Evolution discussion from Time magazine

[Lamb Boy]

Ok Anon the reason LAW was in capitals is because I have already shown more than once how evolution is considered by the scientific community and most of the rest of the layppl here on this planet a law BECAUSE evolution has amassed such an enormous amount of evidence that as a law it has been “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

Just to paraphrase the same person I already quoted while YOU have offered nothing in the way of a rebuttal that actually has any merit to it at all. You're just like "Oh that's just like blah blah blah and you're only illustrating your own complaints bluh bluh bluh ..." all the while never making any effort to discuss the points I have already raised but continuing to have your same approach since day 1 on this thread.

Just like I already stated to Armenian and now I will to you ... I read what you post no matter how ill informed it may be. Perhaps you could extend me the same courtesy before you respond with the same old tired garbage as you did a couple of weeks ago. You remember that post right? When I dropped all that info that no one has responded to YET. My name "Lamb Boy" just sat there on this thread as the last person to have responded to it for like a week or two at the least when I had last posted on this topic. Now that someone finally said something else it's like what I had previously posted just dosen't exist at all.

It shows a level of disrespect and brash rudeness on your part to just pretend like I haven't, through other ppl, shown how evolution is a law. Your even wondering why I am placing LAW in all caps as if you don't realize that I am emphasizing its scientific position to you ONCE AGAIN! I have already done this on more than one occasion while you have done nothing in respect to defending your side of this discussion.

Ignoring the facts is what you seem to be good at. If you weren't dodging them so much then maybe you could respond to them and perhaps even offer a rebuttal of some actual substance for a change. I for one think you're incapable of discussing evolution and making an argument against it as a law. It is a law as I have already shown more than once, caps or no caps. Only the mechanics are theoretical. Get over it.

Remember that "facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty..." Which is how you treat evolution

"Facts are the world's data."

AND last but certainly NOT least from the man himself!!

"'Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution"

What else can I say? Really what else can you say to that? Me thinks not a lot.

Just wait for my post to disappear then pretend like I didn't post my side of this discussion multiple times w/o anyone posing a thoughtful rebuttal or even a rebuttal in general. All you give me is pseudo name calling which makes for a truly ineffectual discussion. I mean actually TRY to make it seems like you have another side to this evolution coin and that you're also capable of defending it. I am all ears ... and still waiting ... for over a month now.

As I already stated in the post that I am still waiting for someone to try to debate against with any semblance of integrity or intelligence ...

"If you’re not offering an alternate idea to evolution that, ALSO like evolution is supported by facts and NOT blind faith (read impossible), then all your really doing is attacking evolution as a fact without any supporting thoughts, ideas, evidence whatever …"

Is repetition what you need Anon? I mean how many licks does it take to get to the center of your tootsie pop? Obviously more than 4

[Anonymouse]

Ok Anon the reason LAW was in capitals is because I have already shown more than once how evolution is considered by the scientific community and most of the rest of the layppl here on this planet a law BECAUSE evolution has amassed such an enormous amount of evidence that as a law it has been “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

Just to paraphrase the same person I already quoted while YOU have offered nothing in the way of a rebuttal that actually has any merit to it at all. You're just like "Oh that's just like blah blah blah and you're only illustrating your own complaints bluh bluh bluh ..." all the while never making any effort to discuss the points I have already raised but continuing to have your same approach since day 1 on this thread.Just like I already stated to Armenian and now I will to you ... I read what you post no matter how ill informed it may be.

Perhaps you could extend me the same courtesy before you respond with the same old tired garbage as you did a couple of weeks ago. You remember that post right? When I dropped all that info that no one has responded to YET. My name "Lamb Boy" just sat there on this thread as the last person to have responded to it for like a week or two at the least when I had last posted on this topic. Now that someone finally said something else it's like what I had previously posted just dosen't exist at all.

It shows a level of disrespect and brash rudeness on your part to just pretend like I haven't, through other ppl, shown how evolution is a law. Your even wondering why I am placing LAW in all caps as if you don't realize that I am emphasizing its scientific position to you ONCE AGAIN! I have already done this on more than one occasion while you have done nothing in respect to defending your side of this discussion.

This is a fallacious tactic employed by none other than the fallacious. You and I very well know that the opposing arguments to evolution are serious, otherwise the evolutionists would not put in such a concerted effort at protecting dogma.

As far as the points you have raised, they are nothing new. This cliche topic about evolution is nothing new and has been rehashed here, but both evolutionists, and myself, so I do not feel necessary to address the points you have raised as they have thus been addressed a thousand times. What you have posted has been posted by the previous posters such as loseyourname, dusken, and the wino-creature. I suggest that you go back and read the many threads about this topic we have had, and you can clearly see the arguments and points addressed.

The whole whining and crying about how you weren't given the same "respect" is childish. After all, this is just an internet forum, and if you take this that seriously, then you may as well not participate.

Ignoring the facts is what you seem to be good at. If you weren't dodging them so much then maybe you could respond to them and perhaps even offer a rebuttal of some actual substance for a change. I for one think you're incapable of discussing evolution and making an argument against it as a law. It is a law as I have already shown more than once, caps or no caps. Only the mechanics are theoretical. Get over it.

What facts have I ignored cute stuff? Maybe you should stop ignoring the arguments I've raised such as dusken, loseyourname, and the wino-creature have? Should I pull lamb boy and start whining about how you don't extend respect to me?

"If you’re not offering an alternate idea to evolution that, ALSO like evolution is supported by facts and NOT blind faith (read impossible), then all your really doing is attacking evolution as a fact without any supporting thoughts, ideas, evidence whatever …"

Well, I'm not as arrogant and omniscient as evolutionists to boast a monopoly on knowledge, and claims to truth, nor do I want to be a part of that fallacious charade.

[winoman]

This is a fallacious tactic employed by none other than the fallacious. You and I very well know that the opposing arguments to evolution are serious, otherwise the evolutionists would not put in such a concerted effort at protecting dogma.

BS. If Physics or Astronomy or any other science were under such attack from religeous extremists like you the response would be the same. It is quite ludicrous to accuse biologists of vigorously acting to defend the science when it would't be such an issue in the first place accept for ignorant fanatic book burnign type christians conducting an inquisition and crusade in the grand fashion of old. So lets question the sun centered solar system - why not teach that some (religious fanatics who put religious belief before scientific discovery) feel that we have no proof for the sun being the center of the solar system except for what some obviously non-god fearing scientists say. We need to teach alternative explanations in schools don't we? And while we are at it - next time you have a serious medical condition I suggest you take your cure up with the nearest Voodoo Witch Doctor...yeah I wouldn't trust anyone trained in accepted modern biological science - you never know they might adminsiter medicine based on current scientific based understanding of anatomy and biology - obviously highly flawed and suspect.

[Lamb Boy]

LOL Wino ... so true. I think that what you said is what this discussion all really boils down to in the end. The one major topic of science that challenges a religious doctrine so full of holes it is amazing that any intelligent person actually believes in it, and ppl of blind faith just can't stop trying to either dumb it down or obliterate it all together just because it challenges their "holey" ideology. Once they begin to accept any science as valid in the light of all of the worlds evidence then they just move on to assimilating, or blending rather, their religious ideology with the irrefutable science they have just begun to accept. It's like religious evolution, although much MUCH slower than natural evolution!

[Anonymouse]

It seems the evolutionists are in a discussion with themselves, essentially shadow boxing. They create their opposing view, and then they "discredit" it. In this instance, the wino-creature and Lamb Boy, without evidence, conclude I am a "religious extremist", and pretend to argue from there. Anyone who disagrees with evolution is by the fact itself, necessarily, a religious extremist. Such childish one sided versions of what constitutes "disagreements" are only the products of fragile minds too afraid to admit complexity.

I suppose it is good that you two found each other, sort of like when Harry met Sally. Winoman was beginning to get lonely in here, and thanks to Lamb Boy, that is all behind him now.

[TomServo]

The two halfies have found each other.

[winoman]

Guess there is just no acceptence of Evolutionary theory in the Scientific community...those who believe in Evolution do so just because they were told to and nothing has been done to examine alternative explanations for things or to conduct peer review - you know the things Scientists do before they accept something as an accepted theory for which pretty much all scientifically accepted knowledge/premisses concerning biology are based upon...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

etc

[winoman]

AAAS Board Resolution
on Intelligent Design Theory

The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education. To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding.

Over the past several years proponents of so-called "intelligent design theory," also known as ID, have challenged the accepted scientific theory of biological evolution. As part of this effort they have sought to introduce the teaching of "intelligent design theory" into the science curricula of the public schools. The movement presents "intelligent design theory" to the public as a theoretical innovation, supported by scientific evidence, that offers a more adequate explanation for the origin of the diversity of living organisms than the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution. In response to this effort, individual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive critiques of "intelligent design," demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts.

Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution:

Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;

Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;

Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;

Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education;

Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools;

Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education;

Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS encourages its affiliated societies to endorse this resolution and to communicate their support to appropriate parties at the federal, state and local levels of the government.

Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors on 10/18/02

[Anonymouse]

Guess there is just no acceptence of Evolutionary theory in the Scientific community...those who believe in Evolution do so just because they were told to and nothing has been done to examine alternative explanations for things or to conduct peer review - you know the things Scientists do before they accept something as an accepted theory for which pretty much all scientifically accepted knowledge/premisses concerning biology are based upon...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

etc

We have already been thru this about the appeal to authority or the many. So because it is peer reviewed, then it must be true? Take a break on trying to wrestle with logic sweet heart, it's having a corrosive effect on your argument here.

[Anonymouse]

The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education.

So? What is your point?