Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

how did life come into existence--wee dont know yet

what was the mechanism-speciation

what is evolution - a natural process

can we see this natural process-certainly if our heads are not firmly hidden in a dark orifice

can we see it in the fossil record- come and see for yourself,

how do we know it exists--data and evidence collected and analyzed over 2 hundred years worth by hundreds of thousands , maybe millions, of naturalists, scientists, both formally and informally trained.


hOW DOES A CREATIONIST THINK

'WE Dont, GOD SAID IT, ATS GOOD ENOUGH FER ME"


nobody started out saying 'Hey, lets make up somethin to knock Genesis out of the picture'
The preponderance of evidence from such wide areas of science as biology, chemistry, geology, paleo, physics, all converge with data and evidence that supports evolution theory and doesnt refute it one bit.

So, As part of a dwindling bunch of true believers Bib, i guess theres nothing that will convince you unless youre willing to study a litttle deeper and /or
try to convince us otherwise by coming up with some counter evidence, which to date, hasnt happened by any of the Creationist "science" camp.Even that thing that gungasnake put up about a hominid fossil being eaten by a dino fossil was apparently so faked that its beeen quietly swept under the rug
All of the evidence for creation, thus far, has proved to be fraudulent.

Farmer, I knew that would get a reaction from ya. You make it too easy for me. Keep taking the tablets. :wink:

is that your bett Bib? Im eating some grub, playing a crossword with mrs F and wondering about the township special election. Youre just a bit of comedy relief


God what rich sophisticatd humor you create. however, iIve gotta admit, this is really an overused statement thats used only when many posters run out of more creative things to say. Is that your trouble bunky?

It must be lonely for ya. Venting your frustrated evolutionary fantasies here on A2K. Eventually you'll realise that your fighting has all been in vane. Save yourself the heartache now and acknowledge that your evolutionary mechanism is just a figment of your tiring imagination.

see ya in court. I like it when they show some life . pS, I believe you are the one that started this thread, not I.
Of course, having read the title of your thread, Id have expected you to give us some learnin . gueess I was wrong.

Its tru , my fighting has been all in vane, a more direct vane, pointing at evidence, whereas yours is in vain. CAn I be Bud Abbott once and awhile? you get all the strait lines.

Then I must not be an evolutionist, because those aren't the answers I would give to those questions.

Evolution supporters on this thread, would any of you answer those questions that way?

I just pulled some stuff out of my ass, but it was good enough to answer Bib. ( sporting big smile whilst feeling full of self).
Im afraid Bib wouldnt make it to the first round with the profeessional Creation hawkers. hose guys are Goood at their twisted argumentii.

i wish this damn keyboard no ill, but i shall KILL IT. if it doesnt stop this double striking problem.

My point was that this "Evolutionist" that Bib keeps talking about doesn't seem to exist, at least on this thread.

A creationist strawman, halt the press!

I don't think anyone could teach you anything new...you clearly know it all!

It's hard to convince an evolutionary propagandist that he has no real scientific evidence to back up his allegations - especially when he doesn't even agree with, or comply with, long established principles of empirical analysis.

Would answers would you give, Ros?

Like your keyboard, Farmer, you're out of date, rusty and in need of some modern tuning. Darwinism is dead - NeoDarwinism is not far behind it. do the decent thing and give them both a suitable burial - along with your keyboard.

yes, my keyboard can be fixed. Thats our difference.

As for being out of date, what can you bring to the table that enlightens the discourse? So far youve been fact-free.
If this is going to degrade to one liners and youre just going to insult my poor old keyboard, Ill move on and look for something by Gus.

I remind you, yet once again, this is your thread and youve posed the question ..i bring valid discussion points based on 30 years experience and training. You are apparently merely seeking to craft a silly chain of unrelated discussion points that never seem to go anywhere.
FOR EXAMPLE
When you use the term "Neo Darwinism" do you speak in terms of G Romanes or are you meaning it more in the "Rassenkreis" sense?.
In any use, it is you who are , by your terms, letting your paleo-scientific knowledge show.

ON another thread gunga snake had posted a dinosaur and hominid "fossil assemblage" that, by asking the question,"WAS IT REAL?" gunga wanted to strike an evidentiary blow for Creationism. The damn thing obviously turned out to be a fake. It was just another in a long history of fakes that Creation "scientists" eager to find something of use, are known to create. We have an occasional scientist (not many though)who tries his hand at fakery but , in all cases Im aware, science has rootedout faakes by the vetting process and good QA
As far as the Creation controversy in the US schools, I take it damn seriously and Im certain we will prevail. We move slowly and test each steep as we proceed. That process of testing in court has its value since, until just a few years ago, the entire science curricula in our public schools has been eroding. Creationists, by their methods of sharp debate and eengaging scientists in non superficial elements, have actually spiffed up our education system. Im not decrying your existence, I welcome it, because Creationism has induced the state and national education industries to become sensitized to what "the scientific method" and "methods of research " actually provide. We have a population of mommiees and daddies who haave actually become stake-holders in their kids education. its taken about 9 state court decisions and 2 USSC decisions and we will probably have yet another one in arguing whether "Intelligent Design" and "irreducable complexity" are aactually code words for religion in the ..."Congreess shall make no laws establishing"... (a state religion).

Im pumped up for that, thats where the fight is, this is a bulletin board , where, even though its monitored by the "politness police" we still can get away with repeating ourselves and name calling without having a ref call time.
In the real world, youd be allowed one opening statement about the merit of your position and how you feel the other side is wrong. THEN youd be asked to get to a point by evidence or data . We havent gotten there yet, too bad.

Wow...how'd ya do that.

I've been wondering what was up with your keyboard for a while!

well Frank, tthere are two ways. Ive read this in a great big book about "Fixing your keyboard"

the first is , you can beat the crap out of it with the book


The second is to take it to a guy who can install a new keyboard. This is a laptop so, hes got the thing on order from Dell. I tried blowing a can of air on tthhe letters and I think all I did was get it to orgasm. Then Husker said to exchange keyboards. I tried one from my desk computer and that was it. A process of elimination.

I know

But usually the stawman is hidden in a strawfield so it's hard to spot, but this one was practiaclly on fire! So I just had to point at it

Sorry to break the new to ya Bib, but Farmerman isn't the one who has no scientific evidence to back up his allegations, you are. But at least your mindless rhetoric keeps the listeners entertained. Nothing like a good irrational polemic to take your mind off the worries of the day.

By the way, all those idiot scientists in the world who don't know what they are doing... just landed a probe on Titan. Must have been luck.

Different ones Bib, very different. If you give us "your" answers, I'll give you mine.

farmerman, rosborne,

Do either of you know whether "intelligent design" is taken seriously at any university? It seems like "intelligent design" is trying to become established in American high schools only.

Hi Wand,

ID is not a scientific theory, and I don't know of any Universities which treat it as science.

The theory of Irriducible Complexity, as proposed by Michael Behe has been considered by the scientific community, which for the most part, rejected Behe's conclusions. Behe's work on Irreducible Complexity was one of the foundational works sited by ID theory as proof that the theory of biological evolution is impossible.

However, it's important to note that even if biological evolution were to be proven impossible, it still wouldn't validate ID. So the use of Irreducible Complexity to support ID is somewhat misguided.