Wow, that last reply of his was good for quite a few belly laughs! He’s the intellectual equivalent of a black hole from which only nonsense can escape. Let’s take a look here…

WHAT?? Not this again…YOU DON’T NEED FAITH FOR GRAVITY, we see it happening, we don’t see fish growing limbs to walk on land!! THAT REQURES FAITH Don’t compare these.

You don’t need faith for Evolution either. It happens regardless of whether you have any faith in it. Gravity and Evolution are quite comparable in terms of how complete of a theory either happens to be.

I could go on and provide you with evidence of fish growing limbs, there’s been a number of recent articles and papers on this subject, but I suspect it would be a wasted effort with you. Besides, you’re so cute when you’re sputtering incoherently.

One of the big mistakes is also giving credence to evolutionismarywhatever as a science. ITS NOT happening. No one has evidence for it.

Bzzt! Sorry, wrong answer. There’s plenty of evidence out there for it, but not in any book Hovind ever wrote and seeing as that appears to be the only books you’ve ever read on the subject it’s not at all surprising that you think it doesn’t exist.

I notice you skipped over the toothpick argument, the oxidize problem and whatnot. Don’t make it look like Im not takin 5 people.

The toothpick argument is just stupid and has no bearing on a discussion about Evolution for anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size. The oxidize problem isn’t a problem at all so there’s nothing to address.

Thank you for showing you don’t even know your own theory (not scientific,). Gotta have stellar, chemical (which by the way is a huge problem), and bio evolution for all this to happen. Don’t say that’s not part of it, it’s a package deal. White dwarf star much? Gotta have stars replenish remember (what?? A bunch of Stars blow up to create new ones to maintain an orderly spiral fashion?)

Simply because you insist on lumping several different theories altogether in one big pile doesn’t mean that they are all one theory. Saying you’re discussing the theory of Evolution and then arguing about Cosmological concepts just illustrates what an idiot you are.

I beg to differ, only someone who doesn’t get it would say its not random.

Begging is your only hope, but it won’t change that you’re flat out wrong.

Bunch of stars blowing up creating new ones, animals killing each other to survive until they become man, primordial soup coming alive…if nothing is governing this with sovereignty then sorry its random.

Thus demonstrating you’re just as clueless about mathematical concepts as you are scientific ones.

If something does, (nature selects?? Wha--? That’s more ridiculous than a God selecting, at least mine is intelligent.)

You’ve yet to make a single intelligent comment.
Hell, most of them are barely intelligible.

Call it theory or whatever you want. Point is, it fits the criteria for a religion…I could say Christianity is a scientific theory also. We got our interpretation of the evidence you got yours.

OK I’ll play your little game. If Evolution is a religion then please tell me what the tenets are, what the rituals are, what the rules are, and what the trappings supposedly are. Surely if it fits the criteria of being a religion, and all religions have the above in common, you should be able to provide me with examples of each of these things. I’d be particularly interested in what you think our prayers must be like and whom they are directed to.

If fact lets end this now. I believe in the Beginning God made the universe, you believe it made itself OUT OF NOTHING (WHAT??).

Now you have the arrogance to try and tell me what I believe. In fact, I don’t believe the universe made itself out of nothing.

You believe man was once an Ape, and the ape was once a fish, all a bunch of assumptions.

Incorrect.

Your religious theory (there we go) is based on evidence that has NEVER been observed.

Incorrect.

Both require FAITH, and are based on NOT empirical evidence.

Incorrect. That’s three strikes so far. You’re not doing very well.

Apparently JOO don’t know what the evolutionary religion says, because you would know there is nothing on it. Wheres my iota of fact anyways? Religion it is. And in either case don’t let the definition spoil you, you know both viewpoints are on the same grounds. In the beginning….(insert something here). Nice try.

Incorrect yet again. Try harder.

Whats that? Never said anything about Darwins assertion on matter being related? Don’t recall? Difference between then and now Is I still don’t care. Read his book…For once. Then come back.

I’ve read his book, in addition to many others on Evolution. It’s clear that you haven’t.

Cuz if you did you would know he states that life forms are related.

Indeed he does propose this very thing, but that’s not the same as asserting that all “matter” is related, which was your original claim. It doesn’t help your argument at all if you can’t accurately quote the theory you’re supposedly trying to debunk. It just makes you… well… you know.

Even if he didn’t its common sense, look through your own theory about where life came from and tell me an orange and a dog cant be related.

So now you’re not even certain if he made the assertion, eh? Yeah, I believe you’ve read up on the theory… **cough**cough**bullshit**cough**.

WHAA? Read again…It clearly states BECAUSE of lust…I have official insulting rights but Im not like you.

I read it fine the first time. I still don’t understand what lust has to do with my thinking the theory is correct. What are you? Some kind of a pervert?

Watch it Les you just choked yourself.

No I didn’t. I pointed out an obvious contradiction in your own idiocy.

Im impressed though that you figured out my position is a religion.

I suspect it doesn’t take much to impress you. I’d imagine that watching paint dry probably impresses you.

Now why don’t you admit yours is one too?

Because it isn’t.

I just love how you try to make mine look like its based on faith and somehow that proves yours is science.

Ow, stop it. My sides ache from laughing too hard.

Stay tuned for the next episode of elwedriddsche and Silent dirt…

Your comebacks are as lame as your arguments. Why is that not at all surprising. Note To The IQ Impaired (that would be you, Jay): The preceding was a rhetorical question.

Lets look at this from a common sense point of view…

I don’t think you’re capable of looking at it from that point of view. At least you’ve given us plenty of evidence to suggest it’s beyond your abilities.

You actually believe that pouring water on rocks will eventually come alive…

Incorrect. Try again.

I don’t care how long you mix dirt…do it for 832749 billion years if you want…it doesn’t have the capacity for life.

Define “capacity.” While I agree that “dirt” is unlikely to spontaneously become a living organism, the truth is that it does have the capacity for life in terms of having various organic nutrients and related compounds because otherwise nothing would grow in it.

Don’t make it look like Im against science or something when in fact evolution has nothing to do with it.

Evolution has everything to do with science. No one here has accused you of being “against” science so much as completely ignorant of it.

Please, define to us the Scientific Method.

Truth is you guys cant even get past the concept of dirt having the drive to reproduce…and become a fish. Its just not viable people.

I don’t believe a single person here advocating Evolution has even come close to suggesting such a thing. If you’re going to debate us then debate what we say and not what you think we’ll say in the fevered land of your imagination.

Dropped any toothpicks lately?

I can’t believe you’re still clinging to that stupid argument.

I don’t care how long you stand outside and flap your arms, your not gonna get wings.

Of course not, but then that’s not how Evolution works and you’d know that if you had actually studied the theory. Again, proof that you haven’t. It doesn’t take a genius to see you’re an idiot.

I know whats going on. A creationist pulls out a reason why evolution is impossible, and you think that an article posing a MINUTE possibility proves it happened (and those are just the ones that are MINUTE).

Minute - As in the possibility that you have a lone functioning brain cell?

If you guys got it so down and the evidence is so overwhelming then go debate Hovind publicly (as opposed to opening up a thread and babbling about him behind his back)

We’re not babbling about him behind his back. In fact, I’m pretty certain he’s been by the site on more than one occasion. He’s certainly more than welcome to show up here and get involved if he feels the need. Why should we hunt him down? He’s the one making the ridiculous claims so let him come here.

)…I would doubt you would, cuz even your boy Steven Jay Ghoul (sp) backs off, hes one of the big dogs too.

Considering that Stephen Jay Gould died in 2002 he hasn’t been around to back off of any debates with “Dr.” Kent Hovind for awhile now. Though it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Hovind were trying to schedule debates with a dead man and then using the fact that the dead man didn’t show up to claim that his arguments are irrefutable. About the only way he’d likely win a debate.

He also admits there is a serious lack of evidence to support your religion…

Please cite a specific source where Gould ever admitted anything even remotely close to what you claim here. If you are unable to do so then I will have no recourse but to increase the amount of derision I use in my replies to you.

Would you do it then? Doubt it.

Probably the smartest thing you’ve said so far. I suppose even idiots get lucky.

But I would definitely buy that video for laughing purposes because watching the other professors get their mom’s fish owned is hilarious.

Yeah, we do find you pretty funny.

I beg to differ, millions of years...err...a completely secular education will do that to you...have you carefully examined the merits of today’s textbooks?

Obviously YOU have not.  Secular education makes you think.  Not a trait Hovind likes. 

preeeetty darn bias.

Such a pain in the ass when textbooks have a tendency to lean towards facts versus mythology. 

Jaye, you should REALLY read this WHOLE thread.  You’re just an echo of previous arguments. 

I doubt Hovind has a quarter mill to pay.  The IRS is after him, remember?

When I checked my email today, my Inbox had twice as many messages as the Junk mail folder.  That’s a rare occurence with the whitelist. 

Thank you Stupid Evil Bastard! 

Social Swine

Quote:
I think, I don’t think, it seems plausible, it seems equally reasonable, probably, perhaps, I would assume, and so far as I know.

The last statement Hiseyea made was, “If you have evidence, respond.” Hiseyea, these are the typical arguments the eevolutionist give.  STILL NO SOLID EVIDENCE.  Just full of conjectures and false textbook arguments.  Like you said, “I’d rather believe in faith than in a theory.

(Les) I’m pretty certain he’s been by the site on more than one occasion. He’s certainly more than welcome to show up here and get involved if he feels the need.

Now that makes me wonder…

Les, out of curiosity, do the Hovidiots post from the same IP?

By the way, I classify them as Ferrous Cranus, with a pinch of Garble and Stone Deaf.

Socialist Swine:

Ummm, evolution doesn’t say anything about the big bang, I think you’re conflating cosmological physics with evolutionary biology.  Evolution only regards the shifting of gene frequencies over time as a response to environmental conditions.  It doesn’t say anything about the beginning of the universe.

There you go again, tossing pearls infront of er… well ... swine

I have been lurking here as it is too funny not to, but why is it that people confuse Cosmology with Biology? Is it because they can’t understand either?

so far as I know, the church might still argue that the sun, and the rest of the universe, revolves around Earth and that earthquakes and volcanic eruptions occur as the result of the will of God

Nope, I didn’t do it… I wish everyone would stop blaming me

OK I’ll play your little game. If Evolution is a religion then please tell me what the tenets are, what the rituals are, what the rules are, and what the trappings supposedly are. Surely if it fits the criteria of being a religion, and all religions have the above in common, you should be able to provide me with examples of each of these things. I’d be particularly interested in what you think our prayers must be like and whom they are directed to.

Les - didn’t I send you the memo with all our secret rituals? Shit, we got more than the Masons and ours were never published ... sheesh!

Thank you for making my day, whenever I feel I am surrounded by idiots who could not rub two brain cells together to generate heat, I can always swing by this thread and remember that there are so many more out there

-john

why is it that people confuse Cosmology with Biology? Is it because they can’t understand either?

Nope. It’s because evolution, cosmology, and abiogenesis threaten core tenets of their religion. If you take away the creation myth, what basis of authority is left to Christianity? It’s also the reason why debating these topics is so futile - the believers cannot yield an inch. Whereas we have no problem replacing scientific theories if a better scientific theory comes along. And no, creationism in its different guises doesn’t qualify as such.

Les, out of curiosity, do the Hovidiots post from the same IP?

Good catch, Elwed. Based on IP addresses it appears that there’s two Hovidiots involved here. It turns out that Ernie and Provs are likely the same person and it appears they use a GTE dial-up account to access the net.

Now Jay is much more interesting as it not only appears he’s an idiot, but he suffers from multiple personality disorder as he is also Logos, Can’t Touch This, and Hiseyea. His IP (204.130.172.9) resolves back to The Master’s College - a comprehensive inter-denominational Christian college in the liberal arts tradition based in Santa Clarita, California. The college is ranked 5th in the West under the category of “Comprehensive Colleges–Bachelor’s” on U.S. News & World Report’s America’s Best Colleges 2005. Here’s the Mission Statement as printed in the article:

The Master’s College is a distinctly Christian, Bible-based, evangelical, liberal arts college whose mission is to equip men and women for excellence in service to Christ in strategic fields of ministry and vocation through unreserved commitment to worshiping God, submitting to the authority of the scriptures, nurturing personal holiness, serving the local church, and penetrating the world with the Truth. It is the mission of The Master’s Seminary to provide graduate-level biblical, theological, and professional education to equip godly men to be pastors and/or trainers of pastors for effective local church ministry both nationally and internationally.

This explains a lot. At least it doesn’t appear that The Master’s is a diploma mill, though it does leave one to wonder why his grammar, typing, and coherence is just so bad considering he’s supposedly attending a well-regarded Christian University. One also has to wonder about the attempt at deception in using multiple names to appear to be supporting his own arguments.

Tee-hee. Perhaps a single student on a homework assignment?

Genes don’t just disappear, they get inactivated. That much as a (very) simple rebuttal to the ‘fur’ question. Also, you seem to be ignoring that mutation = new genetic information.

Where is it getting the new info from? someone please give me a beneficial mutation.

OK I’ll play your little game. If Evolution is a religion then please tell me what the tenets are, what the rituals are, what the rules are, and what the trappings supposedly are. Surely if it fits the criteria of being a religion, and all religions have the above in common, you should be able to provide me with examples of each of these things. I’d be particularly interested in what you think our prayers must be like and whom they are directed to

it doesnt say you need prayer, or rituals. evidently that doesnt constitute religion. in either case evolution is RELIGIOUS. Lets do this again.Like I said dont let the definition get in the way. The point is: You got as much faith as I do. Atheism has even more so...as much faith if not more. 

Yeah, we do find you pretty funny.

Jokes on you this isnt a clip. Its various statements. Your not watching this.

In either case, you didnt address it very properly. They are, in fact, getting owned...that was simply an attempt to weasel out without wounded pride. 

Let me be like Les for a sec:
“ (insert Les entire post here) “

sorry...wrong.

Gotta love the lack of material in there.

Considering that Stephen Jay Gould died in 2002 he hasn’t been around to back off of any debates with “Dr.� Kent Hovind for awhile now.

fine, but he did back off when he was alive. If hes dead he knows better now. Whats this I gotta supply a quote? evidence? even though you dont?

Heres an example:

“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “officialâ€? position of most Western evolutionists.  Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).â€? [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ...  The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis.  Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth.  They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance.  In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’â€? [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

In fact, I’m pretty certain he’s been by the site on more than one occasion. He’s certainly more than welcome to show up here and get involved if he feels the need. Why should we hunt him down? He’s the one making the ridiculous claims so let him come here.

He doesnt have time...and since you produced this thread Im sure you’ve looked through his material, and know beyond reason of doubt that his stuff is as wrong as you claim it to be. 

What do you believe then Les? <--actually try to answer this one) not the big bang? howd we get here? UC professors believe it they are the "scientists". Discovery and whatnot teaches it. Land creatures werent once fish? Ive seen the diagrams. Your also contradicting your comrades over here alot of quotes up there to back up. Apparently you posted wrongfully against Hovind because hes tackling evolution...not your religion.

"land creatures werent once fish?"
by the way dont say Im putting words in your mouth (unless of course you actually have observed this):

"You believe man was once an Ape, and the ape was once a fish, all a bunch of assumptions."

Les: Incorrect

Myth
s

Define “capacity.� While I agree that “dirt� is unlikely to spontaneously become a living organism, the truth is that it does have the capacity for life in terms of having various organic nutrients and related compounds because otherwise nothing would grow in it

Nutrients? listen to what your saying. that in no way helps the idea of living coming out of non-living material. great… nutrients can only assist things that are ALREADY alive.

Thus demonstrating you’re just as clueless about mathematical concepts as you are scientific ones

thus demonstrating you are clueless about the concept of concepts.

Simply because you insist on lumping several different theories altogether in one big pile doesn’t mean that they are all one theory. Saying you’re discussing the theory of Evolution and then arguing about Cosmological concepts just illustrates what an idiot you are.

on the contrary, ITS A PACKAGE DEAL, you need the others to explain the ASPECT your trying to support. Example...you need 20 billion some odd years to get desired level of complexity from dirt...or nutrients...or whatever your gonna switch up (ill even give you a single cell organism). if the stars arent reforming (which in itself is invalid), then nothing is keeping the spiral shape...then you dont get 20 billion years thus making it not possible. Seriously spare the insults because your really showing you dont know your own grounds.

You don’t need faith for Evolution either. It happens regardless of whether you have any faith in it. Gravity and Evolution are quite comparable in terms of how complete of a theory either happens to be

wrong. Youve never seen it happen and you know it. Definately not comparable. And I say again...dont compare dropping a tennisball to an invisible, random chance yet I also select (deifying/personifying the process that you dont see or observe), force. Things only evolved 300million years ago but for some reason they cant today. Lets drop the gravity comparison.

The toothpick argument is just stupid and has no bearing on a discussion about Evolution for anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size. The oxidize problem isn’t a problem at all so there’s nothing to address.

In fact its viable. actually Im making it one heck of alot easier on you. Dropping toothpicks trying to get websters is more probable than basic components (toothpicks here) trying to make DNA (websters dictionary here)...did I break it down enough for you (IQ comeback should go here)?

Oxodize isnt a problem? then why would an experiment trying to replicate life coming out of non living material remove all the oxygen? you tell me. It certainly doesnt replicate a believable atmosphere. (by the way the experiment had a bad turnout). Oh there is a problem, and just like this one, there are alot you just like to blow off.

This explains a lot. At least it doesn’t appear that The Master’s is a diploma mill, though it does leave one to wonder why his grammar, typing, and coherence is just so bad considering he’s supposedly attending a well-regarded Christian University. One also has to wonder about the attempt at deception in using multiple names to appear to be supporting his own arguments

1. were not the same people.
2. as pathetic as it would seem that you have to crack on grammer on a thread (being a big forum fan as I am I start to care less and less)...I find it sad that you would have to make an attack like that instead of addressing the actual material.

Lets also note that pointing out fatal flaws in your theory, and exposing the fact that its very faith based.

IOTA?

At least it doesn’t appear that The Master’s is a diploma mill, though it does leave one to wonder why his grammar, typing, and coherence is just so bad considering he’s supposedly attending a well-regarded Christian University.

I attended a well-regarded Christian university in Tennessee, which delivered an excellent liberal-arts education.  Across the road was an affiliated theological seminary which had very high standards. 

I made a lot of spending money typing thesis papers for seminary students who couldn’t type, spell or construct clear sentences.  (This was long before the phrase “personal computer” would have made any sense at all.) I corrected these considerations at no extra charge on the understanding that I was being payed to type, not write.

I’d recommend Jay pay someone to type his comments for him.  It might help.

At the very least it would add some much needed coherence.

No time to play with you now, Jay. I’m about to dive back into The Sims 2 for a bit where I can pretend that everyone in the world has a reasonable amount of intelligence.

Aleister Crowley once said (paraphrased)
Why do people bother trying to teach calculus to a bushman?

Similarly, Robert Anton Wilson is fond of saying:

Don’t try to teach a pig to sing, it will only frustrate you and piss off the pig.

It appears that Jay is a bushman/pig ... trying to speak to him in scientific terms will do no good, as he is debating from a non-scientific/religious/emotional POV. He is too emotionally tied to the idea of a big bad Goddy in the sky to see that he *may* be wrong.

Thats the difference btwn Science and Religion IMO… science always asks am I wrong religion shuns/burns/excommuniates you for asking is it wrong.

For the record, I am probably closest related to Deism in my belief system, so I am not anti-religion, just anti-fascism

Those damn idiot savant watchmakers

You guys are so smart!  Well, you got part of my information right.  Did it ever occur to you that three people are using Jay’s computer?  When I read their inputs, each one has a completely different style and approach. So, how can it be the same person?  It seems to me that Jay doesn’t have the time to articulate because he’s a busy college student.  Unlike you guys, who seem to have nothing better to do with your time than chat on the internet all day.  Your intellect just amazes me. 

I have yet to see one intelligent argument from you.  You have not responded to Hiseya, nor to my comments:

Social Swine

Quote:
I think, I don’t think, it seems plausible, it seems equally reasonable, probably, perhaps, I would assume, and so far as I know.

The last statement Hiseyea made was, “If you have evidence, respond.â€? Hiseyea, these are the typical arguments the eevolutionist give.  STILL NO SOLID EVIDENCE.  Just full of conjectures and false textbook arguments.  Like you said, “I’d rather believe in faith than in a theory.

By the way, I looked at the rest of your website.  It reflects the attitudes and lifestyle of the typical eevolutionist, especially one that knows nothing about science, which is chaos and disorganization.  One example I saw was instructing readers on how to justify speeding on the road.  You showed a picture of someone driving with 3 baloons tied to the back of it that look like missles closing in on it’s target.  This website is not about truth or science or eevolution.  It’s about Silly antics and how to get away with breaking the law.

This website is not about truth or science or eevolution.  It’s about Silly antics and how to get away with breaking the law.

Wow, you’re as big a dumbass as Jay/Logos/Can’t Touch This/Hiseyea/Sybil is. Sounds like you spent as much time looking at the rest of this website as you have looking at the theory of Evolution (read: only long enough to see what you wanted to see rather than what’s actually there).

Ding ding ding, we have a Trinity!

One example I saw was instructing readers on how to justify speeding on the road.  You showed a picture of someone driving with 3 baloons tied to the back of it that look like missles closing in on it’s target

Funny you should mention that.  I’ve always believed that teddy bears and clowns are tools of Satan.  Now I realize that it’s probably balloons.  I wonder where funny bumperstickers fit into this hierarchy of evil?

This website is not about truth or science or eevolution.  It’s about Silly antics and how to get away with breaking the law.

Right.  Because people who can hold more than -one- thought/interest in their mind are. . .  REBELS!  EVIL, DAM-NED RAYBULLS, CURRRR-SAYD in the AYES OF GAWD AW-MITEY!  Raybuls, everwhar I luk, raybuls!

(Paste is yummy!)

At least Social Swine showed some semblance of intelligence in his arguments.  He tried very hard, but his arguments were dotted with:

Quote:
I think, I don’t think, it seems plausible, it seems equally reasonable, probably, perhaps, I would assume, and so far as I know.

Prov,

I used “I think” to refer to what I believed was Hiseyea’s error in thinking.  He clearly made an error, which I indicated in solid terms.  However, I am not psychic, so I’m not entirely sure what he believes.  However, there is some indication in what he says, so “I think” he conflated two disparate views because he in fact poorly assessed one. 

I said, “it seems reasonable” and “it is plausible” when I was referring to an alternative to Hiseyea’s assumption.  If you make an assumption, it has to be substantiated unless there was no other plausible or reasonable alternative.  I was indicating that there was an alternative that is reasonable and plausible, and as such Hiseyea’s is required to substantiate his claim.

As for the rest of the quotes you put up, they all occur in the final paragraph referring to plate tectonics, of which I admitted my lack of facility in.  I don’t know geology, though I do know that most scientists use geology to estimate the age of the planet, and not carbon dating.  So though I’m not sure about the particulars of the process, I am sure, and I am correct, in my claim that a particular process (analysis of plate tectonics and not carbon dating) is employed by geologists (not biologists)to gauge the age of the planet. 

So you’re attempt to dismiss my argument was in fact rather half-assed.  If you can tell me in particular why the specific things I said are mistaken then I will take your position more seriously.  Until that time, I will simply go on my merry way believing that you hold an irrational view that you are attempting to shore up as a result of religious insecurities (and it must be religious insecurity, because Pope John Paul II himself noted that evolution provided the best scientific explanation of the variety of life, so why can’t you, is your faith so tenuous that you must dismiss well reasoned theory that doesn’t match your literal interpretation of scripture).

At least Social Swine showed some semblance of intelligence in his arguments.  He tried very hard, but his arguments were dotted with:

Quote:
I think, I don’t think, it seems plausible, it seems equally reasonable, probably, perhaps, I would assume, and so far as I know.

Wow.  A university student who’s not familiar with academese.  Do they make you guys read anything?

The introductory qualifiers in academic writing don’t actually mean that the following statements are really debatable-- it’s a courteous, if rather conventional, prose style.  It’s adopted for two reasons:

1) CYA.  Scientists who firmly believe that they are right are frequently found to be wrong, either by contemporaries, or by later generations.  Asserting that you “know” something to be true, fer sure, fer sure, can lead to some awfully embarassing moments in seminars, or at conferences.  The style is, therefore, automatic, and has little bearing on the actual strength of the arguments that are presented.

2)Academics tend to be rather incestuous little groups, often living and working in close quarters.  For this reason, it is generally -not- a beneficially adaptive strategy to preface your refutations of someone else’s arguments with “you fucking dunderhead!  What the hell are you smoking?  That’s so far away from being true that it’s positively laughable.  SHAME, SHAME!”

Why is this not a beneficially adaptive strategy?  Because payback is a bitch!

Which, of course, is why my own writing, if it was addressed to SocSwine, would be very similar to his own, in tone.

But with you guys, well, what’s the point.  I might as well call you all a bunch of ass-monkeys, ‘cause it’s not like we’re actually participating in a meaningful dialogic pursuit of truth.

Now, I’ll be back later, when I need another laugh, but I really do have some babies to eat, and kittens to shoot, so TTFN.

This thread has gotten so convoluted that it’s difficult to tell what the basis of the debate is anymore.  Someone please correct me if I’m over simplifying things in my thought process.

Religion - One of the main tenets is that religion has followers.

Science - People study and research science.  Science has students not followers.

While it is true that someone may study religion, and follow science those are ancillary aspects to their base structure.

In science, one starts with the known and works toward solving the unknown.  By doing this, when an inconsistency is encountered one can always return back to the last known point and work forward.

In religion, one begins by introducing a undefined control and working backward to make the known (read: evident) fit the undefined architecture of the unknown.

Here’s the problem.  If one day the theory of evolution is indeed shown to be false, the scientific community will return to the last known point and begin anew.  Creationism, one the other hand, has no such known point for reference and no specified control.  Hence, by definition, creationism has officially been categorized as a pseudo science.

Botom line:  Honorable scientists do not modify experiments in order to satisfy expected outcomes.  Granted, some have but this is considered to be scientific fraud.

it’s not like we’re actually participating in a meaningful dialogic pursuit of truth

Wasn’t that obvious right from the start? You can pretty much tell within the first post or two if someone is interested in serious discourse or not. In this case, or not.

I don’t know what brought these guys here. Perhaps a class assignment ("Goad some atheists"), perhaps a juvenile prank, perhaps religious zeal. Who cares. I’m also not sure if the stunning lack of knowledge of evolutionary theory, not to mention basic scientific principles, on display is an act or sincere. If the latter, I can only hope that it’s indicative of the individual’s failings and not a showcase for the quality of education to be had at that college.

If nothing else, a college student should know how to learn things. It’s not like the answers they demand from us are more than a few search phrases on the web away.

To make a long story short, there’s little point to engage them at all other than the entertainment value and a free black box test.

creationism has officially been categorized as a pseudo science.

umm...you just got nowhere...so is evolution...thats the point. Im gonna tie this in with Les, who didnt address the Gould quote...remember you said something to the effect of “go get one because i dont believe you”? there it was...evolution has got a problem.

oh no not catholics again...and you get on my case for integrating stellar, chemical, and bio evolution together. (which by the way, again, are dependent on each other). the pope also embraces Islam...oh thats right they created it. Using catholics against christians gets you nowhere. Apparently you didnt read what was earlier stated about this.

decrepid...like I said, its pretty pathetic how you (and Les) always gotta attack the person instead of their arguement.

umm...you just got nowhere...so is evolution...thats the point.

Jay, are you dolt or do you just play one on this blog?  Get serious for a minute.  Evolution is a scientific theory based on what we know and extrapolating information to fill in what remains to be known.

Creationism is filling in the unknown with arbitrary information and attempting to create scientific theory to conform to that unknown.  It is this reason alone that allows for doctors and mathematicians to study creationism.  It is merely an exercise to see if scientific principles can be made to conform to any given subset of unknown controls.

It’s along the same lines of theorists attempting to determine if ancient Egyptians could have employed the power of flight in the creation of their temples.  First, a unknown must be introduced as valid in order to proceed.  In this case, the Egyptians the Egyptians would have had mastered flight.  Despite there being no evidence to prove this unknown it does not preclude the scientific theory from progressing as we do possess the skills to solve and conform to that anomaly.