Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

You are soooooooooooo right...for a change :wink:

Yaaaaaaaaaawn.

Provocative, loquacious, invidious personal attack = the final desperate comment from an evolutionist who cannot defend, or agree on, what Evolution is...some things never change.

Looks like the purpose of this thread has been ignored once again!

It's beyond derision how Farmer makes assertions towards me regarding Creation, Creationism and now the Bible, when in actual fact I have made NO such comments during this thread.

Perhaps your inferiority complex is over-stoking your fertive imagination to wish for such things to be true? Alas, it's just indicative of your evolutionary malady to imagine things to be so even though there is no clear evidence to back it up.

PS Farmer, perhaps you could use less offensive language in your posts, and not be in breech of the rules of this Forum.

Bib, I gotta agree with you that personal attacks are unwarranted. Even I fall into this 'trap' when sharing my opinions on a2k, so I'm also "guilty" as charged.

Ill defend my attack because "Bib" sent me a number of pMs, perhaps in a sense to assuage and cut off any critical comments in a general scientific sense. Ill stick with what I said, because I feel like I was being snookered. If you take offense at anything I said tthen I know youre no scientist or engineer whos published or presented at a symposium

i see that your points have limited credibility there Bib, so from here on out, your arguments wont get any freeboard and attiificial patience.
Youve typified the creationist book on "how to deba te" evidence and data that supports evolution "scientists". Im waay more experienced at the public arena than youd know and youve used mostly y arguments that come out of CRI or Bibelland. Is your stance merely aCoincidence for an open minded seeker of truth, or merely a Creationist 'plant" who wishes to argue from their limited pallette.
ill let the forum maeisters decide whether my opinions are offensive. If you feign incredulity then why not admit your real points of view rather than writing some sycophantic PMs and posting that youre really there to have harmless fun aand tthat youre really an experienced engineer and geocronology scientist.
Dont be what you take offense at being called, its a disingenuous cheap shot . if you wish to report me, feel free. All they can do is ban me.

PS , it was not a personal attack that you take offense to, it was more an attack at your "facts" and your manipulative , but obvious mode of debate.

Since you are the discussion leader, we need to know how you use the word evolution. Otherwise, we are talking past you rather than to you.

wand, You'll not hear Bib's definition of "evolution," so you can assume to "talk past" him when you participate in this forum.

The "miniscule" definition difference between macro and micro-evolution gives Creation devotees some corner in which to hide while still stipulating to the valid discoveries in genetics and fossils. Such evidence is piling up so fast that real experts have not had time to study all the data.This gives the Creation camp an opportunity to slip Biblical mythology into school curricula as "valid evidence being evaluated in a new "unbiased light"

At the same time, it must be said, that recently there have been an unusual number of evidentiary fakes by Creationists AND overzealous fossil hunters and a few unscrupulous paleontologists. There was a recent deception at Altamira caves , wherein someone drew a "dinosaur" in charcoal.

A Chinese paleontologist married 2 unrelatted reptile and bird fossils to show a heretofore unknown "missing bird link". His fakery was laer overshadowed by a passle of real finds that show that birds came first

A Creation fraud, e-named "medved" was part of a fossil scam in which he and another person claimed fossil human skulls in the CArboniferous shales of N Pa.

Looks like the Bibleland director and ameteur Creation scienttist John Adolphi has "found" someone whose got a fossil Allosaurus eating a fossil hominid

These tthings are always gonna happen and it takes time and resources to uncover the fakes. Many times they just leave the finds alone until tthey become such a news controversy that someone has to uncover the crap.

The carved humna footprints in a fossil dinosaur footprint bed was such a controversy that hung around for about 5 years before some optical mineralogist determined tthat itt was a fake. The "Cornerstone Project", a Creationist quasi "Science" mission, devoted to the "Evolution/ Creation Controversy" got some valuable face time in front of the media and helped the TExas legislature try to adopt Creationist curricula. The curriculum modifiers had been squelched for a while , but I see that new legislation has been proposed in Texas that will be discussed in 2005.

Dont let the subtle deviations that bib tries to insert intto the conversation. Ive yet to read anything substantive by him. Hes only used specific scripted arguments thhat Creation science has dictated, and then he denies that his efforts are intellectually dishonest. The discussion of second law of thermo, and lately his profound claim to e the only one who understands macro v micro evolution is out of the handbook of Creation ARgumentum. Hes trying to be like Rush Limbaugh , with his "hhow to debate a liberal" handbook, except Bib is using standard "how tto sound like Creationistt thinking is valid science and Modern evolution is dying"

Heard it, argued it, got the tee shirt.

Bib will probably nextt shine us with interformational fossils, record gaps, insufficient time to evolve a man from a mouse, insufficient mutations to accomplish all this evolvin, "polonium Halos" flood strattigraphy, and about fifty other bogus arguments.
I dontt mind being singled out by Bib as the ad hominem attacker, as long as we move this tthing ahead and Bib stops stalling on minutae.

Wow! what a rant.
This guy is clearly as ignorant of "evolution" as he is arrogant about it. That IS a fact, which is more than I can say for any "evidence" that he has yet to post here for all to peruse regarding what Evolution is.

Anyhow, I'll let Farmer wallow in his own angry delusions, and forgive him for his unfounded accusations regarding Creation and the Bible, which he alleges I have made reference to and defended in this thread, were in reality it is HE who constantly refers to these subjects, thus demonstrating that HE is clearly so obsessed with them - time to move on buddy and chill out.

Moving on then, let's get back to "Evolution - who wants to KNOW?"

I am well aware of your modus operandi, CI - respect to you for being honest.

i guess its all the years of education and exploration that has me jaded there bib. You are the one who is predictable. Ive yet to hear a new argument. When do you plan to begin witth something worth discussing?

How about polonium rings? youre a geochronologist no?

The purpose of a "PM" (Private Message) is self-evident. It is a private communication between the sender and receiver. Clearly you are in breech of this simple courtesy, and I find it dishonourable and despicably offensive that you should even disclose ANY such PM details on this thread or any other.

I recently read the following terminology definitions:

"In standard scientific terminology, a "hypothesis" is a statement that can be tested scientifically by some kind of experiment that could refute it if it is wrong.
A "theory" is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested in various ways, but has not been refuted as yet.
Finally, a scientific "law" is a theory that has been tested, with positive results, so often and in so many different ways that it is almost certainly a confirmed fact of science."

Based on this information, would you say that Evolution was a Hypothesis, Theory or Law?

The author went on to say:

"Nevertheless, careful scientists will generally agree that even a "law" of science may eventually turn out to be wrong if some experiment not yet performed might refute it. For that reason, no theory or law of science can ever be proved in the absolute sense, for even a single negative result in a properly conceived and controlled future experiment might yet disprove it."

Any comments on this?

This observation is very true. However, many scientific theories can not be completely tested. In my opinion, neither evolution nor the universal theory of gravity can be completely tested. The best we can hope for is a scientific theory that is in agreement with existing data (and gives a good explanation of existing data).

I applaud your open-minded viewpoint. Respect to you, Wandel.

In the light of the terminology definitions previously posted, does the following Merriam Webster Dictionary definition hold up:

noun, evolution:
4a PHYLOGENY b : "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations"

Then dontt PM people witth lines of BS Bib. I owe you nothing, we are on this line as equals in everyones eyes i replied tro all your PMs in a civil fashion and I thought we had a discussion. I dont need a sycophant, especially when you clearly take crap out of Austens book and regurgitate it here for us to take in like little birdies. Did you think I was gonna give you a bye? Youve got the wrong farmer, i didnt just fall off the manure wagon.
Its also common courtesy tto be open, above board, and presenting our points with our agendas fully bared andvettted. im an open book, you however. are not.
Your history on abuzz proves me out.

..Why do you choose to be so furttive about your accomplishments or areas of expertise?? was it to see whether Id blink?. i know a number of specialistts in geochron, dendrochron, and geomag chron. I call on them for advice many times.nd we have knock down arguments all the time. Thats the way scientists mate , mate. WTF?. Dont send me PMs then, cause like many postters on these lines, I feel that there are no secrets to be kept from other participants in a thread.i like a number of people here and I respect many of them, and hope to make friends with them some day. You kinda weird me out Bib. I dont know which road youre comin in on. if you just wanna have fun by taking different points on each side of an argument, excuse me if I dont play, because thats intellectual dishonesty. Youre playing with other peoples interests and skill levels. If you and I are two geo pros on this thread, we dont have the right to F with peoples heads. You may consider that fun, I consider it symptomaticl.

Also, you best know now, Im a chronic "OUTER" of Intelligent Design and sTrict Creationists, especially when they try to apply laws of science and dispute the scientific method , as if their criticism gives credibility to their own beliefs.
Your accolades ring hollow with me because I only respect one thing, facts.
------------------------------------------------------------

BACK TO TOPIC AT HAND


you agree with Goulds definition of a scientific theory
'Its an explanation for phenomena in which all the data support and no data yet refutes.'
Simple and elegant

Gould also said
Evolution is a theory AND a fact. why ? because we compile evidence to throw at the theory and see if it sticks. SO far, there havent been any evidence based challenges.Gould often was difficult to read but his aphorisms about evolution could fill a book (they probably have over at Zoology)

Based on this information, would you say that Evolution was a Hypothesis, Theory or Law?

phylogeny is a term, not a theory (except perhaps in Merriam Webster) Its the inferred lines of descent of a group of organisms. It includes the reconstruction of the common ancestor of these lines and the actual amounts that various branches have diverged from this common ancestor. (This is a sttatemen thatt was paaraaphrased from Mayr)

Now PHYLETIC EVOLUTION is a subunit of evolution of these lines. It may include micro or macro-evolution. that may be a theory in its construct
-----------trying to caatch up-----------------

Im gonna say that evolution is a scientific theory.