The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution

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.

Nuggin

quote:

---

All fossils are transitional forms.

---

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!

I 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.http://EvC Forum: How is Evolution a fact? -->EvC Forum: How is Evolution a fact?
post # 32 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.Edited by CTD, : Correction of post number

and Vacate perpetuates the myth in post #37 of the same thread Note the highly dubious application of the term 'fact' also.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?Hope I didn't lose you. And good luck convincing anyone I made this up in my head.Now this time I mean it - I'll go find something challenging.

Iasion 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?

Vacate No, I didn't read any further. Time and tolerance limits caught up.Your new wording could stand some improvement, although I would agree if you mean there's no scientific support for macroevolution. It's not as clear as it could be. By one possible interpretation it could seem to say essentially the same thing as before.By now we should all know that evolutionists are behind the term and the 'theories' which seek to make the concept plausible. This is true of several other terms, although it is common practice to pretend otherwise. I hope you shall not be numbered among the practitioners.

I think anyone can figure out I meant message #32 (of 69). According to the ASVAB, my lowest aptitude was for the clerical field and now we have some supporting evidence for the validity of that conclusion.jar: Not unless one counts anticipating, predicting, and posting a response in advance. I thought I did well, but maybe I'm biased.Would you care to name any 'field of science' other than the ones I mentioned which behaves in the manner I described? Or better still, would you contend that these fields do not behave in this manner? Should be good for some chuckles.Now if you mean I should quibble over more new definitions for terms, you may be disappointed. We've seen who needs new definitions to make their ideas seem to measure up. You want to define 'evolution' and 'fact' in a manner which makes it appear one can truthfully say "Evolution is a fact." What else is new? Knock yourself out.

crashfrog For the benefit of anyone who might somehow have mistook what I was saying, I'll try to clarify.Language evolves by adding new terms. Language devolves when useful, worthy terms are lost. It is valid to coin new phrases and words when we have something new for them to mean. A mechanical computer computes, as does an electronic or human computer.Now when we take a word and attempt to substitute a new meaning for an old, it leads to confusion. A person hearing the term may only be aware of one meaning when the other is intended. Thus the language is more imperfect and has devolved. When new meanings are intended, some way to distinguish between the old and new should be implemented. This is frequently done by means of context. Many nouns have made the transition to verbs, and vice versa.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. One could quibble over capitalization, as this would imply that it's a proper title. (And one could go beyond quibbling over if it be valid to call such things 'theories'.)Vacate: Well, I generally think of things that have been observed when I encounter the term 'observation'. I believe that's in keeping with science.I'll try to remember not to make such bold assumptions when reading anything from you in the future. Taking a term coined by evolutionists, and pretending it is something creationists made up? How could that be devious? How could I even make it sound devious? Surely you jest!

You've gone to some length arguing against something I never said or implied, now haven't you.Much like your cube earth story, I doubt any creationist has said what you claim.What's the point? Is this for the benefit of readers who don't pay any attention at all? Or are you hoping I'll try to repeat myself, and somehow blunder into saying something silly? I try to understand you people, but there are still mysteries.

I'll play. Juuuuuust this once.Messages 125 & 126I said and you said Anyone inclined to review can go back to the posts and read it in full.I see no need to repeat myself again.I mean, your buds are still trying to misportray what I said; and I don't think anyone's doing all that good a job fooling anyone. If I see any quality lies, I'll be happy to jump all over 'em. But this kind of junk just isn't worth the effort. I'd have to be pretty paranoid to fear anyone could be fooled if they tried, now wouldn't I?Sure, they'd like to pretend "North American continent" and "continent of North America" are not perfectly interchangeable in the English language. But even foreigners won't fall for that.And your demand that everyone accept your demarcation of what's fact and what's theory isn't likely to be well-received. It's mildly amusing to see you do the very thing you deny happens.

The Copernican Principle is a cornerstone of the Big Bang 'theory'. Without it, the whole thing falls apart. Yet there is no evidence whatsoever to support the principle.And we don't see anything but hype about how solid the 'theory' is, and how much "evidence backs it up". What terms are used to describe anyone who suggests it could be incorrect?Show me one example in the last 30 years where someone suggesting we should look for something different has not been insulted and ridiculed.Is this "how science works"?