would rather we trade arguments about the topic but i doubt this will happen. But should you want to discuss the fallacies of the theory of evolution i would be more than willing. My email is CsHiRrIhSc@gmail.com or post on my blog http://christophertalk.blogspot.com/ oh and for the record I'll give you all my Bob Jones University tuition money if you can find ONE misspelled word in either this OR the last post(we'll see just how good Microsoft's spell checker really is eh).Your friend, Chris.

Bob Ichter said...

Chris, I realize it's not a term paper, but people who use "your", when they mean "You're", drive me crazy...especially when they are trying to sound all " scientific"...as if anyone who would quote from a book called " answers in genesis" could sound the least bit " scientific" As far as your bet about misspellings:
there are two misspellings in the first paragraph….

"Now you throw in one of evolutions magical ingredients, Time. Or as I like to refer to it, the agent in which Darwinist confidently explain away there inadequate evidences for the origin of life. "

Don’t you mean “ Darwinists confidently explain away their...

and claiming evolutionists use time as a crutch in their arguments is hilarious, coming from someone who uses a supernatural being to explain their arguments.

Let's stop using Sherman's cool blog to argue, since there's no way either of us is ever going to understand the other's point of view...me being rational and all, and you, well, not so much...bob

Chris_topher said...

Well it was fun while it lasted. I know you don't think my point of view is the least bit rational, I can accept that. But if you happen to stumble upon an article or youtube clip related to these topics and wanna go at it again feel free to send it my way I don't see the harm different points of view debating over their beliefs. Later Bob...until next time huh. Chris.