Mad Kally

Why can't the audience watch?

Daggah

You wanted a public debate, you've got one. Sorry bub, but this debate is now public, and it will stay public. I will not IM you.

Daggah

Yet more (overkill, I know) on the word "theory" as it pertains to science:

<a href="http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=theory" target="_blank">http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=theory</a>

Look at the 5th definition. For convenience:

NiGhT SpAwN

Please consider chatting with me about this at AIM. My ID is Messenjah20. I'd like to see your view on some subjects, since you are obviously smarter than others that I debate with

NiGhT SpAwN

I notice the word "proposition" there.

Also, since you love giving links on dictionaries.lol go pick up an actual dictionary.
Because in Websters it defines it as an assumption. In my brothers science book it defines it as an assumption.

This subject on dictionaries should be dropped, because it will go in circles all day.

Daggah

"Webster's Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary," 1990 edition published by Tormont Publications.

Typed word-for-word, each individual definition of theory, relevant or not:

theory n. - 1. a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances; especially, a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a given set of phenomena: the theory of evolution; Marxist economic theory. b. Such knowledge or such a system distinguished from experiment or practice. 2. a. The part of a subject dealing with its underlying rules and principles: music theory. b. The realm of abstract speculation or ideal circumstances: In theory, it should only take a week. 3. An assumption or guess based on limited information or knowledge; supposition or opinion.

Yes, definition 1.a. includes the word "assumption." That doesn't mean that def. 1.a. is equivalent to def. 3. The inclusion of the word "assumption" in def. 1.a. is not a justification of the claim "evolution is just a theory."

In any case, I can't believe that I forgot what we're dealing with here: the facts of evolution, and the theory of evolution. Evolution is a fact in that it has definitely occurred. The theory of evolution is the currently held theory about HOW it happened.

See <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html" target="_blank">Evolution is a Fact and a Theory</a>

Also see the fifth item in the list of <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof" target="_blank">five major misconceptions about evolution</a>.

Daggah

I was just having a look at Christian Answers' flood page. I thought they'd weasel out of it and claim that the flood was local based on the title of one article "Was the flood really global?" (Well, something like that.)

Then they mention flood model plate tectonics. This is Answers in Genesis crap, ladies and gentlemen. Refer to No Answers in Genesis's page, <a href="http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/new_no_flood_evidence.htm" target="_blank">"Is there evidence for a world-wide flood?"</a>. From here you can make your way to TalkOrigins' flood pages, as well as several other pages, both on- and off-site.

Secular Pinoy

Another good article on the Evolution Fact/Theory misunderstanding is Stephen Jay Gould's article <a href="http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/gould_fact-and-theory.html" target="_blank">Evolution as Fact and Theory</a>. As the creationist's favorite evolutionist to misquote, Gould's essay shows how much he admires creationists.

CodeMason

How about I take a stab at his insane "origin of life" article.
It's good to know, right from the start, that this will be well-balanced and unbiased.
"Chance" didn't put me anywhere, thank you. However it is half of the mechanism of Darwinian evolution.
This is the fallacy of emotional argumentation, or put less nicely, propaganda.
Wrong, I know exactly where I am at the moment, I'm sitting at my computer desk in my bedroom.
You would know a lot about confusion. Your articles are just big heaps of it.
Haha, I actually laughed out loud when I read this statement. "You're so wrong and we're so right! You're the one not being open-minded!" He seems to think open-mindedness involves openly accepting bullshit for no reason.
On the contrary, I have observed the truth on these matters for quite some time now, your article (read: meaningless string of words) merely opened my eyes to your unbridled stupidity.
I'm ready if you are!
Flat out lie. Abiogenesis is the scientific principle that life will arise on its own given the right conditions and the fact of evolution (it's not merely an evidentiary fact either, Darwinism is a logical axiom, just as true as 1+1=2). The life that arises from this is obviously very simple to start with, but gains complexity due to evolution. It, however, says nothing about a human simply popping out of nothingness! I agree with you, such a belief is incredibly ridiculous, but then why do you hold it yourself (have you even READ Genesis?)

[ January 01, 2002: Message edited by: CodeMason ]</p>

CodeMason

Fallacy of argument from ignorance, also propaganda. That a fool can't understand something does not make it any less of a fact.
Fallacy of straw man (setting up a false image of the opponent's view and then attacking this, instead of the actual view). Basically another lie, but I'll not count it as such and address his individual sub-lies below. (How many fallacies does that make it now? I'm running out of fingers and toes!)
A repeat of the above lie. Only creationists are stupid enough to think that all of life just popped out of nowhere. I have a suggestion for you. Find a copy of Darwin's "Origin of Species" online, read it, and tell me where it says, "And thus, under evolution, humans formed suddenly from random particles clumping together." Oh, but then you'd actually learn something, and we can't have that.
So, just because YOU say the platypus didn't evolve, that invalidates evolution? Hahaha! Can you give one, tiny, insy bitsy shred of evidence? No, none at all? Well then, your argument makes as much sense as "There is a lightbulb in my room. Therefore God doesn't exist."
This argument is so brilliantly articulated and so undeniably, irrefutably TRUE beyond words, that I proclaim our friend here to be the new Aristotle!
Of course there isn't a chance that they'd fall into place perfectly by themselves, this merely proves evolution. So where's your argument? Also, a very large proportion of this "perfectly created" DNA is useless junk, such as the gene for creating vitamin C in the body, turned off or without starting codes for instance. Great job your God did there!
Again, simply astounding reasoning!
Animal's what?
He just has nooooo clue.

It's good to know that you have a clear definition of what you are badly attempting to refute, such as "whatever". It's also good to know that you base the crux of your argument on the inability of your own imagination. Plus, as you have done time and time again, it's nice to know that you have absolutely NO idea what evolution is or means, and are only arguing from some preconceived notion that it is the idea that all life simply appeared out of nowhere, when that is in fact antithetical to evolution which at its pre-Darwinian core is defined as "change".
You are not a scientist. Therefore, just because you don't accept it, doesn't mean actual scientists (not your creationist odd-squad) don't as well. Also, your claim that there is no "evidence or findings" is around 50 years out of date, but then again most creationists are still stuck in the Dark Ages.
He's quite the little plaguarist, considering he just copied and pasted the above paragraph from the linked article.

Also, note how these clowns give absolutely no evidence for this (or any other) claim. They expect us to believe this, when browsing any scientific journal on the subject will reveal that it has done nothing but advance exponentially.

[ January 01, 2002: Message edited by: CodeMason ]</p>