The lack of empirical evidence for the theory of evolution, according to Faith.

Faith,Just a few observations: This is what happens when creation 'scientists', and IDists want their beliefs thrust into science classrooms. If you want something accepted as science then you've got to play by the rules of scientific method: produce a testable hypothesis, and test it If you can't play by the rules then stop complaining and keep creation in religious studies. You may not believe this, but this is the way science works. You can construct what you think of as a perfectly reasonable, watertight explanation for something only for some smart alec to say "Yeah, but...". I think this actually happened to Watson and Crick when they produced their first DNA structure. Scientific theories have to stand up to tough inspection, why should ID or YEC stuff be any different? This is actually quite an important point. In history which is the most reliable: a primary source or one that has been passed down via two more people? Scientists like to see the original data so they can assess it themselves without somebody 'filtering out' important aspects of it. Then do what the Evos here do, remind them that they have missed it and that you would like a response. If you don't think something is relevant then ask why they think it is relevent.

So name just one "terrific" point you have made that has not been rebutted.Or are you just upset that your arguments have been defeated, because uninformed guesses and opinions can't cut it in a forum like this ?

I think it is time you reviewed the guidelines here. This comment is unnecessary and reflects badly on you.If you think that people are making stupid statments the way to make that point is to point out, precisely and clearly the faults in them. Others may then make up their own mind about how "stupid" they are or not.When you are unable to make clear the faults in others posts but only call them names it suggests that you don't in fact have any valid critism to make.

Perhaps, but not with respect to me.I do not believe in evolution as a "fact", other than we can certainly see changes in life forms from generation to generation, and we have evidence that the nature of life was different at earlier times of earth's existence (regardless of OE or YE). Whether the immediate experience of the former fact is related to the latter fact is not itself a fact but the best theory we have going.And while you are right that would only be considered a "fact" in law, it is the ID and creo crowd which are pushing for that definition more than the evo crowd. I certainly admit some evos view the ToE as more factual and less tentative than they should, but right now ID theorists (and Creos) as a whole are clearly arguing for the legalistic, rather than scientific model of "fact" or "theory".Both camps are making a big mistake, evos as a minority within a larger group, ID and Creos as the leadership and so tenets of their field.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I also assume that Crash was trying to say this as well, but felt like I should put in my two cents in case he wasn't (and to let him know his words could be misread).Then again I do want to nitpick a bit and say it is not so much whether we accept such theories, but how we go about accepting them.The proponents of CD were pretty convinced of (i.e. they did accept) the validity of CD theory. Its just they did not go around saying it was proven to be equal or more valid than nonCD geology, and recognized that there was work to do. I suppose in a way they were showing faith in a theory, which is a bit unscientific, except that they acknowledged that nonCD had the floor until they could come up with better.If IDists and Creos were like the CD theorists then we wouldn't have them in our legislatures and judiciary, much less our educational establishments telling us not to believe in the ToE because just you wait, or that evo has really been overturned... which is a lie.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Guy, I don't know who you are talking to but it isn't me. I never got to lecture you on the errors of your answers since the thread was closed before I could respond.All I got to do was make the initial post stating what the issue was, and then restate that the issue needed to be addressed because you were arguing against something I had not said. Because I am pretty good at logic and science. At the very least you should be interested in educating yourself better on the topics and how to debate your point. Can I take this as an admission you probably did not have much respect for science before, and so did not have much understanding of the topic you claimed to have significant knowledge of (with respect to evidence in that field). ???? I remain ready to debate you, if when you wish to engage in actual dialogue.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hi Faith,Unfortunately it isn't just that many creation science / ID sources are the wrong type of references, it is that they are intentionally dishonest.I don't label someone as "dishonest" lightly, but sometimes there is no other way to intepret the situation. I would be interested to see your response to Message 37: the Idea Center lies.I detail in that post how the Idea Center claims that the Theory of Evolution prevented the discovery of functional "junk" DNA, when in fact the opposite is true - the Theory of Evolution was used to discover functional "junk" DNA. That claim by itself I wouldn't call dishonest, though maybe ignorant or misguided. But the Idea Center claim is based upon a Scientific American article, and they use quotes from the article - if one reads the Scientific American article you'll see it repeatedly credits the Theory of Evolution as being key to the discovery, and that the supposed anti-evolution quotes were mined from statements about dogma in molecular biology.I perused the Idea Center website a bit more - the other claims they make are similarly absurd and dishonest. To some extant they just list discoveries made as a result of the Theory of Evolution, and then claim that Intelligent Design can explain them better or would have found them first. If that was the case, then why hasn't the Intelligent Design camp "predicted" anything that hasn't already been discovered?Since the Idea Center (I believe a fairly high-profile ID organization) needs to lie brazenly to make its theory seem sound, the assumption that they don't have any valid scientific evidence is not overreaching.Faith - It's not just the sources, it is that by-and-large the sources used in support of ID and creation science are nothing but dishonest propaganda machines - it has become a culture of dishonesty among these supposed scientific groups that easily reveals the non-scientific nature of the undertaken.There is no lying in real science.

I am going to discuss this difference of how we accept and if we investigate, in response to Wounded King's query on the criticism of the RNA explanation
selection response
@WK's great question
EvC Forum: Mendel wasn't entirely right
I will show that how we investigate will be missed by following
Zimmer's take on the chart in which THE FACT
is simply if a sign is above or below a line (in that case
Mendel's

quote:

---

"The result of the fertilisation may be made clear by putting the signs for the conjoined egg and pollen cells in the form of fractions, those for pollen cells above and those for the egg cells below the line. We then have A/A + A/a+a/A+a/a."

---

for there was a confusion there on the union of the principle of the universal mechanism of matter and the teleological principle in the technique of nature by hypothesis) to consider the material world as mere phenomenon and to this as its substrate being something like a thing in itself which is not a phenomenon), and to attach to this a corresponding intellectual intution(even though it is not ours). The latter is developed by Kant but available as a design duty from Cantor's difference of real and reale numbers for a whole number. Mendel placed in this intuition the pollen above but that was arbitrary for the creos placement of the SAME LINE which was not a plant but the thing like a thing in itself.It is not clear to me that one can not mediate this failure to so investigate and your "how" but we will have to see. I did not mean to say there were no reasons for evos to not use legislative notions of fact but if a particular fact is reduced to HOW, namely what kind of math signs are used and we fail to investigate this seems to be an evo problem not a creo one in the facts of e/c as i see it. In the case I will discuss with WK if he is willing it will not be a matter of acceptance for the relation of the sign's A and a to alleles in biology and the use of the line to represent division IS ALREADY ACCEPTED. That is all i will need. I will simply show how divisions are acceptable divisions. My parents are here for the weekend so it might not be till next week I explain this weird skipping of generations.I hope that wasnt too much of a preview. I made some raw notes but I need to work up the exemplar by taking out my own example of anger.So it would only be directly available in this thread if Mendelism was metaargued as agasint Darwinism (not an impossibility). Hint-its about division by zero and cell death. I hope the data on the plants matches this expectation. In theory it becomes a matter of distributivity not luck. How to disseminate the better theory is a matter of money rather than luck as well.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-08-2005 10:35 AM

quote:

---

So name just one "terrific" point you have made that has not been rebutted.

---

Rebutted? What passes for a rebuttal here is something like the communications of the Mad Hatter or the Red Queen. You call that slasher piece of yours where you simply refused over and over and over to acknowledge the point I had made about the Isaiah scroll, which was valid then and is valid now, and kept insisting I had overlooked something of your own preference a rebuttal? Yes, that's exactly what goes on in this place. If any of the Admins here had an ounce of fairness you'd have been called on it. Not to mention that you were off topic and carrying on and on and on with your insane nonsense.

quote:

---

When you are unable to make clear the faults in others posts but only call them names it suggests that you don't in fact have any valid critism to make.

---

You who go on and on baiting me and telling me where to post when and giving no content in your nasty needling posts don't deserve the slightest credence as an Admin or as a human being -- yes, you are the nastiest of the bunch here -- and I couldn't care less about the opinion of any of the dolts at this site any more. BAN ME.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-08-2005 03:24 PM

as you arrogantly lectured me on the supposed errors of my perfectly reasonable answers to your idiotic hysterical worries about educational "splintering."Guy, I don't know who you are talking to but it isn't me. I never got to lecture you on the errors of your answers since the thread was closed before I could respond.
-----------Your very first post on returning to that thread after a long absence was nothing but a chiding of me for failing to grasp your point or something like that. I'd grasped it just fine, but you like everybody else here will make up a fault if you can't find one.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-08-2005 03:23 PM

I'm sure you don't care what I think but maybe some of those who don't post but do read posts might matter to you. If no ones opinion matters why bother to post at all?If only those who agree with you already matter why bother to post at all?Your response tends to sugggest again that you aren't able to articulate the so called faults. Generally I would think that you would understand the best way to point out someones "stupidity" is to show, in excuciating detail just how stupid something is.Many here to that, over and over with some patience. You don't like having to deal with something the first time without talking about doing it over and over.Ban you? LOL Why would someone do that when you offer up such great examples?

If it isn't the "wrong" references it's the failure to address something only they could have dreamt up.Hi Faith,Unfortunately it isn't just that many creation science / ID sources are the wrong type of references, it is that they are intentionally dishonest.
--------------------I was talking about commike's posts. He made some great points about the psychology involved in competing theories but some typical nitpicker here couldn't care less about the very intelligent and reasonable and in fact obvious point, but had to make an issue of the source he referenced. That's the kind of idiocy creationists have to deal with here. Nobody can or will judge a well reasoned post on its merits. The rule on the evo side seems to be Make An Objection, doesn't matter what it is, make it up if you have to, but be sure to make an objection to anything a creationist says.

As usual you just make up something, anything, as you have no other aim than to make yourself look superior. There's no convincing anyone here of anything, Mr. Snot Face, so I no longer bother.

Faith-Sure, commike makes some very intelligent and reasonable points and supplies the evidence he bases those points upon.Unfortunately, the evidence he uses is wrong.This is NOT a nitpick - if the source/evidence on which commike bases his intelligent and reasonable points is wrong, then his points are no longer valid.Also, have you had a chance to read over my post regarding the Idea Center claims? Do you see how they are being dishonest?