The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution

'Quotemining' means running around searching for quotes, and then pasting them into one's post.

In more direct and plain English, I believe it would be an extremely simple task to find examples where you have said exactly what HEWG said you said, and paste some examples and links here for everyone to see.

One says I made up the differences between hypothesis, theory, and fact. Another says I'm right on the mark, and scientists feel the same way about the issue.

Read carefully, and you'll see how many of my points have been confirmed right here by dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists.

They actually did catch me in a mistake. The word 'theory' is not in the title of Darwin's book.

SO! Was it you? I haven't looked, but your denial sure came quick. I don't think you had time to carefully read through all those posts, now did you?

But I did ACCURATELY predict that whoever it was'd be plenty happy to change stories, now didn't I?

I should start my own science: the study of deluded evolutionists. Think I could call it 'evolutionology'? Anyhow, it's an easy study. Anyone can learn it all in a matter of weeks.

LOL it wasn't even you!
I finally found what you were sweating: post #96, right below the third quotebox. But the stuff above it already made it clear you weren't agreeing with me on that issue.So what's the penalty, anyhow? What do they do to you guys if you slip up? Must be something awful if you're that paranoid.You don't have to worry about that issue. I'll let you sweat the others that might be lurking out there, just waiting to be discovered by the evocops.

CTD is confusing my agreement with his definition of theory with the corrections to his confusion about hypothesis, theory and law.

Good work. You seem to think I've misunderstood something somewhere, but I agree with your assessment of the present-day evolutionist definition.I note that it differs from past evolutionist definition(s) considerably. Perhaps some don't consider it noteworthy that a formerly specific term has had its meaning broadened to include all fossils (and I dare presume all lifeforms).Or maybe there was never any difference at all? Maybe there's never been any legitimacy to the searches for 'missing links' because no links were ever missing, right?But even these days, not all evolutionists have given up hope and adopted the new definition. Some still continue to search for transitional forms which would meet the standards of the past. I think it's a mischaracterization of the situation to claim only creationists continue to care about the 'obsolete' version of the term.

Sure, I should bother with this crap. I've seen all the phoney 'justifications' I can stomach just now for redefining terms, and the denials are based on... "Nothing of substance" is the most polite phrasing that comes to mind.
I did think of one more thing evolution 'theories', big bang 'theories', and abiogenesis 'theories' all have in common: they're all continually being revised. What's yesterday's 'fact' is today's rubbish in all three cases.The prepackaged response is always "That's how science works. You just must not know the first thing about science." Well, in any other field of science (i.e. legit science) when a theory or hypothesis is tenuously maintained, they don't go around propagandizing it as 'fact'. They don't question the sanity of persons who question it and search for alternatives.The only other thing defended in this manner is Einsteinian Relativity, and that's primarily due to its links to the big bang. But outside of that, can anyone name a branch of science (or pseudoscience) which behaves in this manner? I doubt it very much.So, we can dismiss the "that's how science works, fool" nonsense, and do so easily. What's left? Denial. It should be good for several chuckles. Remember, these people claim to know more than most folks about evolution. But they'll gladly deny the changes we all know have taken place. They think it helps them "win" the argument.I can hardly wait to be told I "made it all up in my own head".Now if there are fresh young visitors, here's how you can go about looking this up. Use an "advanced search" and look for stuff like 'will need to be revised' or 'may soon be revised' or 'scientists are rethinking' along with any of these three fairy tales. Should get tons of results.

Missed this. Oh well, what I said pretty much applies. I'm not really hot to discuss the obvious.
I used RAZD's link & checked out Darwin on lots of stuff. The place is more complete than my old Darwin bookmark, and has a lot of his later works of fiction along with those of some of his buddies.In 'Origin of Species' Darwin uses the term just like one would expect. As time goes by, he and the others begin to abuse the term considerably. Now I know where, when, and how it started. It's no surprise that his children have carried on with the practice.It's ironic that you guys want to render the term meaningless. What if one turns up years hence, after you've sold everyone on the new definition? But you're not concerned about that. The term could just be altered again, right? Or maybe you've given up hope?A better question might be: What are all the diggers looking for? More specimens of the same species? New species? Transitional forms?And would anyone care to name the creationist who coined the term "missing link"? Please don't give credit to me on this one. I must humbly deny even the most indirect hint of a contribution in this case.It all serves to highlight what I was just saying about the multitude of changes the story has undergone. The story changes. The textbooks don't. When creationists argue against the story, if they argue against the version in textbooks (and they must tackle all versions), they use yesterday's language (invariably invented by evolutionists). They're portrayed as either "behind the times" or "liars making up terms 'science' doesn't even use". Why? Why, why, why can't you folks make an honest case? Or would you prefer: Why don't you make an honest case?Oh yes. And my favorite mischaracterization of creationist arguments as "straw man" because they're arguing against a version that isn't mainstream. I almost left that out. Anything goes, right? No matter how stinking lame!

Forum: Origin of Life
Topic: The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution
Subtitle: Just one exampleI said creationists are continually misportrayed. As it looks like behavior patterns are holding, I'll probably be called a liar. So here's just one easy example. The origin of the term is known, and readily available.
EvC Forum: How is Evolution a fact?
post # 69 from jar includes a quote box with just the term "macroevolution" and responds Is that so?
Macroevolution - WikipediaNot that it'll keep 'em from calling me a liar. Not much is going to slow that down while there's an internet between us. But it'll be educational to see what happens.

... and Vacate perpetuates the myth in post #37 of the same thread...

Vacate writes:I stand corrected as a very poor choice of words. I was not clear on what is "fact", "theory", and "assertions". I should have said the Theory of Macroevolution is an assertion made by non-scientists. What I understand to be true in the science field is there is only the Theory of Evolution, and macro and micro are observations that the theory attempts to explain. My post was certainly not trying to be untruthful.

Okay, okay. I'll go find something more challenging to do.

Take RAZD's link and go to 'Origin of Species'. You'll find in the chapter on 'problems with the theory' that Darwin acknowledges the lack of transitional forms. Does he not say it is a serious problem?With me so far?Now follow closely: If ALL forms are transitional, as you folks keep insisting; how could there ever have been any LACK of them?

I expect I've met my share of creationists. I know I've read more than my fair share of the literature. But I've seen no cube earth claims. Not a single one.I suspect you're taking the word of the local atheists and/or talkdeceptions as an accurate description of creationists. You might try investigating yourself before repeating such.Your choice. My I take a guess: you work as a writer or editor in some media vocation, right?

Now when we take a word and attempt to substitute a new meaning for an old, it leads to confusion.

But in the cases involving evospeak, the new meaning of the term is always used as a direct replacement. Terms are used in exactly the same context as they were before, but new meanings are assigned. I cannot say that's an improvement in the language, or even an honest practice.

Now as long as I'm here, I might as well point out that 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' are terms a good number of evolutionists dislike (intensely). Why? Since I've seen no valid reason, I think it might be because they are more specific and clear than just plain 'evolution'. And clarity is something they're not very comfortable with.

There are exceptions - just look at how many of them continue to use these terms.

There are certainly many stories put forth as macroevolutionary theories. None may be officially entitled 'theory of macroevolution', but the term is still perfectly valid per established English usage.

Taking a term coined by evolutionists, and pretending it is something creationists made up?

The Copernican Principle is a cornerstone of the Big Bang 'theory'. Yet there is no evidence whatsoever to support the principle.

Show me one example in the last 30 years where someone suggesting we should look for something different has not been insulted and ridiculed.