"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IaCdnVL9v8oUMQTbnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@sti.net...

Comm wrote:

"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote

Comm wrote:

"David V." <spam@hotmail.com>

What is an "evolutionist"? In all my years in
college and doing field work in entomology, I've
never heard that term used by someone that has been
to college.

Generally, it means a person that ascribes to the THEORY
of Evolution - thinks it's a FACT (not a theory) .....

Actually it is a code word used by creationists. And
evolution is a fact. It happened and is happening now.

This I know. However - the THEORY of Evolution is still a
theory.......

It's also a fact. Just because you claim that something cannot be
"dumbed down" enough to teach in a below college level, does not
make it so. Electrical theory cannot be "dumbed down" enough, yet
we don't go around telling kids that gods make light bulbs glow.

Uh, what you teach kids is that they shouldn't stick their fingers in
sockets or stick objects in there, especially if they are wet.

ZilentNoise wrote:

David V. wrote:

ZilentNoise wrote:

EVOLUTIONISTS

What is an "evolutionist"? In all my years in college and doing field
work in entomology, I've never heard that term used by someone that
has been to college.

Get your money back, you were robbed. googled it.

I see you couldn't answer the question. That looks like the start
of a trend.

offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.

Not so much as "arguments" but facts. If you don't understand the
facts, that doesn't make them wrong.

such as?

Uh.... the fact of evolution.

Most of the evidence they cite is from living organisms.

Don't forget the tons of fossils that go back billions of years.

even your fellow atheist and pseudo scientist do not agree on
the fossil evidence.

Uh..... it's there. How can one not agree on something that
exists by the ton? I've even dug up a bunch of them myself.

They point to similarities in skeletal structure of different
animals as proof that such animals are related,
if not by direct descent, at least by descent from a common ancestor.

Or it could mean that some god was just lazy and used the same
pattern over and over again. The problem with that argument is that
there is no proof this god exists. You have
to prove the god first, then you can make claims about what
it did.

there is no "proof" that abiogenesis happen neither.

Irrelevant to evolution.

They point out that in the early stages of development from the egg
cell, the embryos of “higher” animals resemble those of “lower”
ones. They analyze the blood plasma or the chemical structure of
hemoglobin and on that
basis classify different species as being close or more distant
relatives.

Your point? At least we have evidence, and proof.

Of what exactly?

Of the fact of evolution. The only people that deny evolution are
those that have a religious bias.

What do the anti-evolutionists have? "God-did-it." That's a
non answer.

if there is no such thing as an evolutionist, why would there
be an anti-evolutionist. Typical oxymoronic thinking of "evolutionist"

I could explain, but I know it would be a waste of my time.

ZilentNoise wrote:

David V. wrote:

ZilentNoise wrote:

EVOLUTIONISTS

What is an "evolutionist"? In all my years in college and doing field
work in entomology, I've never heard that term used by someone that
has been to college.

Get your money back, you were robbed. googled it.

I see you couldn't answer the question. That looks like the start
of a trend.

offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.

Not so much as "arguments" but facts. If you don't understand the
facts, that doesn't make them wrong.

such as?

Uh.... the fact of evolution.

Most of the evidence they cite is from living organisms.

Don't forget the tons of fossils that go back billions of years.

even your fellow atheist and pseudo scientist do not agree on
the fossil evidence.

Uh..... it's there. How can one not agree on something that
exists by the ton? I've even dug up a bunch of them myself.

They point to similarities in skeletal structure of different
animals as proof that such animals are related,
if not by direct descent, at least by descent from a common ancestor.

Or it could mean that some god was just lazy and used the same
pattern over and over again. The problem with that argument is that
there is no proof this god exists. You have
to prove the god first, then you can make claims about what
it did.

there is no "proof" that abiogenesis happen neither.

Irrelevant to evolution.

They point out that in the early stages of development from the egg
cell, the embryos of “higher” animals resemble those of “lower”
ones. They analyze the blood plasma or the chemical structure of
hemoglobin and on that
basis classify different species as being close or more distant
relatives.

Your point? At least we have evidence, and proof.

Of what exactly?

Of the fact of evolution. The only people that deny evolution are
those that have a religious bias.

What do the anti-evolutionists have? "God-did-it." That's a
non answer.

if there is no such thing as an evolutionist, why would there
be an anti-evolutionist. Typical oxymoronic thinking of "evolutionist"

I could explain, but I know it would be a waste of my time.

On Jun 13, 5:58 pm, Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:

On 13 Jun, 22:11, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:

On Jun 13, 10:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:

Pt. Lurk wrote:

"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:yDSbi.4296$O15.3712@trnddc03...

When a special centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species was to
be published,

-- i.e. in *1959*. Nearly half a century ago. Jeeeezus, you people really
like *antiques*, don't you...?!? *LOL*!!!

W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological
Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction.

-- i.e. in *1959*.

In it he said: "As we know, there is

-- i.e. as of *1959*.

a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes
of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists

-- i.e. in *1959*.

because the evidence

-- available in 1959...

is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is
therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific
public to the disagreements about evolution.

You people really are *pathetic*...

L.

THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual occurrence,"
a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the word "fact." But
is it?

To illustrate: It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has
been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is
a fact. It was once believed that the earth was the center of the
universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth. Now we know for
sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a
fact. Many things that were once only debated theories have been
established by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth.

Would an investigation of the evidence for evolution leave one on the
same solid ground? Interestingly, ever since Charles Darwin's book The
Origin of Species was published in 1859, various aspects of the theory
have been a matter of considerable disagreement even among top
evolutionary scientists. Today, that dispute is more intense than ever.
And it is enlightening to consider what advocates of evolution
themselves are saying about the matter.

Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the *only* science-
based explanation for this fact.

If you have positive scientific evidence for an alternative, I'd be
delighted to debate it with you. Do you have it, or are you just
another whining creationist Jabriol clone?

Budikka

It's another whining Jabriol sock puppet.

Andy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Andy,
Say one damn thing nice just to show you are not a bully. K.W.

THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual occurrence,"
a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the word "fact." But
is it?

To illustrate: It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has
been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is
a fact. It was once believed that the earth was the center of the
universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth. Now we know for
sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a
fact. Many things that were once only debated theories have been
established by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth.

THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual occurrence,"
a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the word "fact." But
is it?