EvC Forum: For Inquisitor, et al: What is Evolution?

Poor Applehead/Ten-IQ/Zephspam/Inquisi-clueless...did you go off your ritalin today?

A/T/Z/I:
I say evolution most certainly DOES, but we'll get to your definition, supra, in a sec. But anyway, suffice it to say, you are clueless as to what constitutes the responsibilities of one who proposes a bizarre theory and thereafter tries to prove it with evidence (btw, evidence is a LEGAL TERM dumbazz).

M: What you say evolution states is largely irrelevant. You have been both unwilling and unable to define "evidence" as you in your twisted pea brain see it nor have you ever been able to justify why science would use a legal definition of evidence...not to mention why science or scientist would give a crap about legal definitions of anything.

Troll boy:
Some of you would even have your adversaries define the terms of the elements of that which you wish to prove which sounds like you really don't have a grasp of the subject matter at all. Hence, this thread asking eachother what is evolution. The logical conclusion is, like whatever it is you people think 'evidence' is, there is no generally accepted scientific definition of the same.

M: Nope, most of us just want to get a laugh out of whatever lame brained definition you might someday have the intestinal fortitude to post between your rants.

Applesaucehead:
Unfortunately, I'm not as gullible as you folks. I don't believe it is scientific to claim rocks turn into living things, YOU DO, and your theory says so too.

M: Nope, you are not gullible, but unbelievable poorly educated or just plain stupid if this is what you believe.

...and more from Troll:
Therefore, I have to back up nothing, but only probe into whether there is sufficient evidence to back up the bold claims. In short, the entire burden to prove evolution is yours, and your burden also includes answering the challenges to your pet theory. As is seen time and again, when the lights come on, the cockroaches scatter.

M: Actually, when you redefine your oppositions position with pure nonsense out of your feeble science background (which sounds like you copied out of a Flintstone's episode) nobody has such a burden of proof. Since it is only you who claim rocks..and molten rocks no less, to humans the burden of proof is on you to show that this is what biological evolution entails....good luck.

Troll continues:
Sure you did, Mams. But you never could identify the line of demarcation between abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution must have a beginning, and your mere opinion and speculation as to the beginning of evolution does not constitute credible evidence, scientific or otherwise. I am aware you don't like discussing the achilles heel of evolution, abiogenesis, simply because it is your weakest argument and implies life descended from molten rocks. Nor do you wish to discuss the starting point of evolution, the first population, since there is no more evidence of the identity of the alleged first population than that of abiogenesis. A no win situtation for you. In truth, you didn't contribute ANYTHING at all of substance, and can't since there is nothing of substance to contribute. Glad you are finally realizing this most important observation.

M: Nice revisionism....I clearly defined my points..you bailed out of the argument as soon as you were asked to post a substantive argument to support your claims...since then this is the first time you have responded to one of my posts....but out of interest, why do I have to show the beginning point of evolution to demonstrate that evolution occurs?..this little logical fallacy that you repeat as a mantra is fairly odd.

IQlow:
Really? I counted only one thread. Embellishments are for your adversaries, and I would advise you to simply, clearly, and concisely stick to the relevant issues lest you fall into the trap of getting off topic and straying away from your proof of evolution.

M: Then your mathematical skills are as profoundly deficient as your biology knowledge...the threads addressing your definition of evidence were addressed to your various personalities...

I:
But you never did SHOW how scientific evidence differs from legal evidence. In fact, I said ALL scientific theories could be demonstrated in the courtroom, except of course evolution. Wonder why that is? You, in turn, suggested that it was due to the difference in scientific evidence and legal evidence. But real scientific evidence fits quite nicely in the courtroom.

M: OK hotshot...demonstrate both the theory of relativity and the theory of gravity in a mock court setting here....and while you are at it..demonstrate using legal procedures how genetic imprinting is involved in Prader Willi syndrome....this should be easy for you if ALL scientitfic theories have been demonstrated in the courtroom...

I:
Sooooo, would you articulate that difference? Recall that "evidence" is and always will remain a LEGAL term moron. Scientific evidence is the SAME AS LEGAL EVIDENCE in so far as the alleged scientific evidence can be shown to be relevant, probative but not prejudicial, credible, and reliable. Scientific evidence of this nature is what we seek from evolution, is it not? If scientific evidence truly differed from legal evidence, there would be no such thing has FORENSIC EVIDENCE! False dilemma and non-sequitur.

M: You are truly ignorant. Scientific evidence is tentative, indirect for the most part, and in your entire little list should be relevant and reliable. Prejudicial?...hmmmm...and do you have any clue how forensic science was developed or works? Obviously not...any clue about the population database controversy using microsatellite markers..mtDNA?...nope I did not think so...that forensic evidence became acceptable in a court of law demonstrates the power of science to describe and support a hypothesis...not the power of the court and the ambulance chasers like yourself that populate it.

I: Glad Futuyma is intellectually honest. He CLEARLY includes ROCKS in the definition of evolution. Rocks "change", and after about 600 million years of cooling off, they become life. Fits quite nicely in Futuyma's definition.

M: Yes, Futuyma is intellecually honest...you on the other hand are not since it is clear from his definition his is making a distinction between changes in "rocks" and biological evolution.

I: You are just embarrassed to admit you believe rocks can turn into people over 4.5 billion years. You are too embarrassed to admit you even believe rocks have the capacity to create life. The reason is because such an admission would not be consistent with scientific evidence. Yet, if you don't hold "molten rocks" in the chain of custody of your belief system giving rise to its progeny very shortly thereafter, life, so state. But you would be contradicting your hero, Futuyma.

M: Nope, I am not embarrassed at all. With regard to abiogenesis there are some nice models of how life arose (none of which include molten rocks) but are highly speculative. Once their were self replicating organisms for which the record goes back billions of years, anyone with a non Flintstone education can grasp the basics of how evolution works and continues to work today....in addition, I can study bacterial evolution, including the genetics of adaptation to novel substrates without having to know what the original organism was. This is a strange logical fallacy on your part...or do you claim because I don't know what the alps looked like 2 billion years ago I could never have been at the Zugspitze?

I: Anyway, it's been fun to expose you people for the frauds you are,

M: well, you have certianly exposed yourself as a self important, insecure, not particularly well informed internet troll...but didnt you accuse me a few sentences ago of purposefully going off topic to further my position?

I: especially Crashfrog who LIED about Phillip Johnson allegedly "spreading falsehoods". Crashy never did get around to quoting Johnson (he'd have to read Johnson first!) and identifying the precise "falsehood" Johnson disseminated, only vaguely stating that a mere argument against philosophical naturalism (what precisely that argument was Crashy took issue with we will never know) was a "falsehood" in his mere "belief". Tip for Crashfrog: You make a terrible liar, and if you are ever called to testify in your defense I would advise you not to as you would quickly lose your case.

M: If you were Crashfrogs lawyer I am sure he would lose the case.

...the next part of your rant is directed at crashfrog...

I: Crashfrog will never be reprimanded though, as he is an evolutionist. Reprimands and permanent bans are saved for the most formidable adversaries, like Peter Borger and myself.

M: hmmm a little self important there little boy...you are certainly not a formidable adversary...you have not made a single relevant statement...you also have no clue what Peter Borger was talking about or are you now going to show us all a non-random mutation?...in comparison, Borger was a much more interesting adversary as he actually presented data he believed supported his arguments..he also had a fairly calm disposition and a willingness to debate...you possess none of these qualities...that is why you are a troll...and I disagree with the Admin's decision to ban Borger.

I: So, I'll be shutting off the ligts now, and you cockroaches can come out of your holes again.

M: I think your lights have been off the whole time.

I: Maybe Pambini can enlighten on the difference b/n standards of proof and burdens of proof. He had much trouble with those concepts in the past. But leave it to the layman to always be an authority on legal terms (like evidence), and without me around, you will at least have some legal advice from Pambini, the guy with zero legal training and experience. I wouldn't advise that you actually rely on Pambini's advice when involved in the legal process, but it's fun to pretend the layman is a legal expert if you think it will help your argument. Competence is the key word here in the real world, which Pambini is not.

M: You have not given me any reason to think that you are a legal expert...or an expert at anything. Why not actually address what you specifically find lacking in Pamboli's arguments...unless you cannot?

h yeah, and DO make sure you get the last word in...bet your fingers are just a itching for the keyboard right now. Perhaps you could ban me first (?) so as to ensure you get the last word, although this most likely will be my last post.

M: Um..this is an unmoderated forum so you will not likely get banned...and given past experience with you..it is unlikely that this is your last post or the last ID you post under.

I:
Don't get too upset about it all either. After all, it's only Science!

M: Actually, this is a debating forum..but then you obviously have never studied any or done any science so if you think these exchanges are science you should up your medication....

cheers,
M

2 online now:	dwise1, PaulK
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0