Now, on to Evolutionists. This theory explains very little.
What, exactly, do you mean? It explains a specific phenomenon, and it explains it very well. It doesn't explain how your refridgerator works, how to properly cook a steak or why the sky is blue, but those things don't fall within the scope of the theory.
This theory explains very little. It applies a very loose pattern to an inconsistent pool of data. Whenever the fossil record doesn't support Evolution, that information is generally supressed in some way.
I'm sure that you can provide an example of the fossil record not supporting evolution, or has that all been "supressed"?
When Evolutionists can't, they throw Time at the problem.
Examples?
You know what I've observed when animals must make significant adaptations in order to survive? They DIE!
What if they make the adaptations? Why wouldn't this happen?
The amount of good luck required to make Evolution work is laughable. It's as wishful thinking as every species fully-formed popping up out of the ground.
Ah. Argument from bullshitting. You've not actually addressed the theory as-is, you've just propped up an oversimplified strawman and knocked it down with nothing more than the power of your own presumptions, all the while sounding like an arrogant ignoramous.
"Of course", as you would propose, "no legitimate biologist who studied after the brilliant discoveries of the all-knowing Darwin would deny what he proclaimed!",
I never said any such thing, nor would I. I am aware that there are contemporary biologists who do not accept evolution.
They are in an extremely small minority. Also, Gish is a known hack and a liar. I'm not familiar with the others on your list.
Another frequent tactic of creationists: making up the position that those who accept evolution take and arguing against it, because it's far easier than arguing against reality.
How in the world a man can come out of a biology/related doctorate program of a major secular university and still hold a creationist viewpoint probably seems incredible to you, and I can just imagine the excuses you'll respond with.
I'm sure that you can just imagine them, given that you seem willing to imagine all kinds of positions that I have neither stated nor taken.
Of course, your response will contain nothing more than the usual "none of them have provided any evidence supporting creationism, either!", to which I would respond, "of course you would say that, because that's exactly what you want to believe". To which you would reply "I don't believe anything, I just follow the facts of science", ad. infinium. Spare me.
You know, I could come up with a well-reasoned explanation as to why everything that you have presented is bunk, but I already know that you'll dismiss it, call me a liar, pretend that the evidence does not exist and just ignore it.
See, I can argue against speculation of what you will do rather than what you've actually done also. Note how it doesn't add any meaning or credibility to my statement? That tactic doesn't work when you use it either.
Just the to say magically that Darwinism is proved and meets the valid scientific theory qualitification of disprovability does not mean it is so.
This statement implies a contradiction, but only beacuse of your ignorance.
Evolution is not "proved". No theory in science is ever proven. Theores cannot be proven, that is the nature of science.
Theories can be disproven, and in fact there must be a hypothetical disproff criteria for an explanation to be a theory. I've already given one, and you never responded to it.
right, i am a "dishonest creationist" now because i wrote a post you disagree with.
No, you're dishonest because you attempted to apply a dictionary definition to "theory" in the context of science despite the fact that scientists don't use the definition that you were attempting to slap on. You are playing semantic games in an attempt to prove a point, you're trying to instill doubt in evolution by redefining it rather than actually addressing any facts.
Very mature. Actually, you disagree because i call the theory of evolution a theory. tisk.
Evolution is a theory. I have never claimed otherwise, you shameless, presupmtious liar.
The "lowest common denominator" of course being the likes of Michael Faraday, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, etc. Yeah... what a bunch of dolts! You tell 'em!
Dishonest creationist tactic #874: list, as support for creationism, the names of "creationist Scientists" whose work was not in any field related to biology, whose work did not support any actual creationist claims and most of whom were dead before Charles Darwin was even born, much less published Origin (though Faraday didn't die until 1867, but that's hardly time for a non-biologist to fully examine the evidence for evolution and draw conclusions).
If instead you want to make the clain that scientists are incorrect, and even though they accept evlution as a fact, you want to say it's "just a conjecture" fine, but make that claim without misleading terminology.
If you deny them their dishonest semantic games of redefining terms at their own convenience (where "theory" means "wild guess" and "evolution" implies that "God does not exist"), then they lose at least a third of their arguments.
Dishonest creationist tactic #432: look up "theory" in the dictionary, apply the definition that they want to use for evolution, insist that "theory" in the context of science (at least when speaking of evolution) uses that definition despite the fact that no credibile scientist uses that definition.
It's the best explanation for currently observed phenomenon, but I'd hardly call any scientific theory "infallable". All theories are subject to revision in change; that is the nature of science. There is no scientific explanation that could not be potentially falsified.
...without some moron like you coming in, spewing out a completely invalid analogy founded upon faulty premises and a total lack of understanding of the actual theory of evolution and then arrogantly acting as though you've somehow falsified the last 150 years of biological research with the amazing power of your ignorance.
It's what allows cells to copy the essence of themselves from one generation to the next, and allows them to continue on the platform from where the last generation left off.
And if you don't have DNA, you don't have imperfectly-replicating life forms, which means that you don't have evolution. As such, you cannot use evolution to go from the stage where there is no DNA to where there is, because it involves at least one step where you don't have reproducing life forms.
I was able to get into contact with the SPEWS folks through the more approachable founder of another SPAM blacklist, and got a call, I think at 1 AM, regarding the block.
What was the name of the "SPEWS" person to whom you spoke?
What is the Class B in question, and why is it there? Also, why should you be whitelisted? Are you not in any way affiliated with the network that is responsible for the listing?
When you make ignorant statements like this, you demonstrate that you've either not done any actual research, or you're just a liar. Unfortunately, this is a very common problem with creationists; they continue to use arguments that have been addressed thousands of times as though they're too lazy to do any actual research or they just don't care that they are arguing from a position of dishonesty.
Never happens to me. My problem is that mplayerplug-in ALWAYS causes a browser crash. Plays imbedded video just fine, but once it fully loads a video, it destabilizes the browser such that afterward, when viewing any website, if I try to save any link (a jpg image being viewed or a downloadable file), the browser dies. Every time.
Will they still be able to self-boot? I've seen Dreamcast homebrew software released with a batch file and the necessary utilities to create a disc image, and they always start by making an iso image file, and then converting that to.nrg. Since ISO files are so universally accepted by CD recording utilities, I assumed that the.nrg conversion was to make the disc bootable in a Dreamcast.
Not just UPCs, but also receipts. I could have gone back to CC to get another 'rebate receipt' printed up, but I just opted to photocopy the one that I'd been given, and it was acceptable.
My TiVo rebate only required that I send in clear photocopies of the documentation. That's how I was able to score a rebate from both Circuit City ($50 gift card) and TiVo ($100 check) and yes, both have been fulfilled.
You US Joes want to carry the guns when you walk through a park in a Sunday afternoon (just in case a group of people decides to beat you), and THAT results in bloodbaths every single day in yankeeland.
You might be able to make a more convincing point if you would actually discuss reality rather than just lying about what really happens.
From what you say, concealed carry laws should have increased violence. Odd how that isn't the case. Almost like you're just talking out of your ass.
I just don't want to see untrained people bearing guns at the amusement park. If you carry a gun, and you aren't in law enforcement, I prefer seeing you disarmed and driven to a precinct, instead of having a hard time trying to decide wich side of the law you are to see if I run or not.
Your sentiment is shared by muggers, rapists and other violent criminals everywhere. They would much rather their victims be unarmed. It makes their lives so much easier when there's no risk of being killed while breaking the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, on to Evolutionists. This theory explains very little.
What, exactly, do you mean? It explains a specific phenomenon, and it explains it very well. It doesn't explain how your refridgerator works, how to properly cook a steak or why the sky is blue, but those things don't fall within the scope of the theory.
This theory explains very little. It applies a very loose pattern to an inconsistent pool of data. Whenever the fossil record doesn't support Evolution, that information is generally supressed in some way.
I'm sure that you can provide an example of the fossil record not supporting evolution, or has that all been "supressed"?
When Evolutionists can't, they throw Time at the problem.
Examples?
You know what I've observed when animals must make significant adaptations in order to survive? They DIE!
What if they make the adaptations? Why wouldn't this happen?
The amount of good luck required to make Evolution work is laughable. It's as wishful thinking as every species fully-formed popping up out of the ground.
Ah. Argument from bullshitting. You've not actually addressed the theory as-is, you've just propped up an oversimplified strawman and knocked it down with nothing more than the power of your own presumptions, all the while sounding like an arrogant ignoramous.
"Of course", as you would propose, "no legitimate biologist who studied after the brilliant discoveries of the all-knowing Darwin would deny what he proclaimed!",
I never said any such thing, nor would I. I am aware that there are contemporary biologists who do not accept evolution.
They are in an extremely small minority. Also, Gish is a known hack and a liar. I'm not familiar with the others on your list.
Another frequent tactic of creationists: making up the position that those who accept evolution take and arguing against it, because it's far easier than arguing against reality.
How in the world a man can come out of a biology/related doctorate program of a major secular university and still hold a creationist viewpoint probably seems incredible to you, and I can just imagine the excuses you'll respond with.
I'm sure that you can just imagine them, given that you seem willing to imagine all kinds of positions that I have neither stated nor taken.
Of course, your response will contain nothing more than the usual "none of them have provided any evidence supporting creationism, either!", to which I would respond, "of course you would say that, because that's exactly what you want to believe". To which you would reply "I don't believe anything, I just follow the facts of science", ad. infinium. Spare me.
You know, I could come up with a well-reasoned explanation as to why everything that you have presented is bunk, but I already know that you'll dismiss it, call me a liar, pretend that the evidence does not exist and just ignore it.
See, I can argue against speculation of what you will do rather than what you've actually done also. Note how it doesn't add any meaning or credibility to my statement? That tactic doesn't work when you use it either.
I've also been away.
Just the to say magically that Darwinism is proved and meets the valid scientific theory qualitification of disprovability does not mean it is so.
This statement implies a contradiction, but only beacuse of your ignorance.
Evolution is not "proved". No theory in science is ever proven. Theores cannot be proven, that is the nature of science.
Theories can be disproven, and in fact there must be a hypothetical disproff criteria for an explanation to be a theory. I've already given one, and you never responded to it.
right, i am a "dishonest creationist" now because i wrote a post you disagree with.
No, you're dishonest because you attempted to apply a dictionary definition to "theory" in the context of science despite the fact that scientists don't use the definition that you were attempting to slap on. You are playing semantic games in an attempt to prove a point, you're trying to instill doubt in evolution by redefining it rather than actually addressing any facts.
Very mature. Actually, you disagree because i call the theory of evolution a theory. tisk.
Evolution is a theory. I have never claimed otherwise, you shameless, presupmtious liar.
There is a theory where an all-powerful being willed us here and we just appeared.
Actually, that's not a theory, at least not within the context of science.
The "lowest common denominator" of course being the likes of Michael Faraday, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, etc. Yeah... what a bunch of dolts! You tell 'em!
Dishonest creationist tactic #874: list, as support for creationism, the names of "creationist Scientists" whose work was not in any field related to biology, whose work did not support any actual creationist claims and most of whom were dead before Charles Darwin was even born, much less published Origin (though Faraday didn't die until 1867, but that's hardly time for a non-biologist to fully examine the evidence for evolution and draw conclusions).
If instead you want to make the clain that scientists are incorrect, and even though they accept evlution as a fact, you want to say it's "just a conjecture" fine, but make that claim without misleading terminology.
If you deny them their dishonest semantic games of redefining terms at their own convenience (where "theory" means "wild guess" and "evolution" implies that "God does not exist"), then they lose at least a third of their arguments.
Wake me up when the creationists debate in an unbiased forum.
Unbiased and not fundamentally dishonest. How much do you want to bet that a Christian who accepts evolution need not apply?
no, i think i am right.
Dishonest creationist tactic #432: look up "theory" in the dictionary, apply the definition that they want to use for evolution, insist that "theory" in the context of science (at least when speaking of evolution) uses that definition despite the fact that no credibile scientist uses that definition.
Infallable? Who says that?
It's the best explanation for currently observed phenomenon, but I'd hardly call any scientific theory "infallable". All theories are subject to revision in change; that is the nature of science. There is no scientific explanation that could not be potentially falsified.
...without some moron like you coming in, spewing out a completely invalid analogy founded upon faulty premises and a total lack of understanding of the actual theory of evolution and then arrogantly acting as though you've somehow falsified the last 150 years of biological research with the amazing power of your ignorance.
It's what allows cells to copy the essence of themselves from one generation to the next, and allows them to continue on the platform from where the last generation left off.
And if you don't have DNA, you don't have imperfectly-replicating life forms, which means that you don't have evolution. As such, you cannot use evolution to go from the stage where there is no DNA to where there is, because it involves at least one step where you don't have reproducing life forms.
I was able to get into contact with the SPEWS folks through the more approachable founder of another SPAM blacklist, and got a call, I think at 1 AM, regarding the block.
What was the name of the "SPEWS" person to whom you spoke?
What is the Class B in question, and why is it there? Also, why should you be whitelisted? Are you not in any way affiliated with the network that is responsible for the listing?
What would be considered a valid falsification of the "Theory of Evolution"?
. html
Precambrian rabbit fossils.
Paraphrasing, but Darwin stated that if there were gaps that could not be explained with transitional forms, the theory would fall apart.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2
Quote #2.6. Just one of many dishonest creationist attacks.
When you make ignorant statements like this, you demonstrate that you've either not done any actual research, or you're just a liar. Unfortunately, this is a very common problem with creationists; they continue to use arguments that have been addressed thousands of times as though they're too lazy to do any actual research or they just don't care that they are arguing from a position of dishonesty.
Never happens to me. My problem is that mplayerplug-in ALWAYS causes a browser crash. Plays imbedded video just fine, but once it fully loads a video, it destabilizes the browser such that afterward, when viewing any website, if I try to save any link (a jpg image being viewed or a downloadable file), the browser dies. Every time.
No Yahoo mail crashes ever, though.
And who's to say that ID couldn't play a role in biology either?
It certainly could. That doesn't make it science.
Well that's brilliant. Tell that to the people who told me to use nrg->iso as a "solution".
Can idiots quit using propriety formats for their software? ISOs would work just fine.
I've yet to find a Dreamcast ISO file that can properly self-boot.
But then, maybe people who create the images just don't know what they're doing.
Will they still be able to self-boot? I've seen Dreamcast homebrew software released with a batch file and the necessary utilities to create a disc image, and they always start by making an iso image file, and then converting that to .nrg. Since ISO files are so universally accepted by CD recording utilities, I assumed that the .nrg conversion was to make the disc bootable in a Dreamcast.
Can cdrdao burn .nrg images (used frequently for Dreamcast homebrew software)?
Not just UPCs, but also receipts. I could have gone back to CC to get another 'rebate receipt' printed up, but I just opted to photocopy the one that I'd been given, and it was acceptable.
My TiVo rebate only required that I send in clear photocopies of the documentation. That's how I was able to score a rebate from both Circuit City ($50 gift card) and TiVo ($100 check) and yes, both have been fulfilled.
We can't have people defending against totally unjustified raids, now can we?
You US Joes want to carry the guns when you walk through a park in a Sunday afternoon (just in case a group of people decides to beat you), and THAT results in bloodbaths every single day in yankeeland.
You might be able to make a more convincing point if you would actually discuss reality rather than just lying about what really happens.
From what you say, concealed carry laws should have increased violence. Odd how that isn't the case. Almost like you're just talking out of your ass.
I just don't want to see untrained people bearing guns at the amusement park. If you carry a gun, and you aren't in law enforcement, I prefer seeing you disarmed and driven to a precinct, instead of having a hard time trying to decide wich side of the law you are to see if I run or not.
Your sentiment is shared by muggers, rapists and other violent criminals everywhere. They would much rather their victims be unarmed. It makes their lives so much easier when there's no risk of being killed while breaking the law.