The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution

I think you've become confused. Nobody agreed with you that, historically, hypothesis became theory became law.If evolution is not an accurate scientific theory, that will become obvious when the evidence against it is presented; not because of any philosophical concerns about the nature of knowledge or pissant moaning about the English language changing over a century.If you have some of that evidence, by all means bring it forward. If all that you have is complaining that "scientific laws ain't what they used to be", then you really have nothing at all. If you're a time-expiring troll, why bother? The second we come close to convincing you, or presenting too much evidence to ignore, you're gone. Why wait? Why don't you just take your parting shots now, and head out? The fact that you think evolution is impossible means nothing to me; I'm in there in the lab doing experiments that would be impossible if evolution were not true.

RAZD

quote:

---

Quoting (we don't need a new word for it)

---

I absoultely agree.Cursed internet slang's so contagious!
Thanks R.I won't bother quibbling over definitions, since I intend not to use the term again. (We've had "quoting out of context" for quite some time as well, so it's not needed in any sense.)

quote:

---

I think you've become confused. Nobody agreed with you that, historically, hypothesis became theory became law.

---

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? And boy was it ever easy!And you just missed out, 'cause if I'm not mistaken one of your earlier posts was the one I've been thinking about using as the basis for a funny post that we could all get a chuckle out of. But doing 180s and trying to pretend you're still on the same course is the kind of thing that disqualifies one.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.

Of course, you cannot quote anyone saying that you're right on the mark, and that scientists feel the same way on the issue, because you made this up. Of course, you cannot give a single example of this, because this is something you made up in your head. And you were as wrong about the contents of the book as you were about the title. Remember?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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.

I, on the other hand, have; but one could deduce it simply from the fact that evolutionists do not recite halfwitted creationist lies --- except in the wonderland that is your imagination. No, you didn't.For it to be an "ACCURATE" prediction, rather than a self-indulgent daydream, someone would have to actually change their story. Actually, what you appear to be studying are your own crazy delusions about evolutionists. "Weeks"? I predict that this will keep you happily occupied for a lifetime.

This comes across as a little cryptic to those of us who don't share your daydreams.You see, it is clear that you are attempting to make a snide allusion to something-or-other. But you see, if it is a snide allusion to something which you have made up in your head, then of course we are hardly likely to see the point.

CTD is confusing my agreement with his definition of theory with the corrections to his confusion about hypothesis, theory and law. Here's what I said in Message 95: --Percy

Hi CTD,We're drifting far afield from the topic of this thread. The opening post asked a question concerning the degree of relatedness of the Big Bang to abiogenesis and evolution. I think this question has been answered. Do you have any other issues regarding the topic?--Percy

Good heavens ... is he really that confused? Well, perhaps.When someone distorts what's said to him as much as CTD does, it gets a little difficult to identify the original statement that he's distorting.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, it wasn't. You do actually have to prove that happened before you can claim that it did, you know. If I have cause to reverse course 180 degrees, then I'll be the first to let you know.But it will be because of evidence presented, not any personal attack you're able to muster. Do you have some? Evidence, I mean?

Paranoid? No, I'm just trying to help you overcome your confusion and arrogance. You're failing to understand what people are saying to you, which makes it rather difficult for you to respond on-point.No good deed goes unpunished, I guess. Did you have a response to my arguments, or not?

This is one of the most common and most iritating of fundamentalist misunderstandings.All fossils are transitional forms.I know this is hard to imagine, so let me demonstrate this mathematically.Say there is a species "1"
And there is a related species "10"
"5" would be transitional. "5" would ideally having an equal number of features from both 1 and 10.However, 2 would also be transitional, as would 8, as would 3, as would 7, as would 4 and 6. All of these fall between 1 and 10. All of them are transitional.Further, not only would 3 be a transitional form between 1 and 10, it would also be a transitional form between 2 and 4.Even 10 is a transitional form for whatever came after 10, presumably 11.Think of it like counting.Yes, this is over simplified, but when dealing with complex topics, you need to first establish a foundation. Without the foundation, people are likely to make claims like "there are no transitional fossils".

I think you're assuming that you know what mistake he's making, or that he knows what mistake he's trying to make.I think it's just flat denial. He's learned to recite this rubbish about no fossils meeting "the standard set by Darwin" --- this doesn't mean that the people who taught him this nonsense also explained to him what he should pretend that "the standard set by Darwin" is.In support of this hypothesis, I would point out that he has not yet advanced any particular creationist lie about intermediate forms as being "the standard set by Darwin".

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.