Storming the Beaches of Norman

Evolution News & Views ^ | October 3, 2009 | Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.

[Filo]

That because, of course, the evolutionists position is truely laughable.

I couldn't agree with you more Filo...perhaps there's some hope for you after all! ;)

LOL!

Good! I'm fine with the only thing you agree with being my mistakes/typos.

That's what I get for taking a late lunch.

[Filo]

As the article in #13 points out and Filo agrees, debate is only allowable if the Darwinists can control the terms of the debate. You may argue science so long as the Darwinists can define science, you may use references from their approved list, but that is somehow proper since they are “scientific”:

Unfortunately for you and your pathetic argument Darwinists don't define science, all scientists do.

In reality the definition isn't all that hard. Basically you just can't make crap up and you have to support your assertions with evidence.

Creationists fail on both counts (and many, many others.)

[Filo]

Can you give me some key words?

Self Replicating Molecules.

[count-your-change]

“make crap up” is just what the Darwinists do as in the Ida and Ardi Traveling Circus Road Show. But no one expects more.
No wonder Scott and Scientific Philosopher (whatever that is) Pennock advise against open and free debate where they are not in control.

But not to worry, debate is acceptable here and even persons like yourself are welcome, Aren't you glad you're not treated like your fellow Darwinists would treat others?

[Filo]

“make crap up” is just what the Darwinists do

Which shows just how utterly confused creationists really are. . .

[count-your-change]

This is pretty much the biggie paper on the subject:

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=130529

and if one examines the paper in full it can be seen that “self replication” is anything but that. Kind of like Lucy’s feet, but don’t expect anything from “Take my word for it” Darwinists.

[tpanther]

That's what you get for being out to lunch Filo. ;)

[Mudtiger]

Thanks for the link. I did not really see anything that indicated how the first DNA was generated.

[alstewartfan]

One might include among “geocentric... universe” and “flat earth” studies, “Darwinism”. The belief that amoebas changed through random mutations into mammals and other organisms is as unscientific as Richard Dawkins’ silly idea that we may have been populated by space aliens! Blessings, Bob

[count-your-change]

It's really very simple. Lightening, volcanoes, meteorites, picture an oxidizing atmosphere, imagine reducing atmosphere, catalytic clays, space aliens, maybe warm springs, could be cold springs, hot springs, no one knows, possibly extremeophiles, asteroids, we don't know, not our problem, what are you? A creationist, a religious question, no atmosphere, ocean, desert, Darwin's warm pool, dessert,mudahhhhhhhhh.

And there the DNA was! See how easy that is?

[Agamemnon]

FILO LURCHES UNCONTROLLABLY INTO THE TRUTH: That because, of course, the evolutionists position is truely laughable.

TPANTHER REPLIES: I couldn't agree with you more Filo...perhaps there's some hope for you after all! ;) LOL!

FILO PROJECTS; Good! I'm fine with the only thing you agree with being my mistakes/typos.

Looks like Filo just stepped in his own stupidity!

Filo elaborates on her argument a little more right here

FILO's (aka "Sparkles") next argument: coming soon to a front porch near you!

That's what I get for taking a late lunch.

Looks like you're just fishing for that typical little kid's "dog ate my homework"-style excuse.

Just blame it on the Twinkies instead next time, Filo!

[Filo]

That's what you get for being out to lunch Filo. ;)

But at least I'm right. . . you and the rest of the 'thumper crowd don't even have that going for you.

[tpanther]

But at least I'm right. . .

Yes, you're right about your position being laughable Filo.

"Sparkles"? LOL!

[metmom]

But at least I'm right. . . you and the rest of the 'thumper crowd don't even have that going for you.

But you can't even know that for sure. In order to be able to declare yourself *right*, you need a standard to which to compare yourself.

What is that standard?

What happens when new evidence comes in to science and disproves what was previously adhered to?

Then who is right?

[Filo]

What is that standard?

Science (meaning reason and intelligence) provides that standard.

What happens when new evidence comes in to science and disproves what was previously adhered to?

If and when that happens the frame of reference is altered to adhere to the new facts, as needed.

What was right may prove to be wrong.

Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.

Evolution has sufficient factual backing to be considered absolute fact itself. There has not yet been any evidence that hasn't supported the basic theory.

Of course creationists are incapable of understanding even the theory, more or less what it means.

So every time a new species is discovered, a link added or broken, whatever they scream "See! Evolution was WRONG!" (which is really, really funny ‘cause it shows just how stupid the ‘thumpers are) when, in fact, the finds only ever serve to reinforce evolution and further prove creationist myths to be utterly devoid of, well, anything.

[tpanther]

Evolution has sufficient factual backing to be considered absolute fact itself. There has not yet been any evidence that hasn’t supported the basic theory.

Of course creationists are incapable of understanding even the theory, more or less what it means.

---

Here it is boys and girls...this is what happens when someone abandons their kid to NEA liberal gubmint screwels.

Who, after all exclaims evolution theory is fact? This is why liberals have to sue responsible parents for teaching kids the truth that theory is NOT fact via stickers on NEA science texts here in Georgia. They just don’t understand the science themselves!

Filo lecturing anyone on science, facts, or theory...is like Bill Clinton lecturing a room full of teenage girls on the virtues of abstinence!

The question is...what is more fascinating, that liberals actually believe in their own indoctrination to be actual education, OR their arrogance and projections about their obvious helplessness?

[Filo]

Who, after all exclaims evolution theory is fact?

Those of us with education, reason, understanding and who haven't abandoned our brains to the bible.

In other words, smart people - the opposite of people like you. :)

[tpanther]

Those of us with education, reason, understanding and who haven’t abandoned our brains to the bible.

In other words, smart people - the opposite of people like you. :)

---

You haven’t gotten the memo sparkles.

Keep ‘em coming now!

[Orestes5711]

Sir, you can not claim that "those of us with education, reason, understanding" are all for calling the THEORY of evolution, fact; for if you had the above qualities, then you would know that a "Theory is a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation, an unproved assumption, conjecture, a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject " and a "Scientific fact any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted."

Therefore, using those definitions for theory and fact, one cannot state that the THEORY of Evolution is a fact

Definitions from:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+fact

[Filo]

Sir, you can not claim that "those of us with education, reason, understanding" are all for calling the THEORY of evolution, fact; for if you had the above qualities, then you would know that a "Theory is a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation, an unproved assumption, conjecture, a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject " and a "Scientific fact any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted."

Therefore, using those definitions for theory and fact, one cannot state that the THEORY of Evolution is a fact

Actually, by those definitions I absolutely can.

Nobody has yet refuted evolution. Not even close. Certainly not the creationists.