A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists

While I agree with most of your comment, I think restricting some evos that cannot or will not deal with the ideas presented and just want to foul up the place is a good idea.Then again, that might eliminate most if not all of them....

Good point on Darwinists deifying nature. Incidentally, they also fail to offer a definition for "nature" as well; nor "material" or "physical", and ignore the field of study that involves defining and exploring what constitutes the material world.

Good points Herepton.....the funny thing is most evos actually understand ToE less than their critics, and fail to provide any real evidence......the theory shapes the evidence for them and not the other way around, and yet somehow it's their critics that are unreasonable.

where does a law come from?How is material take discrete and definite form?Evos live in an outdated Newtonian paradigm of unreality.

Bingo.Reiteration for any lurkers: Evos insist that reality cannot, by definition, include a God or spiritual forces that act upon, within, or uphold, or even originate reality.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

BTw, it's interesting that the Darwinists here are afraid to debate/discuss the issue without the cover of evo biased moderation.

That's my conclusion and so he is not welcome. I told him in advance I was giving him one last shot, and I also only invited him first on the TalkOrigins thread to see how he would behave.Thanks in advancing for booting him off the Showcase forum, per the rules.

This is sheer idiocy. You can claim a law arises via natural means, but to claim laws do not come from anywhere is frankly denying reality. You could claim what we call a law is a mere behavioural description and no law at all and try to argue that. But your stance is simply screaming nooooo without putting forward a real argument at all.Not sure if I should answer your posts anyway, maybe a little unfair, as I am booting you off the forum for not respecting the conditions in which you were allowed, namely that you were first only invited to the TO thread to see how you would behave, and warned ahead of time I wouldn't accept a bunch of crap, and you come on this thread, posting a lot of garbage accusing me of lying.So bye...

I substantiated these points with the TO site thread, which you were invited to, and which you obviously were afraid to debate on.sorry, but you are wasting our time here....see ya

Being a theist doesn't change the essential atheist perspective towards science of evos. You yourself, despite being a theist, consider the idea of Intelligent Design to be unscientific because it entails the concept of a Designer or God. So contrary to what you claim and regardless of whether an evolutionist is a believer, the simple fact is the field itself, mainstream evolutionism, is itself based on an atheist philosophy in terms of what it considers acceptable in the area of research. There is no room in mainstream evolutionism for the concept of a Designer.Do you really somehow disagree with that and genuinely think I have misjudged evos here on this point? Pointing out you are a theist makes no difference. Arguably and you know I also point this out, theistic evolutionists should rightly be in the ID camp because once you say God designed the universe, you have to admit that by extension God designed life as we know it. With all due respect, your post is complete evidence of what I have been talking about. After all these years, you do not understand your critics and continually misrepresent them. I don't think all evos accept ToE because they reject God. For you to suggest that shows an abject ignorance of what I and others have been telling you for, what, years?No, I think your interpretation of data is skewed by a philosophy which is at it's core atheistic (EVEN WHEN BELIEVERS ASCRIBE TO IT). I don't know how often I have to say the same thing over and over and over again, but do you think you have finally understood?Evos use the theory to define the data and not the other way around.Also, I am not the one that fails to understand what you and other evos believe. It's quite clear as I once believed the same as you, and did so as a believer. My beef with evos is they do not accept the facts, imo. My theory as to why is that they have undergone a process of being taught to believe something they do not understand, at least initially, and it is ingrained within them that evolutionism is correct and only unreasonable and religious people disagree with them. In short, evos are generally subjected to a brainwashing process in how the material is presented and believed.That's why it is so incredibly difficult to get the evo community to accept facts that disagree with the basic evidences they have been taught....a good example being how it took over 100 years for evos to finally reject (and not all have) Haeckel's fraudulent ideas and data.

Basically you display a classic evo mentality. You assert your model as evidence in order to ignore actual evidence. The truth is you have failed to substantiate any equilibrium due to mutations whatsoever.In fact, I don't think you even grasp intellectually the concept being discussed here. It's real simple. We observe genetic decreases via microevolutionary processes.You and evos claim that mutations add up to create an equilibrium, but you have failed to demonstrate that. Moreover, it's not because there are no factual analysis where you could try. Evos have created models of mutation rates based on molecular clock concepts. You were asked to show that mutaton rates are sufficient to overcome the pressure towards limiting genetic diversity through microevolution.Instead, you completely ignored that.

DA, dictionary definitions are not the same as scientific definitions which can be tested and verifiable. That's a basic concept in science, which you seem unaware of by your response. When someone says there is no "definition", they are referring to a workable, scientific definition of a term that can be understood, verified or at least is theoritical.The fact you failed to grasp that is the kind of thing why you were originally booted. You fail to see what the other side is saying.For my threads here, one needs to be able to understand what is being stated, the arguments presented, so that your argument is fruitful. You don't have to agree, but if you don't seem able to even grasp why I or some other non-evo is stating, then you don't belong here.

Once again, it is hard for me to accept you honestly believe this when I already named the field of study, quantum mechanics, that involves exploring what constitutes the material world in the sense of what is "material." What is the make-up of what we think of as material or physical.It seems you prefer to try to score points rather than discuss the topic and so are willing to hurl childish insults and false accusations. That may work on the general forum, or maybe not, but it won't go here.

You and I going to just have to disagree. First, there is overwhelming evidence of God. The reason evos reject this evidence and denigrate Intelligent Design is not due to a lack of evidence but because evolutionism defines as outside of the boundaries of science any evidence pointing to God automatically. That is the way it is an atheist philosophy.In other words, if God does do something, evo's view of science dictates that God cannot be considered as a reasonable cause for something. Likewise, we can study what spiritual traditions have said about reality and the relationship with the physical and what was called spiritual, and we see that quantum mechanics confirms what these spiritual traditions have maintained for thousands of years.However, the atheist philosophy of evos such as yourself refuses a priori to consider that as valid evidence because your definition of science excludes the acceptance and study of the spiritual world altother (by definition). I think the confusion is that the atheistic philosophical approach to science is to create an artificial boundary between natural and spiritual and/or supernatural. These terms are only valid for discussions outside of science. Everything is natural within science. God is natural, at least the concept of God is, because if something is real, then it is by definition natural from a science perspective. Since then people have been detecting God for thousands of years, you must admit that by your definition God is natural, correct? Now, you could say that these folks are mistaken, and that's fine even though I disagree, but the concept of God people are dealing with is a concept of Someone and Something that is detectable, very much so, by them. The simple fact technology has not yet advanced enough to detect God in a lab, or perhaps it has, but regardless, that alone does not make something not real or natural. We could not detect microbes either for a long time with technology, but they were natural and detected by us as people, though we didn't understand that detection. Agreed. Actually, that's not true. Science could try to come up with ways to detect radio waves. Also, unlike radio waves, we have had evidence of God in our lives for a very long time. What you are leaving out is that we do have evidence of God. You just choose not to accept what we see and experience as evidence of God. It's a matter of interpretation. You look at the facts and start out saying we have no evidence of God and so if someone like an IDer comes along and says these facts can best understood as evidence of God, you claim that he cannot do that because you say he has no evidence. In other words, you choose to reject the evidence, not that there isn't any, and you do so based on circular reasoning.On the tactics of the Discovery Institute, I am not affiliated with them, nor did I get my ideas from them. So your comment really isn't germane to discussing the topic, imo. Actually, there have been quite a few. You guys just don't listen to them. Let me just close with reminding you it is human nature for whole groups of people, soceities, to create and believe in myths. Evolutionism is a modern myth. It's not even that surprising so many have bought into it.

Nah....not if you are following your own rules. Now, if you want to let me respond to all the times I was banned and people kept responding, and how people still refer to me, and yet I cannot respond, then fine.If not, play fair and maintain the rules you laid down. Otherwise, grant me permission to respond anytime refers to me, or responds to a post I have made.Fair? I would too, but DA is not interested, and I think that's not me making something up. You guys think I am bad. This guy is absurdly over the top and has clearly indicated he didn't want the kind of discussion, even remotely, that you suggested.Sorry but I have to ask you to follow the rules you laid down.Edited by randman, : No reason given.