[_ Old Earth _] A Summary of This Year's Defeats of Evolution Theory

[zeke]

And every time you check back I will point to your persistent avoidance when it comes to answering relevant questions, my friend.

Checking back and still no evidence based on a scientific method. Not even that one-best evidence.

 

[lordkalvan]

Checking back and still no evidence based on a scientific method. Not even that one-best evidence.

Nwrt

 

[zeke]

ETA You may want to reflect more thoughtfully than you appear to have done on Sparrowhawke's wise and unbiased counsels.

SH's comment that I stated "all science based on Darwin's work is myth" is not factual (I never said that) and his remark certainly is not "unbiased". Other than that is was great commentary...

 

[zeke]

Nwrt

Is that about all you have left...

 

[lordkalvan]

Is that about all you have left...

Still NWRT.....

 

[lordkalvan]

SH's comment that I stated "all science based on Darwin's work is myth" is not factual (I never said that) and his remark certainly is not "unbiased". Other than that is was great commentary...

So what is 'factual'. Please enlighten us.

 

[Sparkey]

I don't know how to more precisely define your term "Darwinian Myth". If you don't like my reasonable definition, simply take up Lordkalvan's challenge and provide your own. What exactly did you mean when you used the inflammatory terms both I and others have noted? One can't help but note how quick you were to defend when I made no specific mention of any particular person.

As for me? I'm simply confused by your terms and classifications and lack of definitions. Do you now deny even the multiple times you've used such terms? Asserting (again) that they are "fact" and therefore not inflammatory nor derrogatory does nothing to help your cause. What I did was to ask that we (including myself) and all here agree to cease and desist with such talk. The terms that I am in reference to only amount to ad hominem attacks and may in fact be prohibited by the T.O.S, but that is not for me to say. If you think it is wise to self-report, you are invited to click the "report" button and ask for moderation. The moderators here are more than equipped to make a judgment and determine if this thread is too grinding it's wheels to a stop by itself or if it needs their help.

I am fairly certain that my suggestion that we all refrain from the use of such terms in the future is in keeping with the opinions of the moderators who have asked for the same both here and in other (now closed) threads. Again, might we not accomplish more but concentrating on the possible resolution of the conflict between two different views and avoiding the many pitfalls that are too well known?

 

[zeke]

I'm simply confused by your terms and classifications and lack of definitions.

I think your confusion goes beyond definitions. Can you back up your accusation that I have ever presented on this thread or any other thread even one "unsupported allegation that all science based on Darwin's work is myth" (your words)? I have continually made the distinction between biological evolution and the metaphysics presented via Darwinism. You misrepresent my words.

 

[zeke]

Asserting (again) that they are "fact" and therefore not inflammatory nor derrogatory does nothing to help your cause.

I don't think pointing out the difference between *statements of religion* and *statements of science* is inflammatory or derogatory. Do you?

 

[zeke]

So what is 'factual'. Please enlighten us.

Factually, there is a difference between *statements of religion* and *statements of science* and Darwinism blurs the line between the two.

Any evidence to report in support your of cause?

 

[Sparkey]

I think your confusion goes beyond definitions. Can you back up your accusation that I have ever presented on this thread or any other thread even one "unsupported allegation that all science based on Darwin's work is myth" (your words)? I have continually made the distinction between biological evolution and the metaphysics presented via Darwinism. You misrepresent my words.

If you want me to withdraw my definition of the term "Darwinian Myth", fine. Consider it withdrawn. I can't apologize because the defintion (especially when the term is yet undefined) seems only reasonable. What else could it mean? By the way, that was only one term that you have used, shall I go back and pick out other phrases that you've used that support my allegation that other ad hominem attacks are easily found in this thread? Would it serve any purpose?

Isn't it better to resolve to refrain from even the appearance of evil? If you object to my term 'evil' - you may substitue "mockery" or "scoffing" or "speaking beyond boundaries of persiflage" or even "trolling" as its equilivent in this case.

 

[Sparkey]

I've already locked one thread because of condescending statements and personal attacks, please don't make me lock another. 2

I didn't have to go far to find evidence of moderator opinion. There is more. That was post #27.

I also didn't have to go far to prove what I take to be the essence of your opinion. Here's what I found a moment ago in another thread on this very forum:

Former Nickelodeon “Hanna Montana†star and singer Miley Cyrus made her feelings on the Christian faith even clearer with a Twitter posting in which she uploaded a picture and quote from physicist Lawrence Krauss that not only advocates evolution as the basis of creation but includes the phrase “forget Jesus.†Here is the tweet below:

http://beginningandend.com/miley-cyrus-denounces-jesus-embraces-evolution-tweet/

If your point is that Christianity is at odds with some proponents of evolution (and even the 'stars' are persuaded) it can easily be made and understood.

 

[lordkalvan]

Factually, there is a difference between *statements of religion* and *statements of science* and Darwinism blurs the line between the two.

Any evidence to report in support your of cause?

So what is that factual difference. Please explain and please show how 'Darwinism blurs the line between...statements of religion and statements of science'. And what part of Darwinism does this and what part constitutes the 'biological evolution' that you keep referring to as 'factual' but never define?

 

[zeke]

If you want me to withdraw my definition of the term "Darwinian Myth", fine.

It was your statement that I said "all science" based on Darwin's work is "myth" (your words). I never made that statement and I have asked you to provide any post of mine where I made such a statement. You will not find one. I would give the ToE (as a scientific theory) a D+. The ToE is Darwin's work.

 

[zeke]

I didn't have to go far to find evidence of moderator opinion.

But I just checked my posts today and I am not making condescending statements or personal attacks.

I also didn't have to go far to prove what I take to be the essence of your opinion.

We are not discussing Miley Cyrus - where are you headed here?

If your point is that Christianity is at odds with some proponents of evolution (and even the 'stars' are persuaded) it can easily be made and understood.

I am saying the naturalistic worldview of Darwinism is at odds with the theistic worldview.

 

[zeke]

So what is that factual difference. Please explain and please show how 'Darwinism blurs the line between...statements of religion and statements of science'. And what part of Darwinism does this and what part constitutes the 'biological evolution' that you keep referring to as 'factual' but never define?

Been there, done that many times - my posts are there for you to review. Checking back and still no evidence presented by you based on a scientific method.

 

[lordkalvan]

Been there, done that many times - my posts are there for you to review. Checking back and still no evidence presented by you based on a scientific method.

You seem very fond of declaring that you have already done X, but seem passing reluctant to tell us where. Why is this? Are you aware of AFDave's Third Law, which your claims seem to be a variant of -

Afdave’s Third Law: If you have an objection to any point I’ve raised, I’ve already addressed it. No, I won’t tell you where.

Unless my memory is far worse than I had supposed it to be, I cannot recall you posting any explanation as to what constitutes the factual difference you refer to, that shows how 'Darwinism blurs the line between...statements of religion and statements of science', and that demonstrates what part of Darwinism does this and what part constitutes the 'biological evolution' that you keep referring to as 'factual'? I have searched for these posts, but cannot find them. As you have assured us that they exist, please can you either link to relevant posts or tell us the threads in which they were posted and their post numbers, leading me to blush prettily and tender my sincerest apologies. I will then address your arguments and explanations as appropriate.

 

[zeke]

...I cannot recall you posting any explanation as to what constitutes the factual difference you refer to, that shows how 'Darwinism blurs the line between...statements of religion and statements of science'...

I have given many examples and of course you remember. But let's do it one more time for you - when Darwinians state saurischian dinosaurs evolved into birds they are making a statement of religion but they claim it is a statement of scientific fact thus the blurring of the line. Easy concept.

Now - can you present your evidence or simply admit you have none? No dancing please.

 

[Sparkey]

Okay, let me tread as carefully as possible and quote your term "Darwinian Myth" without modification or intrepretation, while asking exactly what you mean by it. My definition (previously withdrawn) was "Science based on Darwin's work" is now ruled out. What's your take on what you meant, if not that.

Do you have a handy definition for your term, Darwinian Myth? And while we are at it, what do you mean by religion? Most would think that word meant the belief in or worship of a personal God or gods. Other dismissive terms that you have used along the same lines include "pseudo-science", "dancing" and "hand-waving". It just seems to me that what is fit for the goose is also fit for the gander.

 

[zeke]

Do you have a handy definition for your term, Darwinian Myth?

Darwinian - a disciple of Darwinism

myth – something having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence, e.g., the notion that dinosaurs evolved into birds.​

Do you believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds?

And while we are at it, what do you mean by religion?

See metaphysical.