(April 2, 2013 at 7:31 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Actually, old sport, I did. I told Shell that on the hangout the other night.
Well I missed a few of you too, but not everyone of course :-P
Quote: i asked her If this was the same orginization ken ham was in works with and she said yes (and i laughed). I said i knew who these people were and was familar with ken ham.
Ham worked for ICR in the early 90s but I believe you are confusing ICR with Answers in Genesis which is the organization Ham later founded. He no longer works for ICR.
Quote: I skipped the whole creation vs. evolution debate for a second and said even if evolution is wrong how does that have anything to do with creationism? that wouldn't bring validation to their propersition. that was that god of the gaps argument and flaw.
I believe you are confusing a gaps argument (an appeal to ignorance), with disjunctive logic. In logic, in certain instances it is completely valid to demonstrate your position by destroying its negation. There may be a debate as to whether creation is the logical negation of evolution (I think a case can certainly be made that it is), but if it is then what the lady was doing was completely logically valid.
Quote: i then told her that i have found more evidence for evolution than the theory of gravity.
That’s quite the assertion; I’d be very interested to see how you’d try to demonstrate that claim.
Quote: she began to tell me about how embrology didn't support evolution and it was just a bunch of drawings and should've been taken out of the books a long time ago.
As it was pointed out earlier, I believe she was referring to Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent embryological drawings that still find their way into textbooks today. I think it’s safe to assume that most evolutionists (with the exception of Eugenie Scott who hates creationists for “lying to children” but has no issue with still using the faked drawings today) do not approve of using fraudulent examples to teach evolution to children.
Quote: she said that evolutionist were saying we went from fish to reptiles to mammals etc. i was kinda of amazed of the ignorance
I am somewhat amazed that you were ignorant of the Haeckel fraud.
Quote: but i attempted to explain the similar development every species has and how DNA is pretty much all the same up till a point for animal etc.
Where is your proof that similarities demonstrate common descent and not a common creator?
Hope that helps!
-SW
