Evolution

[Ronin]

Where are the fossil records of the animals that we see today? If all living things evolved to something different then how they started, where are their fossils? In museums today there are billions of dinasour bones that we have collected, yet there is not one transitional fossil. For example if we all evovled what did a lion look like before it became what it is today? There should be examples of all the animals that are alive today. And there should be several examples for every animal. Darwin himself admitted if we can't find transitional fossils,for they should be everywhere, then evolution is wrong!
So where are the fossils?

[jcrawford]

jcrawford's claim is like saying since I can't tell if my grandfather was born in New York or Philadelphia, then it is doubtful that I have any ancestors in Italy, even though I have an Italian name and pictures of my great grandmother both in Italy and on Ellis Island.

Do you have photographs of your great grandmother in both Italy and on Ellis Island prior to 1900?

This question is irrelevant both to your previous invalid assertion concerning Australian aborigines, and to my analogy which indicates why your previous assertion is invalid.

So your racial analogy must be both rational and meaningful as it relates to photos of Twentieth Century Australian aborigines.

You are still batting 0 for N.

Who's playing baseball and keeping score other than you?

[jcrawford]

Don't you think the accusation that they are not thinking for themselves is itself a tad arrogant.

No, because in order to go along with the evolutionist's "scientific" program of mental and religious indoctrination, they dare not question or falsify evolutionary theory as creation scientists are free and habitually wont to do.

Also: myths cannot be falsified; evolution can.

The myth of evolution is easily falsified by cognitive scientists, since it is nothing but a tautology consisting of circular reasoning within more circular reasoning.

Myths don’t make testable predictions. Evolution theory is predictive.

The theory is incapable of predicting anything because the presupposed transmutation of species has never been observed.

That is called progressive morphological evolution, and is correlated to the chronological progression.

Just date the fossils in reverse and presto, devolution!

But a lot of work goes in to trying to get the dates as accurate as possible. The dates aren’t made up on a whim.

The dates are made up to fit the theory.

Or take one out of its chronological order and place it in another sequence, and presto, some regressive evolution, which is more in keeping the theory since mutation is random and not intelligently ordered by evolutionists performing natural selection on the fossils.

Are you suggesting evolutionist are cooking the books?

Rather than cooking or burning some books they just push their books while censoring and banning others in public schools.

That it is one huge indoctrination programme stared at school, and requires massive inaccuracies, and slipshod methodology to give itself credibility?

Yea. It is similar to the massive Marxist propaganda which was imposed on the former USSR for 70 years, until it's collapse.

Also: as you say mutation is random. but it is slipshod to forget to mention that for a mutation to spread , requires multiple generation, time and natural selection.

That's pure theory, which if true, may account for racial differences in humans.

Mutations can be selected against, and this will be the case most times.

Yea, since they only result from the loss of genetic information.

Natural selection is the non random process.

Natural selection is not a biological process like genetic selection, transmission and reproduction is, but merely a theory about the survival of species which are not extinct.

[McCulloch]

The myth of evolution is easily falsified by cognitive scientists, since it is nothing but a tautology consisting of circular reasoning within more circular reasoning.

To my knowledge, this is jcrawford's second reference to cognitive scientists. The first one was in reference to cognitive scientists who classify humans in a Kingdom, genus, class and species separate from the other animals. Are these the same cognitive scientists which you refused to specify then?

[micatala]

Moderator Intervention

Don't you think the accusation that they are not thinking for themselves is itself a tad arrogant.

No, because in order to go along with the evolutionist's "scientific" program of mental and religious indoctrination, they dare not question or falsify evolutionary theory as creation scientists are free and habitually wont to do.

Also: myths cannot be falsified; evolution can.

The myth of evolution is easily falsified by cognitive scientists, since it is nothing but a tautology consisting of circular reasoning within more circular reasoning.

Myths don’t make testable predictions. Evolution theory is predictive.

The theory is incapable of predicting anything because the presupposed transmutation of species has never been observed.

That is called progressive morphological evolution, and is correlated to the chronological progression.

Just date the fossils in reverse and presto, devolution!

But a lot of work goes in to trying to get the dates as accurate as possible. The dates aren’t made up on a whim.

The dates are made up to fit the theory.

Or take one out of its chronological order and place it in another sequence, and presto, some regressive evolution, which is more in keeping the theory since mutation is random and not intelligently ordered by evolutionists performing natural selection on the fossils.

Are you suggesting evolutionist are cooking the books?

Rather than cooking or burning some books they just push their books while censoring and banning others in public schools.

That it is one huge indoctrination programme stared at school, and requires massive inaccuracies, and slipshod methodology to give itself credibility?

Yea. It is similar to the massive Marxist propaganda which was imposed on the former USSR for 70 years, until it's collapse.

Also: as you say mutation is random. but it is slipshod to forget to mention that for a mutation to spread , requires multiple generation, time and natural selection.

That's pure theory, which if true, may account for racial differences in humans.

Mutations can be selected against, and this will be the case most times.

Yea, since they only result from the loss of genetic information.

Natural selection is the non random process.

Natural selection is not a biological process like genetic selection, transmission and reproduction is, but merely a theory about the survival of species which are not extinct.

I will remind jcrawford of the rules.

In particular.

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

Most of the statements in the preceding post are blanket statements and not supported by any evidence. Some are quite extraordinary charges, for example, that scientists deliberately falsify evolutionary dates to fit the theory.

The moderators typically are not draconian about enforcing this rule, but this particular post seems to be an extreme case, packing quite a few extraordinary and unsubstantiated statements in a short span.

[jcrawford]

The myth of evolution is easily falsified by cognitive scientists, since it is nothing but a tautology consisting of circular reasoning within more circular reasoning.

To my knowledge, this is jcrawford's second reference to cognitive scientists. The first one was in reference to cognitive scientists who classify humans in a Kingdom, genus, class and species separate from the other animals. Are these the same cognitive scientists which you refused to specify then?

They are the same cognitive scientists which you refused to recognize on my previous response to your inane question.

"The only reputable and recognized cognitive scientists I would recommend are creation scientists and other epistomoligally self-conscious Christians who have studied cognitive scientists or epistomologists like Van Til and Rushdoony.

As far as using the same terminology I would, social scientists and politicians refer to the various kingdoms, orders, classes and families of man all the time."

[jcrawford]

I will remind jcrawford of the rules.

In particular.

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

Most of the statements in the preceding post are blanket statements and not supported by any evidence.

Most of the statements responded to in the preceding post are blanket statements and supported by neither logic nor evidence. At least my statements are logically consistent with my overall premises and thesis. Why do you only have a problem with my statements and none with the previous poster?

Some are quite extraordinary charges, for example, that scientists deliberately falsify evolutionary dates to fit the theory.

I said that they "make up dates to fit the theory." They also change dates when the last date of a fossil is does not match the new sequence into which it has been arbitrarily assigned, as in the case of Rhodesian Man and others.

The moderators typically are not draconian about enforcing this rule, but this particular post seems to be an extreme case, packing quite a few extraordinary and unsubstantiated statements in a short span.

I can see where "draconian" enforcement of this rule would bring the board to a standstill, if not the so-called process of evolution itself, since almost all of what evolutionists post is logically flawed and still remains unsubstantiated by any demonstrable evidence other than the usual pictorial presentation of some human and non-human fossils arranged in accordance by some racial theory of progressive evolution from monkeys to man.

[otseng]

I can see where "draconian" enforcement of this rule would bring the board to a standstill, if not the so-called process of evolution itself, since almost all of what evolutionists post is logically flawed and still remains unsubstantiated by any demonstrable evidence other than the usual pictorial presentation of some human and non-human fossils arranged in accordance by some racial theory of progressive evolution from monkeys to man.

To add to what has been said already.

In debates, it is frustrating when any party makes sweeping statements and generalizations that often mischaracterize any group. Such statements should be avoided by all parties. For example, if an evolutionist said, "Almost all posts made by creationists are logically flawed", then it is blanket statement and should be avoided. And as well, "almost all of what evolutionists post is logically flawed and still remains unsubstantiated by any demonstrable evidence" should be left unsaid.

To be more effective in debates, one should point out the logical flaws and explain through evidence and reasoning why it is wrong. And then simply leave it at that. It should be left up to the readers to make their own judgement of how logical any groups are.

[McCulloch]

I see the source of my confusion. I thought by the terms you were using that we were discussing the taxonomy of living things according to Biological Science. But you were, in fact, discussing scientific classification according to Cognitive Science. Thank you for clearing that up.

No, thank you for clearing it up, since it should be obvious to anyone that good cognitive scientists should think for themselves and self-consciously classify man in the Human Kingdom, and let biologists classify themselves as apes in the Animal Kingdom.

All scientists should think for themselves. It is rather obvious that from a purely biological point of view, humans are animals (multicellular living beings that are not plants), mammals (animals with backbones, warm blood that bear live young), primates (mammals with large eyes and brains) and apes (primates with no tails). I was completely unaware of the discipline of cognitive science which had a taxonomy that included the Human Kingdom.

Just one more thing. Could you provide a reference to any reputable recognized cognitive scientist who uses the terminology you cite? Human kingdom, order, class and family of human beings.

The only reputable and recognized cognitive scientists I would recommend are creation scientists and other epistomoligally self-conscious Christians who have studied cognitive scientists or epistomologists like Van Til and Rushdoony.

This is an odd recommendation. Only those scientists in the field of cognitive studies who make an a priori assumption of creationism would you recommend. First of all, I was not asking for a recommendation (thanks anyway, I will look them up) but just some sort of academic legitimacy to your claims. Is there a journal of cognitive science? Did Van Til and Rushdoony regularly publish in such journals? Do they use the taxonomy that you refer to?

Forgive me for using Wikipedia, I realize that it should not be taken as an authoritative source, but it is handy and in these cases probably not too inaccurate.
Rousas John Rushdoony

• 25 April 1916 – 8 February 2001
• Calvinist philosopher, historian, and theologian
• B.A. in English in 1938
• a teaching credential in 1939
• M.A. in Education in 1940.
• He also attended the Pacific School of Religion.
• received an honorary Doctorate from Valley Christian University for his book, The Philosophy of the Christian Curriculum.
• Rushdoony's most important area of writing, however, was law and politics, as expressed in his small book of popular essays Law & Liberty and discussed in much greater detail in his three volume work Institutes of Biblical Law.
• he proposed that Old Testament law should be applied to modern society and that there should be a Christian theonomy
• Rushdoony's work has been used by Dominion Theology advocates who attempt to implement a Christian theocracy (that is, a government subject to Biblical law, especially the Torah) in the United States.

Is this a misrepresentation of Rushdoony? Is there any recognition by anyone that he was a scientist, cognitive or otherwise?

Cornelius Van Til

• May 3, 1895 – April 17, 1987
• a Christian philosopher,
• Reformed theologian,
• presuppositional apologist.
• graduate of Calvin College, Princeton Theological Seminary and Princeton University
• professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary,
• a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church from the 1930s until his death in 1987.

Is this a misrepresentation of Van Til? Is there any recognition by anyone that he was a scientist, cognitive or otherwise?

These are your cognitive scientists? How about one that is recognized as a scientist? How about one that is still living? Has Christian apologetics and theology been renamed Cognitive Science?

As far as using the same terminology I would, social scientists and politicians refer to the various kingdoms, orders, classes and families of man all the time.

Metaphorically or casually perhaps. I was asking if there were any scientists who use a taxonomy which separates humans into a kingdom, order, class or family as you have asserted. I have found none.

[McCulloch]

Just one more thing. Could you provide a reference to any reputable recognized cognitive scientist who uses the terminology you cite? Human kingdom, order, class and family of human beings.

The only reputable and recognized cognitive scientists I would recommend are creation scientists and other epistomoligally self-conscious Christians who have studied cognitive scientists or epistomologists like Van Til and Rushdoony.

There is a recognized scientific discipline called cognitive science. JCrawford has appealed to this discipline to support his argument. When pressed for evidence to validate this appeal, he has provided two references to dead theologians who appear not to have any scientific qualifications, let alone qualifications in the field of cognitive science.
On the surface of it then it appears as if jcrawford is trying to deceive us. But I do not like to entertain the possibility that a debater is being deliberately dishonest without exhausting other explanations for the behaviour in question. With that in mind, here are the reasons that I can think of for his post other than a deliberate attempt to deceive:

1. He could be referring to cognitive scientists with the the surnames of Van Til and Rushdoony who coincidently have the same surnames as the noted theologians.
2. He might think that theology is science.
3. He might erroneously think that the theologians Van Til and Rushdoony had scientific credentials.
4. Van Til and Rushdoony might really have scientific credentials and I have failed to find them.
5. There is some other explanation for his reference to cognitive science and these two scholars.

Here is a list of published scientists in the field of cognitive science. With so many living practicing cognitive scientists, one does have to wonder why the appeal to mere theologians, dead ones at that.

[mrow]Name[mcol]Institution[row]A. Allport[col]University of Oxford[row]Gerry Altmann[col]York University[row]John Anderson[col]Carnegie Mellon University[row]D. Antiseri[col]LUISS, Rome[row]C. Antonelli[col]University of Torino[row]Amy F. Arnsten[col]Yale University[row]K. Arrow[col]Stanford University[row]Mete Atamel[col]Gettysburg College[row]S. Atran[col]CNRS, Paris France[row]Dana H. Ballard[col]University of Rochester [row]M. Bar-Hillel[col]Hebrew University[row]M. Bazerman[col]Harvard Business School[row]Marlene Behrman[col]Carnegie Mellon University[row]M. Bernasconi[col]University of Insubria[row]R. Berwick[col]Massachusetts Institute of Technology[row]Thomas G. Bever[col]University of Arizona[row]C. Bicchieri[col]University of Pennsylvania[row]Jeffrey R. Binder[col]Medical College of Wisconsin[row]K. Binmore[col]University College, London[row]D. Blakemore[col]University of Salford[row]N. Block[col]New York University[row]Paul Bloom[col]Yale University[row]N. Bonini[col]University of Trento[row]R. Boudon[col]University Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV)[row]J. M. Brady[col]University of Oxford[row]Bruce Bridgeman[col]University of California, Santa Cruz[row]M. Brody[col]University College, London[row]J.R. Brown[col]University of Toronto [row]Randy L. Buckner[col]Washington University[row]Nicolas J. Bullot[col]University of Toronto[row]T. Burge[col]University of California Los Angeles[row]Cristina Cacciari[col]Università di Modena [row]C.F. Camerer[col]California Institute of Technology[row]John Campbell[col]University of California, Berkeley[row]Ruth Campbell[col]University College, London[row]Alfonso Caramazza[col]Harvard University[row]Susan Carey[col]Harvard University[row]Robyn Carston[col]University College, London[row]B.J. Casey[col]Weill Medical College of Cornell University[row]C. Castelfranchi[col]CNR, Rome[row]A. Charles Catania[col]University of Maryland[row]R. Caterina[col]University of Torino[row]David Chalmers[col]Australian National University[row]Anjan Chatterjee[col]University of Pennsylvania[row]Jae-Chon Choe[col]Seoul National University[row]N. Chomsky[col]Massachusetts Institute of Technology[row]Ron Chrisley[col]University of Surrey[row]A. Cicourel[col]University of California, San Diego[row]E. V. Clark[col]Stanford University[row]H. H. Clark[col]Stanford University[row]Neal J. Cohen[col]University of llinois[row]Carol L. Colby[col]University of Pittsburgh[row]Max Coltheart[col]Macquarie University[row]Tim Crane[col]University College, London[row]Wim E. Crusio[col]University of Massachusetts Medical School[row]R. Cummins[col]University of California, USA[row]Gregory Currie[col]University of Nottingham[row]P. David[col]Stanford University[row]Martin Davies[col]Australian National University[row]Stanislaus Dehaene[col]Service Hospitalier Frederic Joliot[row]Gary S. Dell[col]University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign[row]Robert Desimone[col]National Institute of Mental Health[row]Mark D'Esposito[col]University of California, Berkeley[row]Katia Dilkina[col]Simon Fraser University[row]G. Dosi[col]Scuola Superiore "Sant’Anna"[row]M. Douglas[col]University College, London[row]F. Dretske[col]Duke University[row]Jean-Pierre Dscles[col]University of Paris - Sorbonne[row]John Duncan[col]MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit[row]Shimon Edelman[col]Cornell University[row]Massimo Egidi[col]LUISS, Rome[row]Paul Egré[col]CNRS/Institut Nicod[row]J. Elster[col]Columbia University[row]Jonathan Evans[col]University of Plymouth[row]Martha Farah[col]University of Pennsylvania[row]Barbara L. Finlay[col]Cornell University[row]J. Fodor[col]Rutgers University[row]Kenneth D. Forbus[col]Northwestern University[row]Robert Freidin[col]Princeton University[row]Bruno Frey[col]University of Zurich[row]Angela D. Friederici[col]Max Planck Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience[row]Shintaro Funahashi[col]Kyoto University[row]Joaquin M. Fuster[col]University of California Los Angeles[row]John D. E. Gabrieli[col]Stanford University[row]Michael S. Gazzaniga[col]Dartmouth College[row]Christine van Geen[col]University of Rouen/Institut Nicod[row]Dedre Gentner[col]Northwestern University[row]Dedre Gentner[col]Northwestern University[row]R.N. Giere[col]University of Minnesota[row]N. Gilbert[col]University of Surrey[row]Yolanda Gill[col]University of Southern California [row]V. Girotto[col]University IUAV[row]Adele E. Goldberg[col]Princeton University[row]Susan Goldin-Meadow[col]University of Chicago [row]Alvin Goldman[col]Rutgers University[row]Robert L. Goldstone[col]Indiana University[row]Scott T. Grafton[col]Dartmouth College[row]Wayne D. Gray[col]Rensselaer Polytechnic Insitute[row]Stephen Grossberg[col]Boston University[row]Samuel Guttenplan[col]Birkbeck College[row]Francesca Happé[col]King's College, University of London[row]Etsuko Harada[col]Hosei University[row]Gilbert Harman[col]Princeton University[row]Margaret Harris[col]Royal Holloway, University of London[row]Koiti Hasida[col]National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Japan[row]Todd F. Heatherton[col]Dartmouth College[row]Christophe Heintz[col]EHESS/Institut Nicod[row]J.D. Hey[col]University of York[row]J. Higginbotham[col]University of Southern California[row]Steve A. Hillyard[col]University of California, San Diego[row]D. Hilton[col]University Toulouse II[row]Lawrence A. Hirschfield[col]"New School for Social Research "[row]R.M. Hogarth[col]University Pompeu Fabra[row]J.H. Holland[col]University of Michigan, Ann Arbor[row]Chai-Song Hong[col]Seoul National University[row]G. Humphreys[col]University of Birmingham[row]Richard B. Ivry[col]University of California, Berkeley[row]Ray Jackendoff[col]Tufts University[row]P. Jacob[col]CNRS, EHESS, Paris, France[row]Marc Jeannerod[col]Institut de Sciences Cognitives, Lyon[row]R. Job[col]University of Padova[row]Christine Johnson[col]University of Toronto[row]Marcia K. Johnson[col]Yale University[row]Philip Johnson-Laird[col]Princeton University[row]Damián Justo[col]EHESS/Institut Nicod[row]Bong-Kiun Kaang[col]Seoul National University[row]D. Kahneman[col]Princeton University[row]Kazuhiko Kakehi[col]Nagoya University[row]Nancy Kanwisher[col]Massachusetts Institute of Technology[row]Annette Karmiloff-Smith[col]University College, London[row]R. Kempson[col]King's College, University of London[row]Cheongtag Kim[col]Seoul National University[row]Jaegwon Kim[col]Brown University[row]Jung-Oh Kim[col]Seoul National University[row]Young-Jeong Kim[col]Seoul National University[row]Youngjin Kim[col]Ajou University[row]Robert T. Knight[col]University of California, Berkeley[row]Barbara Knowlton[col]University of California Los Angeles[row]Stephen M. Kosslyn[col]Harvard University[row]R. Kowalski[col]Imperial College[row]Marta Kutas[col]University of California, San Diego[row]Chungmin Lee[col]Seoul National University[row]Kyoung-Min Lee[col]Seoul National University[row]Michael D. Lee[col]University of Adelaide[row]Graldine Legendre[col]Johns Hopkins University[row]Ernest Lepore[col]Rutgers University[row]Alan Leslie[col]Rutgers University[row]W. J. M. Levelt[col]Max Planck Institute[row]I. Levi[col]Columbia University[row]Stephen C. Levinson[col]Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics and Radbout University Nijmegen[row]Ping Li[col]University of Richmond[row]Chen Lin[col]University of Science and Technology of China[row]Charles Ling[col]Western Ontario University[row]B. Loar[col]Rutgers University[row]G. Lolli[col]University of Torino[row]Guy Longworth[col]Birkbeck College[row]Clement Loo[col]University of Calgary[row]Bradley C. Love[col]University of Texas at Austin[row]L. Macchi[col]University of Milano-Bicocca[row]L. Magnani[col]University of Pavia[row]James S. Magnuson[col]University of Connecticut and Haskins[row]Rafael Malach[col]Weizmann Institute of Science[row]F. Malerba[col]University "Luigi Bocconi"[row]George R. Mangun[col]University of California, Davis[row]R. Manzini[col]University College, London[row]M. Maratsos[col]University of Minnesota[row]J.G. March[col]Stanford University[row]Diego Marconi[col]University of Eastern Piedmont[row]Hubert Markl[col]Universitat Konstanz[row]John C. Marshall[col]Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford[row]Michael Martin[col]University College, London[row]A. Massarenti[col]Il Sole 24 Ore, Milan[row]Reiko Mazuka[col]Duke University[row]Jay McClelland[col]Carnegie Mellon University[row]Anthony R McIntosh[col]Rotman Research Institute[row]Danielle S. McNamara[col]University of Memphis [row]D.L. Medin[col]Northwestern University[row]Marcel Mesulam[col]Northwestern University[row]S. Metcalfe[col]University of Manchester[row]Earl K. Miller[col]Massachusetts Institute of Technology[row]Tom Mitchell[col]Carnegie Mellon University[row]Naomi Miyake[col]Chuyoko University[row]Yasushi Miyashita[col]University of Tokyo School of Medicine[row]Johanna D. Moore[col]University of Edinburgh[row]Cameron Morland [col]University of Waterloo[row]John Morton[col]MRC Cognitive Development Unit[row]Kevin Mulligan[col]University of Geneva[row]Seungho Nam[col]Seoul National University[row]Laura L. Namy[col]Emory University[row]Charles A. Nelson[col]Harvard Medical School[row]R. Nelson[col]Columbia University[row]N.J. Nersessian[col]Georgia Institute of Technology[row]Helen Neville[col]University of Oregon[row]W.H. Newton-Smith[col]Balliol College[row]Alva Noë[col]University of California, Berkeley[row]K.-D. Opp[col]University of Leipzig[row]Daniel Osherson[col]Princeton University[row]Massimo Piattelli Palmarini[col]University of Arizona[row]David Papineau[col]King's College, University of London[row]D. Parisi[col]CNR, Rome[row]Richard E. Passingham[col]University of Oxford[row]Sarah Patterson[col]Birkbeck College[row]Christopher Peacocke[col]Columbia University[row]F. J. Pelletier[col]University of Alberta[row]John Perry[col]Stanford University[row]A. M. Petroni[col]Scuola Superiore della Pubblica Amministrazione[row]Elizabeth A. Phelps[col]New York University[row]Terry W. Picton[col]Rotman Research Institute[row]Steven Pinker[col]Massachusetts Institute of Technology[row]Russell A. Poldrack[col]University of California Los Angeles[row]Guy Politzer[col]CNRS, Saint Denis, France[row]Michael I. Posner[col]University of Oregon[row]Nausicaa Pouscoulous[col]EHESS/Institut Nicod[row]Daniel Povinelli[col]University of Louisiana[row]Cathy J. Price[col]University College, London[row]Jesse Prinz[col]University of North Carolina[row]Zenon Pylyshyn[col]Rutgers University[row]Marcus E. Raichle[col]Washington University[row]F. Recanati[col]Institut Jean Nicod[row]N. Rescher[col]University of Pittsburgh[row]Patricia A. Reuter-Lorenz[col]University of Michigan[row]S. Rizzello[col]University of Piemonte Orientale[row]Giacomo Rizzolatti[col]University di Parma[row]Trevor W. Robbins[col]University of Cambridge[row]Ranulfo Romo[col]Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico[row]L.D. Ross[col]Stanford University[row]A. Lopez Rousseau[col]Madrid[row]Michael D. Rugg[col]University of California, Irvine[row]R. Rumiati[col]University of Padova[row]P. L. Sacco[col]University IUAV[row]G. Sandri[col]University of Bologna / Columbia University[row]Daniel L. Schacter[col]Harvard University[row]S. Schiffer[col]New York University[row]Nestor Schmajuk[col]Duke University[row]Brian Scholl[col]Yale University[row]Christian Schunn[col]University of Pittsburgh[row]J.R. Searle[col]University of California, Berkeley[row]Colleen M. Seifert[col]University of Michigan, Ann Arbor[row]Terrence J. Sejnowski[col]Salk Institute[row]R. Selten[col]University of Bonn[row]E. Shafir[col]Princeton University[row]M. Shatz[col]University of Michigan[row]Maggie Shiffrar[col]Rutgers University - Newark Campus [row]Yasuhiro Shirai[col]Cornell University[row]Peter Slezak[col]University of New South Wales[row]P. Slovic[col]University of Oregon[row]Neil Smith[col]University College, London[row]Paul Smolensky[col]Johns Hopkins University[row]Elizabeth Spelke[col]Harvard University[row]D. Sperber[col]Institut Jean Nicod[row]Larry Squire[col]University of California, San Diego[row]R. Stalnaker[col]Massachusetts Institute of Technology[row]Horst D. Steklis[col]Rutgers University[row]Keith Stenning[col]University of Edinburgh[row]S. P. Stich[col]Rutgers University[row]Tony Stone[col]South Bank University[row]Dave Suarez[col]Simon Fraser University[row]Yu-Hun Suh[col]Seoul National University[row]Benjamin Q. Sylvand[col]University of Oxford[row]Leonard Talmy[col]University of Buffalo[row]Dario Taraborelli[col]University College, London[row]Joshua B. Tenenbaum[col]Massachusetts Institute of Technology[row]P. Terna[col]University of Torino[row]Paul Thagard[col]University of Waterloo[row]Peter M. Todd[col]Indiana University[row]Michael Tomasello[col]Max Planck Institute[row]Leo Trottier[col]University of Toronto[row]Raimo Tuomela[col]University of Helsinki[row]Leslie G. Ungerleider[col]National Institute of Mental Health[row]E. R. Valentine[col]Royal Holloway, University of London[row]David C. Van Essen[col]Washington University[row]Achille Varzi[col]Columbia University[row]A. Vercelli[col]University of Siena[row]J-R. Vergnaud[col]University of Southern California[row]Riccardo Viale[col]University of Milano-Bicocca[row]Frédérique de Vignemont[col]CNRS/Institut de Sciences Cognitives[row]Eva-Maria Waleschkowski[col]Johann Wolfgang Goethe University[row]Bernard Walliser[col]ENPC, EHESS, Paris, France[row]Hahn-Sok Wang[col]Seoul National University[row]M. Warglien[col]University Ca' Foscari di Venezia[row]Tom Wasow[col]Stanford University[row]Janet Wiles[col]University of Queensland[row]Timothy Williamson[col]New College, Oxford[row]Deirdre Wilson[col]University College, London[row]S. Winter[col]University of Pennsylvania[row]U. Witt[col]Max Planck Institute[row]Phillip Wolff[col]Emory University[row]Robert J. Zatorre[col]McGilll University[row]Byoung-Tak Zhang[col]Seoul National University[row]Myeong-Han Zoh[col]Seoul National University

[jcrawford]

To add to what has been said already.

In debates, it is frustrating when any party makes sweeping statements and generalizations that often mischaracterize any group.

I agree, and from my Christian POV, evolutionists do this ALL THE TIME and get away with it with no moderator intervention. They make unsubstantiated assumptions and false assertions about Christians, Christianity and creation scientists on every other post and provide no reasonable or rational logic or evidence to back up their wild speculations and claims.

Such statements should be avoided by all parties. For example, if an evolutionist said, "Almost all posts made by creationists are logically flawed", then it is blanket statement and should be avoided. And as well, "almost all of what evolutionists post is logically flawed and still remains unsubstantiated by any demonstrable evidence" should be left unsaid.

To be more effective in debates, one should point out the logical flaws and explain through evidence and reasoning why it is wrong. And then simply leave it at that. It should be left up to the readers to make their own judgement of how logical any groups are.

I like the fact that you point out and highlight the need to examine and discuss the reason, rational and logic epistemoligically employed by posters, rather than solely demanding some sort of proof for one's claims and assertions, since it is biased on the part of evolutionists to demand physical evidence in support of one's beliefs when they rule out the application of Christian logic and presuppostions to any discussion of human origins at the outset, by defining, determining and limiting the terms, conditions and issues to be discussed on a basis which they insist that they alone have the right to establish and impose on all other posters.

Since this is the Science and Religion Forum, perhaps posters should be required to be able to reasonably, rationally and logically distinguish between these two metaphysical categories before they launch into their their explanations, analyses, definitions and classifications of so-called human species in history, since ontological and epistemological imperatives take precedence over the "scientific" establishment of any phylogenetic division of humanity into either different races or species descended from sub-human African apes.