Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

ok. heres one. me. god, cant you see what your typing?

I didn't call anyone stupid. In that post, i simply pointed out that you lack the forensic skills to administer a rhetorical asswhipping. Once again, it's obvious that you equate any criticism with insult. Who told you that no one is ever supposed to criticize what you say or write?

I was under the impression (based on the original post) that this thread was about the original poster (aperson) defending evolution. I think that it's funny that you think this thread isn't about belief...when that's all it really is. Until something is completely 100% proven, it remains, to some extent, to be a belief. Even if someone were to prove something 100%, they wouldn't be able to convey that to an extent where anyone else would be able to completely understand...that's the point I'm trying to make.

Quote... that's the point I'm trying to make.Unquote.
That's correct, unfortunately, pointing at somethings isn't prof... that's all you've been doing so far.

No, that's not all that evolution "really" is, and you're attempting to force the discussion to operate along the lines of your argument by continuing to insist that evolution is "just" a belief, and trying to make people discuss it in those terms.

Playing games with words about the nature of cognition doesn't make science a belief set, and in the context of this thread, it does make youi look more an more foolish.

In view of your continued insistence that evolution is "just a belief," i strongly suspect that you have a religious agenda, but that you're being dishonest about it. I really have no interest in continuing with you your "yes it is--no it isn't" game here.

When you have "ass whipped" a poster he doesn't respond to your posts. Insults are a lower order version. But he is talking to you which means he wants to keep the conversation going for his own reasons. When he ignores you you have him stumped or ass whipped if you are an American it seems.

That's not criticism. It's an insult. It's a long winded form of "stupid".

Chightie has raised the matter of emotions.

Do pro-evolutionists recognise emotions? Is a belief in strict scientific evidence as read off instruments emotionally based? Darwin's later work moved into the emotional field. It seems his fans are not ready to follow him.

What people think is entirely up to them. When they start preaching it they have moved into messing with the emotions of others. Then it is incumbent on them to justify the mental structures they are trying to create from a socially functional point of view.

The similarities between Darwinism and Christian fundamentalism of the Calvinist derivation are well known in this regard. They both deny free will.

Kant's Categorical Imperitive comes into play. Don't preach unless you are ready for universal acceptance of what you preach.

So what are the emotional responses to Darwinism and evolution. We know what they are regarding Christian beliefs. Will the mass emotional response to evolution science be socially functional rather than just personally?

Whether there is proof of evolution or not that question needs answering. We are not, I hope, to send society in a new direction simply because of scientific verities. Science is a tool. Make it a way of life and then all science has to be accepted.

"Proof" is for geometry, just as "belief" is for religion. The increasingly complex facts and evidence that underpin the theory of evolution by natural selection do result in the theory being modified periodically. So far no facts or evidence refute the theory aand that is actually just dumb luck not design. Thats the major difference between nat selection and any "Competing theory" (of which there really are none). All the other "theories" are based upon specific worldviews and religious beliefs rather than facts and evidence wherein these "mere facts" MUST be bent to fit the doctrine at all costs.
Natural selection, has been upended and almost abandoned no less than three times in the last 100 years(All of these revolutions were based upon "evidence" that was later found to best fit the original Darwinian theory). Being able to just drop one and pick up on another competing theory has been the way of science for a long time.

So your assertion that beliefs lie at the center of evolution theory is just flat wrong. Evolution has been developed as a theory and a fact just as a forensic investigation into a murder. All we have is a phenomenon that suggests that life on this planet has not remained static in form over earths history. Darwin had no idea what he was getting into when he began his boat trip. He didnt "have an idea of what he was talking about". His thoughts and the discipline of science occured to him well after he returned and tried to understand some observations he made that were puzzling.

1Why are animals found on islands similar but substantially different from members oif smae genera that are found on the mainlands

2What explained the existence of fossils of animals seemingly long dead but yet similar to major forms of todays animals

3Why did animals and plants on adjacent islands display myriads different forms from each other.

4 How can plants migrate across seas

These and several other questions were slow to develop as Darwin began recording his famous "notebooks on transmutation"

He had no clue of what he was investigating at first. AS evidence presented itself he faithfully recorded it and tried to develop experiments that would help explain and predict what this evidence even meant.

Just like detectives take evidence and try to develop a list of suspects , motives and opportunities, so DArwin slowly began to arrive at a robust theory, of which he still felt was a weak "outline" of a p[ossible dicipline.
Thats the major reason that I reject your belief in "belief". Darwin could have gone in a multiple of directions. He could have been a better indformed poet who hintede at "transmutation", like his grandfather. He could have posted theories like Buffon 's or LAmarck's. But he didnt, as his evidence and experimental results
matured, his theory began to take shape maybe twenty years before he published and the remaining 20 years or so were QA and novel experiments and gathering geologic data.

Belief never guided his path. In fact, as his theory matured, he penned several apologias concerning why he and Christianity were taking different paths. He began doubting Biblical "science" quite early on his boat ride (As he read Lyell) but he wasnt really a mature agnostic till much later .

But we can only proceed with some "worldview" or other and you need to show how we proceed with the strict scientific one. You are not a "Pure Visitor".

jesus, how blind are you???
of course thats calling someone stupid. criticism is pointing out a wrong and helping to fix it. so far, all ive seen you do is at most half of it, and not the fixing. if anyone who doesnt know the difference between a criticism and an insult, its YOU.

Look, i'm not obliged to correct your faults, just because you assert that that is part of criticism--it's not. I'm also not obliged to facilitate your whining. Your remarks are not germane to this topic. Don't expect any further responses from me.

Setanta is not speaking to someone again as a result of being stumped.

You're both correct, but in a technicality, Setanta wins. Setanta never actually said anyone was "stupid" but he did bring your intelligence into question...technically not the same, but it's considered the same...but it's still different.

I can put an undergrad student from an atheistic life and a deeply religious one and a Fundamental Christian together as a beginning study group. I imagine that the atheist and the deeply religious ones will arrive pretty much at the same spot (Assuming eqaul intelligences and motivations). The Fundamentalist will (if the student is formost committed to its worldview), miss all the beauty of whats being given it. Worldview is a deterrent to knowledge unless its dismissed.

Jesus, you're as full of **** as Hamilton. I have not called his intelligence into question, i've called his rhetorical skills into question. Based on my earlier experiences of this member, both his rhetorical skills and his coherent expression of his ideas are very poor. That has nothing to do with intelligence, but i guess you don't understand that any better than does Hamilton.

Ummm...I believe you stated "You couldn't asswhip your way out of an argument with an elementary school child of average intelligence." By stating that the child is of average intelligence, it's pressumed that you are also bringing his intelligence into question as well. If you weren't, then why would the childs intelligence have anything to do with the statement? Arguments and debates are mainly about wisdom. Intelligence in the debate can only take you so far. If you plan on just shooting off facts, then you won't get very far. You would actually be very disconnected to the discussion almost as if you weren't even really there. It's about interpreting the information and twisting it within it's boundaries in order to improve your side...which is wisdom...big difference.

I somewhat disagree, but I do see where you're coming from...or we just have different views on the definition of "worldviews". My definition is: The framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it. With that stated, I believe that you do have to have some worldview, the difference in which I think you're getting it is how open-minded those views are. Fundamental Christians are generally very close-minded so they do miss out on a great many things because they reject and "write them off". The "beauty" of those things are subject though (I'm don't disagree with you on that though).

I didn't say it wasn't. But what number of people can take advantage of not having a worldview. I think you are trying to give the impression that you are one of those rare "Pure Visitor" types who can stand aside and look at us calmly and disinterestedly and that such knowledge that you possess has been gained through this admittedly admirable stance.

It is, of course, in your case, too silly for words. Your range of worldviews pop out on every occasion you hold forth and I daresay more pronouncedly in conversations than on here. Not by a lot mind you. From which one might deduce that you have little knowledge and are unlikely to increase it while ever you have a hole in your arse.

What's knowledge exactly. Isn't the idea of placing a high value on knowledge a worldview? An aboriginal shaman might not take the same view. Evolution will decide.

If you imagine your trio in your own little noggin it is hard to see, given your worldview, how you could end up anywhere else than you did. As playthings of your imagination they will act as you direct. It would make you look an idiot if the winner, who doesn't miss the beauty, contradicted you. You're as circular as a well engineered tungsten-tipped sawblade.