Joined: Sep. 2005
[Warning, this one's a bit long!]
My my Evopeach, such vituperation! Whatever happened to 'Turn the other cheek' and 'Blessed are the peacemakers'? Or does all that go by the wayside if you aren't getting what you want? 'Thou shalt not bear false witness' seems to have been dropped long, long ago.
Multiple psychoses - any actual evidence to back that up besides 'he called me out on my lies'? Nah, why should you start now?
The world of evolution when confronted with abysimal failure in explaining anything experimentally or by evidence has retreated from origins, abiogenesis and pre-biotic evolution.
One more time - Abiogenesis or anything that happened before life began is NOT a part of the Theory of Evolution. it was never a part of the theory. Evolution deals with life and how populations and species change over time. If you can find statements to show otherwise, PLEASE post links to them. Natural Selection is part of the Theory of Evolution. Common Descent is part of the Theory of Evolution. Mendaelian genetics is part of the Theory of Evolution. Abiogenesis and the Big Bang aren't! If you can show evidence to the contrary, please do so. If you think just saying it over and over again is going to make it true, you're only showing your own ignorance. To continue to make incorrect claims about what the theory is is what is known as a Straw Man Argument.
If you think he (Chaisson at Tufts) fails to believes that a cogent and uncompromised holding to big bang to right now as the specturm of evolution then you sir are a moron
If you're trying to say that one man's beliefs set the standard for the ToE, you show that once again you don't understand what a scientific theory is. Might I suggest that you slow down and recheck your work, to be sure that your sentances at least make some sort of grammatical sense? That last sentance was full of enough errors as to make it very difficult to read by anyone who doesn't read fluent gibberish. (Go ahead, attack me for correcting your grammar - right after you clearly explain why that sentance ISN'T a grammatical nightmare.)
Also, Eric Chaisson is an astrophysicist, NOT a biologist. It's no wonder his work deals with speculation about the beginnings of the universe! After looking at a list of all of his published papers, it becomes obvious that his work has almost nothing to do with biological evolution, and everything to do with the beginnings and growth of the universe. You are being entirely disingenious to try and say his work has anything to do with the Theory of Evolution. Once again you are being dishonest in your arguments. Should I be suprised? 'The most prominent scientist you know' doesn't appear to be a biologist, nor does he appear to work in the field of evolution. 'An unquestioned giant in the field', forsooth! In the field of astrophysics! Did you not think I'd catch that?
By the way, here's a quote from him on the first page of his 'Cosmic Evolution' page: Biologists no longer have any reasonable doubt that biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. What exactly are you trying to show me here? Apparently, he agrees with the pro-evolution side of the argument.
Here are some links to the real definition of 'evolution' as it related to life and biology - do please show me where it includes the Big Bang and Abiogenesis.
>>Dictionary.com: n : (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals.
>>Mirriam-Webster Online: n a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
>>Britannica Online: theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory.
>>Cambridge Online: evolution : noun :
the way in which living things change and develop over millions of years, or a gradual process of change and development:
>>American Heritage Dictionary: NOUN: 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See synonyms at development. 2a. The process of developing. b. Gradual development. 3. Biology a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
Do I need to offer more? Notice that all of these definitions from the major dictionaries are about change in populations of living organisms. None of them deal with how life began, nor do any of them deal with the beginnings of the universe. Those topics aren't part of the theory any more than electrical current or the behavior of sound in water is part of Gravitational Theory.
The only thing the Theory of Evolution has to say about the beginning of life is that all creatures on earth today and in the fossil record appear to be descended from a common ancestor, far enough back in history that we have no concrete evidence of the lifeform itself, and must make our extrapolations from the genetic and fossil records.
Certainly science speculates about the origin of life and the universe, but (especially in the case of abiogenesis) those are hypotheses at best, and seperate from the established ToE. 'Cosmic Evolution' is NOT the Theory of Evolution. DO try to keep up, won't you? The Theory of Evolution is a very specific theory here, constantly claiming that it involves things that it doesn't makes you look ... Uninformed at best.
You sir are a whore and a shill for the evolutionist sewer people so I leave it to God to judge between those who hate the Scripture, His revelation and pervert the truth to fit their humanistic self centered egocentrism and people who defend it.
And your evidence that I'm a whore or a shill? Let me guess, you made it up AGAIN? My evidence that you lie is obvious, you were caught making up statistics in this very thread, and here you are again making accusations that you cannot know the truth of or provide any real evidence for.
You have an astonishing (and astonishingly crude) amount to say for someone who's leaving it up to God to do the judging. It looks very much to me like you've done a good deal of judging on your own - but your dearth of honesty has already been well-demonstrated.
As seems always to be the case in this argument, one side is willing to explain exactly where and how they got their information, and how it relates to the subject at hand. The other side is much too busy making up accusations out of whole cloth, making claims without evidence, and trying to change the subject. I note you are doing your best to attack me rather than my argument - that your own actions have shown you to be dishonest. So many of your accusations in your last post are so obviously unsubstantiated, I don't have to present any more arguments. Your own words speak quite plainly for themselves.
I have 'logically and persuasively' shown that you are a liar, that many of your arguments about evolution aren't even a part of evolutionary theory, and that your most recent source (once again) is neither what you claim he is, nor is he in agreement with you. And I did it without calling you any names or accusing you of any activities that you haven't clearly displayed right here first. But you're the 'true christian', right? riiiight.
Can you deal with the subject of the thread, or will you once again attack me over things you know nothing about instead? I know where I'd put MY money, if I were a gambling man.
-The lesser of TWO weevils!