Welcome, newbies!

In AdminPamboli's defense, he was only responding to your direct insults to himself and all of us here by gently turning them back onto you.Basically your whining amounts to "Wah, mom, he hit me back!" If you're too sensitive to be insulted, why don't you be less insulting?In my experience, which is short but surely longer than yours, he's a great admin. Honestly if we've somehow lost your patronship because we don't roll over at the first sign of creationist illogic, who needs you? Go over to Terry's TalkOrigins board and you'll have all the creationists you want stroking each other's egos. Of course that's because they kick out evolutionists for the slightest insinuation that creationism isn't even science.Hang around here, though, and maybe you'll find out how creationist figures like Kent Hovind and Phillip Johnson are using you as pawns. Now's your chance to show us if your handle is "inquisitor" as in "seeking the truth through questioning" or "inquisitor" as in "enforcing adherance to my personal belief system through bullying." It's up to you.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-23-2003]

That's not quite what I meant.What I meant was, anyone who parrots and accepts without question the so-called "proofs" of Kent Hovind and a number of other creationist figureheads is the victim of knowing falsehoods propagated by those figures. If somebody is using you to spread their lies, I'd say that makes you a pawn, doesn't it?I used to be a creationist. Now that I know better I see that people were using me. A number of other ex-creationists have come to the same conclusion. Pretty big talk from somebody who won't leave the newbie board. If you've got evidence for a better theory that evolution, please, by all means present it in the appropriate forum! If it explains as much as evolution, as well as things evolution can't explain, then I'll be the first to champion your theory. Seriously. If you can prove god exists I'll even believe in him again.I always entertain the possibility that I could be wrong. That's the scientific method. That doesn't mean I keep such an open mind that my brains fall out, though (to paraphrase Bertrand Russel). And that doesn't mean that I accept a model that contradicts all evidence simply on the say-so of a 2000-year-old book.If you've got some arguments, let's hear 'em. Stop with the name-calling because it makes you look petty and ignorant. I'm totally open to your arguments, although I will debate them. But I'd love to hear what you have so say. Please don't assume I have a closed mind until you've actually presented a case for your beliefs.

Did you go there? Did you look? Or are you speaking from ignorance? I was just curious.I've stated that Kent Hovind is a liar, because I believe he willfully mistates information and repeats falsehoods he knows to be false. As for Phillip Johnson, I only believe he repeates other people's falsehoods. Does he know them to be false? I can't say, therefore I can't say he's a liar. But I do lump him in with people who spread falsehood, because he does.I think you mentioned his "logical" critique of evolution; it would be more accurate to say that he had a legalistic critique of evolution, and as far as scientists are concerned, that's an irrelavant position. Anyone who has observed the legal process knows that it is not a useful method for arriving at accurate, truthful accounts.If you want to debate evolution, I'll start. All you've done is call names and misrepresent my statements. (After all, I could hardly accuse YOU specifically of spreading Hovind's misstatements as you've made no statements of substance at all!)The evidence for evolution can be summarized into several points. Taken together, the simplest explanation is the scientific theory of evolution, that all life we see today is decended (with modification) from one original ancestor.1) The fossil record, which shows a development of modern taxa through various intermediate stages. In addition, the fossil record is sorted such that simpler organisms appear in the record earlier than more complex ones. For instance, no mammals are found in pre-cambrian rock.2) The similarity of modern organisms, morphologically and genetically, suggests a hierarchy of relationship. In general, these inferred relationships corellate strongly to the geographical distribution of species (i.e. species that are the most similar tend to be found closest to each other.)3) The robustness of natural selection acting on random mutation as a means of adaptation and speciation has been regularly observed countless times. It has been tested, modeled, and tested again, and is one of the more experimentally confirmed mechanisms in science.There's a number of further evidences against Young Earth Creationism, specifically:1) The apparent age of the earth, as well as the universe, inferred by a number of separate, unrelated dating mechanisms, appears far, far older that 6000 years.2) No global flood could have occured. The mere existence of areas such as the Canadian Shield, where no depositional rocks are found, proves that a global flood could not have occured.3) Populational genetics studies of animals are very good at finding bottleneck events (near-extinctions) in their past. The Ark story would have been a drastic bottleneck event, but no evidence for it exists in the genetics of the animals.4) No confirmable mechanisms for sudden creation. No god has ever been observed creating life.This is just a little of the evidence for evolution as well as against creation. I'm sure others could step in and fill in what I may have omitted. I await your rebuttal, if debate is truly what you're after. I predict, however, that you will ignore my evidence and continue to call us names, etc. Please, prove me wrong.

Since nobody made the assertion "Phillip Johnson is a liar" I don't see why it is incumbent that we do so.I did say that he spreads falsehoods. I don't know that he does so knowingly. I do have reason to believe that Kent Hovind (as well as Duane Gish) spread knowing falsehoods, which makes them "liars", I believe.Now, are you going to respond to my evidence of evolution?

There's certainly a similarity in writing styles and word choice. If they are, as you imply, the same person, then Inquisi-Phan has much catch-up to do, starting with all the arguments he was ignoring before his suspension...I'd settle for a response to my list of evidence. Honestly, if I had a dime for all the people that demanded evidence, and then disappeared when it was presented to them, I'd probably have a lot of dimes. It's not like we're going to think less of someone who says "Gosh, no one had ever presented the evidence to me before, so I assumed there wasn't any. Thanks for the heads-up." If anything, we'd hold such an intellectually honest person in higher esteem...

I don't have to read their minds, I only have to read accounts of scientists presenting them with clear evidence of the flaws in their arguments, and their subsequent refusal to modify or correct those arguments. Most of Gish's and Hovinds arguments are even refuted by the Answers In Genesis people. If other creationists won't even trust them, why should anyone? Well, for instance, creationism, which is false in my belief, and therefore to spread it is to spread a falsehood. That's why I said I believe he spreads falsehood. Also he appears to believe that science can be accurately judged on legal grounds - another falsehood. I never said I was smarter than Phillip Johnson. Clearly he's smart enough to get books published. I'm not. Please quote me where I said he was less smart than me, or denigrated his intelligence in any way.But unlike you, apparently, I don't automatically and dogmatically accept the views of people with more degrees than me. I don't summarily dismiss them, as I might your arguments, but I don't turn my brain off when somebody flashes a goatskin, either.It's entirely possible to be highly intelligent and accept falsehoods. In fact, there's a positive corellation between tested IQ and willingness to accept outlandish propositions. I take this into account before I decide to believe something. Do you? Why would you expect to find a definition of a term in a peer-reviewed journal? Have you ever read a peer-reviewed biology journal? This statement makes it pretty clear you haven't.If you don't know what evolution is, pick up a textbook. It's clear you have no interest or ability to debate this topic or else you'd already know. I'm not likely to be too interested to discuss evidence for evolution if you feel that you can simply dismiss it by playing dictionary games, Zephan. You tried this before, rememeber? To the contrary, I specifically deliniated the difference between evidence FOR evolution and the evidence AGAINST young-earth creationsim, the main competing theory on this board. This was done to give you context.So, are we going to talk about evolution, or are you going to just call me names? Really, by now it's making you look petty. You've pretty much revealed your true identity, anyway, which means you're posting under mutliple ID's, which I think the forum rules frown upon. Perhaps not. Anyway, I'm disappointed. In the weeks of your absence one would have hoped that you could have come up with something better than your tired, weak protestations and word games.

Johnson isn't telling them. He's just spreading them.

I don't recall establishing "100%" proof. No such thing could exist in science. But as for definitions: Propose a definition. We'll debate it. Why should I have to do your basic scholarship for you?You already know what evolution is, or else you wouldn't be here.Please, propose a definition. I am not a biologist and therefore cannot be the authority as to what constitutes evolution and what does not. You don't appear to be troubled by that, though. By all means, why don't you tell us what evolution is? Of course, for all the times you've demanded definitions of words, you've never yourself provided any.Clearly you're some kind of language perscriptionist, a linguistic position totally at odds with the way langauge is used. If your critique of scientific theory stems from an inability to agree on basic definitions, then surprise! You can't know anything because no definition can ever totally encompass the meaning of words. Honestly, a basic course in semiotics would teach you this truth about language. Johnson is a lawyer by training and trade, and the title of his book is "Darwin on Trial." Can you honestly argue he's not approaching the question from a legal background? To the contrary, he's arguing against philosphical naturalism. Therefore, he must be taking a position of supernatural causation, because naturalism is simply the position that supernatural agents have no effect on the observed universe. In any form, the belief that a supernatural being created the universe et al. is by definition, creationism. A number of reasonable people just on this board have argued otherwise. To date you're the only person who argues that an unknowing falsehood constitutes a lie. Reasonable people know that lying requires a knowing act of dishonesty. Please, enlighten me. I would point out that you have yet to respond to any of the evidence I have outlined - you've merely postponed its analysis to cloud the issue with your dictionary games.

No, I said I wouldn't tell you what evolution is, because it's not my job to do your thinking for you. If you want to know, crack open Gould's "Structure of Evolutionary Theory" or something.Do you have a definition or not? It sounds like you don't. Why would I bother to debate with someone so obviously ignorant of what we would be debating? If only now have you bothered to ask "what is evolution?", why would I want to talk to you about it? What could you possibly bring to a debate if you don't even know what we're talking about?Like I said, that you're here at all suggests you know what we're talking about. I don't play games with someone so obviously duplicitous. Why don't you suggest a definition that we can agree on?My evidence has been presented; you have not addressed it. Can I then assume you grant it credence? If you ignore my evidence, how can I assume you won't ignore my definition?

Sure. I'll do it in this forum so Inquisitor doesn't have to register.