Evolution? How?

rl wrote:

Setanta wrote:

.......At all events, the number of page views is not the point.......

It is precisely the point that you tried, and failed to make.

You wanted to leave the impression that our posts are read by a much wider audience.

I don't think the facts back it up.

Hope you're having a good morning. :cool:

Nonsense. Your commentary betrays a lack of knowledge concerning "The Way The 'Web Works"; Set's "point" is valid and well made. By one respected measuring method, Alexa's ranking system, A2K is a significant presence on the web, in terms of traffic, reach, and popularity (see ALEXA: Traffic Rank).

By another respected ranking system, Google Page Rank, A2K scores quite well also; 6 out of a possible 10, meaning, essentially, that A2K's relative "Importance", its "web presence", is ranked among the top 40% of all sites on the web.

While many sites you visit and/or on which you participate well may have significant web presence, I must strongly doubt any site for which you personally bear any operational or administrational responsibility comes anywhere near A2K when compared on such objective, substantive, verifiable terms.

With thought to facillitating your understanding of these concepts, here are some big pictures:

real life, So, you spend your time opening up threads to increase their number? LOL

Actually, a receipt from Home Depot is much more reliable evidence than the Bobble can ever hope to be.

Indeed, I can get a refund with the receipt from Home Depot. I can't get a refund with the Bible.

What is and is not admissable in court is outside of my area of expertise. But 'Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence ' by Simon Greenleaf (professor of law at Harvard) is a good read in that area.

rosborne979 wrote:

.....naturalism is a belief.

I agree, but probably not in the way that you mean this.

To assume that all things must have a naturalistic cause , simply because you've never seen any other, is a belief indeed.

It is basically an argument from silence.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

.....naturalism is a belief.

I agree, but probably not in the way that you mean this.

To assume that all things must have a naturalistic cause , simply because you've never seen any other, is a belief indeed.

It is basically an argument from silence.

Naturalism is more accurately described as a methodological choice. The purpose is to discover natural explanations of natural events.

real life,

The evidence gathering in that methodology involves evidence from nature, not abstract reasoning.

Don't know how many are aware of this but there's an evolution blog by a chess player and mathematician named Jason Rosenhouse.

xingu wrote:

Don't know how many are aware of this but there's an evolution blog by a chess player and mathematician named Jason Rosenhouse.

Funny how, when mathematicians who seem to support a creation/ID perspective have been mentioned in this forum, they are mercilessly trashed as 'completely unqualified to speak on biological evolution'.

But when he's an evolutionist........

Hey real life, nobodys ganging up on your posse. For our pro-evo/devo mathematician a similar criticism applies. Perhaps its not only the quals and experience of the speaker, its the actual statements of the individual. Most all Creationists merely deny the facts and evidence of science. IDers dont , they just like to spin it with an "if/then" argument.
Many in this forum are engaged in the discussion and they come from all walks of life.
You, for an example , are a large part of the present forum, so whats yer gripe? I am personally attacking the substance of your posts , not the quals or occupation you conduct.