Proving Evolution

Originally posted by dj2becker
Well, still waiting for some constructive input on my first post.

In the meantime it seems that name-calling is all there is to the TOE.

Imagine: some guys think its a compliment to be related to a chimpanzee.

Your first post didn't merit an honest return. Tell me, do you know the meaning of a strawman argument?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Evolutionist Al: Hi Bob! I was wondering ... what is the easiest way to prove evolution?

Evolutionist Bob: That's easy. Just define it to be something that everyone knows is true.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that this conversation does in fact reflect the substance of evolutionary theory.

Question: Why do you care? So they say "evolution is a fact," and they have defined 'evolution' to refer to something that is a fact, so what is there to criticize? Why would you speak out against these evolutionists?

Originally posted by Halitose
Somehow I just knew a dj2 thread on ID and TOE would degenerate into childish namecalling...

Just great...

You honestly thought it was of any use to deal with it in any other way Hal?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Let us assume for the sake of argument that this conversation does in fact reflect the substance of evolutionary theory.

Question: Why do you care? So they say "evolution is a fact," and they have defined 'evolution' to refer to something that is a fact, so what is there to criticize? Why would you speak out against these evolutionists?

Exactly. There is no point in arguing with the definition of the word Evolution. The debate is over Evolutionary theory as the origin of species. I have never heard an evolutionist defend the TOE with the definition of the word because it makes no sense. I have never heard a IDer defend that idea (it is NOT a scientific theory) with the definition of design either.

Originally posted by Starrman
You honestly thought it was of any use to deal with it in any other way Hal?

Nope...

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Let us assume for the sake of argument that this conversation does in fact reflect the substance of evolutionary theory.

Question: Why do you care? So they say "evolution is a fact," and they have defined 'evolution' to refer to something that is a fact, so what is there to criticize? Why would you speak out against these evolutionists?

That conversation (in my first post) may have been imaginary, but the quotations cited were not. And they demonstrate both the cleverness and the dishonesty of the intellectual monster called "evolutionism." "Evolution" is first defined to mean nothing more than "change", - something which is clearly visible in the world around us. Then, employing the fallacy of equivocation, the same term is applied to a totally different concept – the supposed evolution of all animal species from earlier and different species, and ultimately from one common ancestor.

Originally posted by dj2becker
That conversation (in my first post) may have been imaginary, but the quotations cited were not. And they demonstrate both the cleverness and the dishonesty of the intellectual monster called "evolutionism." "Evolution" is first defined to mean nothing more than "change", - something which is clearly visible in the world around us. Then, employing th ...[text shortened]... all animal species from earlier and different species, and ultimately from one common ancestor.

Nobody here is making that argument, you ninny!

Originally posted by bbarr
Nobody here is making that argument, you ninny!

Are you Evolutions newly appointed spokesperson? Good to hear that.

So firstly, do you agree that "evolution" in the sense that all animal species "evolved" from earlier and different species, and ultimately from one common ancestor in a scientific fact?

Originally posted by dj2becker
That conversation (in my first post) may have been imaginary, but the quotations cited were not.

I write articles for encyclopedias. The contracts generally are clear: take all the knowledge I have garnered in decades of study of primary and secondary works (hundreds of articles and books) and reduce it to 500 words written at a sixth grade reading level.

If you would like to attack the Theory of Evolution, begin with a scientific text as your source. Stephen J. Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory would be a good start.

If this book is over your head, admit your incompetence, and keep your mouth shut.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Are you Evolutions newly appointed spokesperson? Good to hear that.

So firstly, do you agree that "evolution" in the sense that all animal species "evolved" from earlier and different species, and ultimately from one common ancestor in a scientific fact?

I challenge you dj2becker

I challenge you to lay out your own interpretation of the process of creation (ID or whatever) so that, instead of going on about how rubbish the TOE is, we can see how strong your position is. Please follow these simple processes, which should provide a clear framework for your evidence and stop the theory of getting ambiguous:

1) State your initial premise (I presume it will be something like 'God created life at whatever time and it consisted of whatever animals etc. and here is the proof'😉, try and be as clear as possible.
2) Cite examples of empirical data which support your theory
3) Do not use examples contained solely in the bible since these cannot be proved by empirical means. If you must use the bible, acknowledge that the interpretation of example (where necessary) casts uncertainty on their strength.
4) Do not use the bible as a basis for extrapolation or suggested potential steps in structuring your theory, other than in your initial statement.
5) Do not use reference to the TOE in any of your evidence, the refutation of one theory is not proof of another.
6) Do not cut and paste any of your work from other sources, but explain it using reference links but in your own words.

If you can clearly lay out what you believe to have happened, instead of just saying the TOE is nonsense, I (and I imagine most others) will offer respectable comment and be happy to discuss the merits of the theory. If you cannot, your constant slagging off of the TOE from a position of certanty is utterly unfounded.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I write articles for encyclopedias. The contracts generally are clear: take all the knowledge I have garnered in decades of study of primary and secondary works (hundreds of articles and books) and reduce it to 500 words written at a sixth grade reading level.

If you would like to attack the Theory of Evolution, begin with a scientific text as your source ...[text shortened]... ood start.

If this book is over your head, admit your incompetence, and keep your mouth shut.

Beautiful post....but trying to get dj2becker to admit his incompetence would be the same as trying to get BF101 to stop using CAPITIALIZATION.

Originally posted by Starrman
[b]I challenge you dj2becker

I challenge you to lay out your own interpretation of the process of creation (ID or whatever) so that, instead of going on about how rubbish the TOE is, we can see how strong your position is. Please follow these simple processes, which should provide a clear framework for your evidence and stop the theory of getting amb ...[text shortened]... cannot, your constant slagging off of the TOE from a position of certanty is utterly unfounded.[/b]

1000/1 he cannot do it. Any takers?

Originally posted by Starrman
[b]I challenge you dj2becker

I challenge you to lay out your own interpretation of the process of creation (ID or whatever) so that, instead of going on about how rubbish the TOE is, we can see how strong your position is. Please follow these simple processes, which should provide a clear framework for your evidence and stop the theory of getting amb ...[text shortened]... cannot, your constant slagging off of the TOE from a position of certanty is utterly unfounded.[/b]

One cannnot fail to notice there is no response to this post.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Well, still waiting for some constructive input on my first post.

In the meantime it seems that name-calling is all there is to the TOE.

Imagine: some guys think its a compliment to be related to a chimpanzee.

By that I assume you think we are NOT related to chimps?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Well, still waiting for some constructive input on my first post.

In the meantime it seems that name-calling is all there is to the TOE.

Imagine: some guys think its a compliment to be related to a chimpanzee.

hi banana boy

if you want debate check this out

http://forum.gwladrugby.com/showthread.php?t=49380