Evolutionists are insecure

You’ve read the article linked by Setanta then, so you should be able to give a point by point critique of why it’s wrong.

Or you could just stick with vague and vacuous.

As a member of the scientists who study the world as it probably was after its beginning, we have a fairly good idea based upon strong evidence. Same thing with evolution. I use statistics in fossil assemblage analyses (Factor analysis and Trend surface, and variogram/kriging). When we spend lots of a clients money, we better have a pretty good idea what were doing. Have you any skills not associated with stats??
Your opinion regarding evolutionary science is valueless unless you have some skills. Ive found that everybody not trained in my field is a self proclaimed "Expert". Its always lotsa fun listening to clueless guys like you expound on what you think is or is not a fact. And youre apparently shooting from an empty quiver. Or else you got your degree from Liberty U .

Do you believe that there was enough time for Evolution to have occurred? If so, please explain how.

But its explanations of the physical world are based on observable facts and proven theories. It may provide hypothetical explanati0ns of the origins of the cosmos which, while not proven, offer intriguing possibilities which fit within the conceptual framework through which we understand the mechanism of the physical universe. I find these considerably more satisfying and meaningful than supernatural "explanations" based solely on scripture for which we have no independent evidence whatsoever.

Proven theories are called Laws. Laws are based on what we can observe.
I am agnotic about Origins. I do not believe that any account is Scientific.

I said that my University was religious many years ago. Liberty University was founded fairly recently.

Im sorry but this is the first time Ive even noticed this thread. Was your University a Fundamentalist Religion Univesrity?? If it was, I suspct that its biology departmwnt may not b accredited unlss of course it limits its degree programs to things like nursing or Chiropractic

Wait. What?! I didn't expect this M. Night Shyamalan twist of a self-revelation.

So humble.

I can't believe the bullshit Neal posts! Now he claims to be agnostic about origins? He's dumped thousands of words at this site about his "god" and creation. Can you say: ''"Liar, liar, pants on fire"?

Statistically speaking, evolution, as well as non-supernatural origins of life could not be better founded. Both FM and I have spoken of how organic molecules have been observed to "self-assemble" in conditions which were common early in the history of this planet, and still obtain in many places. With literally billions of iterations per day, every day, for billions of years, the evolution of life from simple, early, single-cell organisms to more complex organisms is not just statistically sound, it was inevitable. With literally billions of iterations of the self-assembly of organic molecules, as well as glycerin spheres, in the early conditions on this planet, it is nothing short of stark, staring stupidity to claim that there is any valid objection to the non-supernatural origin of life, on a statistical basis.

I strongly suspect that you're lying when you claim to have a university education in statistics. Either that, or you're a graduate of Clown-Cars-R-Us University.

[quote="Setanta”]

I strongly suspect that you're lying when you claim to have a university education in statistics. Either that, or you're a graduate of Clown-Cars-R-Us University.
[/quote]

The latter, neal has mentioned Liberty University. The Wiki page says it’s well godsquad, Wiki says its students have to attend Bible Classes and agree not to have pre marital sex.

It’s clearly not up to scratch.

This was written to Izzy specifically. He repeatedly called me "an idiot".

Your claim is that Natural Selection is far more efficient than I was led to believe. I do not have a Master's degree in Biology.

Natural selection is one of the most important mechanisms in evolution, but not the exclusive one.

And you admitted it.

A theory, in science, is far more robust than that.
A theory in science
"Is an explanatory system composed of propositions, general principles , and laws , (all) inferred from the phenomena itself and
linking known facts and observations: held to be true until contradicted or amended by new facts"--American Geological Institute

"A theory in science is a set of explanations of a phenomenon in which ALL the evidence supports and NO evidence refutes" -- David Raup


"The only way to prove a theory is to not disprove it" Richard Fyneman


The dictionary defines theory as more of a hunch whereas in science the word is the peak of our present understanding of a phenomenon. LAWS are nothing more than equations many of which nstle within the theory. (Like the laws of magnetism are held within the Theory of Geodesy

Shame, shame . . . don't confuse the boy with facts.

some people actually believe that the R on their shifter actually does mean "RACE"

This is an issue which the law also has. We have certain terms of art and they just so happen to be identical to words in common ordinary parlance. But when used as terms of art within the discipline (industry, if you will), they have a different meaning.

Consider the term assault. In common ordinary parlance it's roughing someone up and, by definition, touching them. Not so in the law. In the law, it's a form of menacing (not necessary verbal threats, more like swinging an axe near someone's head). Touching is battery. This is why you can be charged with assault and battery. Swing the axe and it's assault. Make contact and it's battery. Battery is a kiss. Battery is a pat on the back, too. It's just contact, and the degrees define how harsh it is.

Same with the term theory in science. In common ordinary parlance, it means a hunch or a guess. In science, it's been vetted and is as close to a truth as we can get -- and even then, it's subject to continual checking and testing. And if it's disproven, then a new theory arises. Science is constantly tilting at its theories, to either see if there's a better theory out there, or if the current one still holds.

Faith differs. Faith doesn't tilt at anything. Dogma is accepted and that's that. And if it's not, then it's either apostacy or a rift which can turn into Martin Luther nailing his doctrine on a church door or Joseph Smith heading into Utah and founding LDS. Or it creates a sect, like the Ba'al Shem Tov and Hasidism.

I can't really comment on any of this . . . I'm anxious . . . nervous . . . I feel so insecure.