Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Jessie the lib proves Darwinism

In a conversation about taxes at Jim Wooten's Thinking Right blog, a poster named Diogenes that's a full fledged Darwiniac and unwilling to provide any proof or listen to anything that questions his/her beliefs, the subject popped up today. Then we got a surprise visit from "Jessie" who is going to unlock the mystery for us. Well probably not, but I'm going to invite him/her over to provide us with this enlightenment that escapes paleontologists, but is well known fact to a blogger. The relevant conversation begins here:

By Jessie

December 20, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Diogenes,

I’m going to butcher it, but there’s a famous quote that advises to never argue with an idiot. He’ll only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Your posts on public policy are great, but RW doesn’t deserve so much of your attention. Like so many Dittoheads, he’s absorbed and institutionlized (sic) the lies and no longer has the capacity for learning, thinking or growth.

Good luck.

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

Dio,

Maybe you should munch a few of those mushrooms.

Jim and others have said they want to stick to the subject of taxes. After this response to you I’ll get out of the way as I’ve said all I need to on topic. I know they don’t want to turn this into an evolutionary debate and frankly the liberals over at luckovich’s are far more informed on the topic than you’ll ever be, so it’s more of an intellectual challenge to debate them.

As for your latest misguided assumption, I have never said I’m opposed to Darwin being proved to me through the fossil record. Paleontologists have been trying for decades and are largely giving up on Darwin. The myth of Darwinism is primarily promoted by evolutionary biologists that need the funding to continue and anti-religious zealots like you.

As for the “beautiful monster” I bring up that IS YOUR THEORY remember? You called it punctuated equilibrium and you use to claim that the lack of proof is proof.

I hope you have the decency to allow Jim his own wishes on his own blog. I know I will and I won’t be sucked into this childish game of name calling that you can’t seem to shake.

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Oh and your little dog Jessie too!

By Jessie

December 20, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

RW (1257) “The myth of Darwinism is primarily promoted by evolutionary biologists that need the funding to continue…”

See what I mean?


Jessie,

The comments are open and unmoderated, please tell us all about the proof that you have and no one else is privvy to.

**UPDATE** Jessie has been formally invited.

**UPDATE** Well it's been twenty four hours and there has still not been proof of any species evolving into another either here or on the blog this came from. We do have several links to the "talk origins" web site, which I highly recommend for insomniacs, but it basically says to trust them and not ask questions. It really makes you wonder why worshippers of Darwin are so petrified of questions. Frankly I'm surprised they haven't just linked to this and claimed it as proof.

Comments:
Welcome Jessie,

I can't wait to see what you have to offer beyond calling me an idiot. That's not usually the best way to begin a conversation, so I'll overlook it and we can get started fresh.

If you aren't familiar with my main point of contention with Darwin, it's that there is not one thing in the fossil record that shows any species ever becoming a different one. I gather you have that discovery?
 
Wrong, as usual. There are plenty of transitional fossils showing the shift from one species to another.

Here's a handy overview to get you started, but it doesn't have many pictures.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
 
I'm sure our dear RW is too clever to fall for the talkorigins link. After all, "Dr. Dino" is the real authority on all things science.

rushncap
 
Hi rushncap,

Which one are you, Dio or Jesse?
 
Well it appears that Jesse has provided his or her proof at a different site. Here it is in all it's it's glory, Jesse's version of the Origin of Mankind:

1) Charles Darwin lived.


2) Darwin had theories.

3) Darwin communicated those theories to others.

4)At least one person accepted some or all of Darwin’s theories as having value in some capacity.

Since all four conditions are true, I have proved Darwinism. As you are now aware, Darwinism is not a myth – to the contrary, it thrives today.


Obviously Jesse has decided to entirely change the argument and instead of proving Darwin was correct in how man came to exist, he or she has chosen a bizarre obfuscation that because a crackpot lived and spoke, and others believed it, it must be true.

This is the person the called ME an idiot, earlier today.
 
To whomever left the talkorigins url, every single item they discuss is in the vein of "well this could have been this and something else was found somewhere else that might have been that, and even though there are million year gaps, it looks good to us"

So pick your very best one and I'll debunk it for you.
 
RW,

One would indeed have to be an idiot to conclude that because Dio believes something, it must be true.
 
Buy Danish,

Technically Jesse didn't provide proof that Darwin lived either, but I guess we can stipulate to that one.

There were lots of people that said the earth was flat and others that believed it. By Jesse's "logic" that makes it true despite what we know now.
 
RW,

Jessie the smartass said -

Now you’re asking me to prove that Darwin was right about the origin of man. FYI, evolution is a theory. Do you know what a theory is RW?

Is it just me, or is Jessie less convinced than rushncap (hi!) and Dio that the Theory of Evolution is infallible science?
 
Buy Danish,

Next we'll probably get that idiotic equivalence that gravity is just a theory as well.

One thing this little prick Jesse is losing site of is that he butted into the conversation by saying Dio had been right about Darwin and now he wants to weasel out of it by pretending I started the conversation with him. I guess I'll respond if the blog is still open.
 
RW,

He's a prick, and he and Dio deserve eachother.
 
OMG. You people are sneaky...

I checked out the other blog and your cut-and-paste versions of what this person said are a little out of context.

RW wrote that Darwinism is a myth. In response, Jesse intimated that RW was an idiot.

Then, RW tried to direct Jesse from the other blog to the post on this blog titled "Jesse the lib proves Darwinism". Jesse didn't bite.

Later, Buy Danish followed up on the other blog commenting that she couldn't wait for Jesse to "prove Darwinism". Jesse responded on the other blog by "proving Darwinism". Hence the four point proof pasted in RW's comment above. Then RW accuses Jesse of changing the subject? C'mon.

RW and Buy Danish returned to the other blog to ask Jesse to come to this blog to prove that "Darwin was right about the origin of man".

Again, Jesse didn't bite. Here's Jesse's entire response on the other blog:


RW,

Feel free to write to me on your “special” blog. Fair warning…I won’t be reading it. If you intend for me to actually see what you have to say, then stick to Wooten’s blog.

On this blog, you and BD asked me to prove Darwinism. Mission accomplished.

Still, you’re not easily satisfied. Now you’re asking me to prove that Darwin was right about the origin of man. FYI, evolution is a theory. Do you know what a theory is RW?

Now I have a question for you. You wrote that Darwinism is a myth (you do know what a myth is, don’t you). You made that ridiculous assertion, so prove it.

I take it that you believe in Creationism. While you’re at it, prove that the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1 is right about the origin of man. I don’t see any reason why you can’t kill two birds with one stone.

With regard to your question, “Are you sure that you want to keep calling me the idiot in this conversation?” The answer is yes.

I’ll be looking for your proof tomorrow. Good luck…idiot.


Here's the extremely long link to this comment:
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/shared-blogs/ajc/thinkingright/entries/2006/12/20/post_37.html#comment-890742
 
Anonymous,

You are the one that has taken the comments out of order to place them in your own context and the title of this post takes you right to the comment thread that you apparently lack the ability to link to. Look at what else you screwed up.

By Jessie

December 20, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Diogenes,

I’m going to butcher it, but there’s a famous quote that advises to never argue with an idiot. He’ll only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.


By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
The myth of Darwinism is primarily promoted by evolutionary biologists that need the funding to continue and anti-religious zealots like you.


Care to try again, hotshot?

By the way, there is a response to the last Jessie comment, I'll post it next.
 
Jesse fell into RW's trap. RW asked Jesse to prove evolution, Jesse responded by asking RW to prove creation. RW and others try to equate the two by saying their both unproven. So, why teach one over the other in school?

My answer –

First, because one requires a hell of a lot more faith than the other (creation requires more faith than evolution).

Second, although Darwinism is a theory, it's scientific theory. Part of learning science is to learn to create theories based on observation and then work to prove or disprove them. To my knowledge, evolution is a sound theory that, although not yet proven, has a tremendous amount of scientific evidence supporting it with the backing of the world’s most prestigious and learned scientists.

On the other hand, creation is religion. It doesn’t belong in a science classroom.

I do agree with Jesse that if RW wants to call the theory of evolution a myth, then he should disprove the theory. That’s what science requires. Otherwise, he’s smoke and mirrors.
 
Here's the response I left for Jessie, Jessie's words in italics:

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2006 08:06 PM | Link to this

Ah Jessie,

You sad pathetic waste of perfectly good oxygen, let’s review.

RW,Feel free to write to me on your “special” blog. Fair warning…I won’t be reading it. If you intend for me to actually see what you have to say, then stick to Wooten’s blog.

The off topic conversation you butted into to dealt with an ongoing discussion with Diogenes. You began by saying Dio had great points to make and that I wasn’t worth the time because, in your opinion, I’m an idiot.

It was your next comment that you rolled your cyber eyes at my myth of Darwinism comment. When tied together those two comments would indicate that you embrace Dio’s views on Darwinism, which is what you were asked to respond to.

Now there’s a reason I went to the trouble of setting up a web post for the discussion and I’m afraid this will be way over your head, but it has to do with respect. We had been asked by the host of this blog to limit the off-topic conversations and Darwin’s theory of the origin of man is not a quick discussion and is often very disruptive. I notice that you show an absolute absence of respect or decency and even defy your host by demanding that his blog be the place for anything Jessie wants to discuss.

Next point:

On this blog, you and BD asked me to prove Darwinism. Mission accomplished.

See above for the this blog explanation, maybe it will sink in if you read it again. You were not asked to prove Darwinism in the bizarre sense that you did. Since you had declared the infallibility of Dio’s argument and the vacuousness of mine, your obligation was to prove how Dio had been right about Darwin. Now since Dio hadn’t laid that out today, you’re either a blind fool being led by a complete moron, or you’ve read her ideas in the past and somehow buy into them. That places the burden of proof on you and the cutsie obfuscation really makes you look foolish.

Next point:

Still, you’re not easily satisfied. Now you’re asking me to prove that Darwin was right about the origin of man. FYI, evolution is a theory. Do you know what a theory is RW?

Others, like rusncap, that did have the good taste and decency to make their comments on the blog I set up and not disrupt the host here, will tell you gravity is a theory. He’s right, but the theory of gravity works every time you test it. The theory of evolution falls apart like a house of cards when it’s given any scrutiny.

Next point:

Now I have a question for you. You wrote that Darwinism is a myth (you do know what a myth is, don’t you). You made that ridiculous assertion, so prove it.

There has never been any credible evidence of any species ever becoming another one. That probably doesn’t qualify as absolute proof of a myth, so I’ll give you partial credit for exposing a slightly hyperbolic statement. (You do know what hyperbole is don’t you Jessie?)

In any case there has probably never been any one theory that’s had more time and money put into it, with an absolute goal of finding the holy grail that proves it and had less results, in fact disproving itself along the way, than Darwin’s theory of the origin of man.

Next point:

I take it that you believe in Creationism. While you’re at it, prove that the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1 is right about the origin of man. I don’t see any reason why you can’t kill two birds with one stone.

Creationism has about as much proof as Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is to say virtually none. Nothing quite shows an amateur to this debate like immediately labeling the opponent a religious zealot just because you believe in Darwin and your opponent questions it. Sorry amateur Jessie, but that isn’t an argument.

My reading of Genesis tells me that the story is completely impossible and, unlike Darwin’s theory, the fossil record backs me on that.

Both Creationists and Darwiniacs are operating on faith, but the Creationists are honest about it, while the Darwiniacs make wild claims that they are backed by science.

Your other two points are more of the same. You have no argument so you call names and obfuscate. That’s fine by me as all the other readers here can make up their own minds. I’m completely secure in my beliefs and in myself as a person so keep making yourself look small and we’ll all get a good laugh at your expense.


Here's a direct link to the comment thread for those that like Jessie err... anonymous, that thinks I didn't follow the proper order of the posts and is too lazy to click the title on the main page.

The only paragraph that has been manipulated at all is Jessie's paragraph 2 above. At Wooten's he or she put the word "this" in italics, so I've bolded it to replicate Jessie's emphasis on the word.
 
Anonymous,

Where it says "Choose an identity" you can click other and put in a name without having to sign up.

It would also be nice if you would read both parts of the conversation instead of just Jessie's.
 
RW claimed that Darwinism is a myth. Somebody called him on it. Hundreds of words and several hours later, RW finally conceded that his original claim was hyperbole.

RW could have saved himself a lot of angst if he had conceded the point right away. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.
 
Anonymous,

I said it was a hyperbolic statement in that it's probably not flat out proven to be a myth. There still is absolutely zip zero zilch nada evidence that any species EVER became another one, so it's pretty darn close to a myth.

Why don't you admit that you came in here with a bold faced lie right off the bat accusing me of rearranging posts to change their context.

Freaking anonymous lying coward.
 
By the way coward,

I just went back and counted and the total number of words I expended on the topic of the use of the word "myth" before my final response at Wooten's was ZERO. Exactly the same number of species you can show that have changed into another.

Funny how these coincidences work isn't it? I especially like the way they always turn out to show what a liar you are.
 
Coward? Liar? Who is this guy talking to?

Is he the same person who made the following statement a couple of hours ago?


"You have no argument so you call names and obfuscate. That’s fine by me as all the other readers here can make up their own minds. I’m completely secure in my beliefs and in myself as a person so keep making yourself look small and we’ll all get a good laugh at your expense."


Whether he agrees with them or not, RW should be polite to his guests. Otherwise, he'll "look small and we'll all get a good laugh at [his] expense."
 
Coward,

The name fits because you're scared to use any other name and the description fits because your very first post was a bold faced lie that you won't admit.

Besides, my guests identify themselves and the only two people that were invited to this post as "anonymous guests" were Jessie and Diogenes. My guess is you're the latter, but cowards are pretty much all alike so it could be any of the AJC loopy libs.
 
The gentleman doth protest too much, meknows.
 
Coward,

Do you have a topic or question? Here's what you came in with:

RW wrote that Darwinism is a myth. In response, Jesse intimated that RW was an idiot.

The title link proves that wrong, the main page interim link proves that wrong, the cut and paste on the main page proves that wrong, and the re-cut and paste here in the comments proves that wrong and you've brought nothing else to discuss.

OK liar?

God how sad must it be to know that rushncap and Midori are the two classiest liberals that have visited here from the AJC blogs.

(no offense getalife, but I just dedicated the post above this one to you and I didn't want to get you too swell headed)
 
RW,

I don't know if you noticed, but now CJ the Marxist is getting in on this "controversy" at Wootens:

By CJ

December 21, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

Despite overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary, one of the posters on this blog wrote yesterday that the theory of evolution is a myth. I suspect this person isn’t the only one who believes that.

 
Thanks BD,

I missed that. Normally I skim past most of CJ's manifesto's as I think her only purpose is to outword Jim. She sure buried that one in the middle of a lot of nothing.
 
What exactly are you looking for--a stop-motion film of a single, living organism spontaneously transforming from one species to another?

If so, there's no such thing, outside of animated cartoons. Fortunately, evolution also makes no such claim. As for transitions from one species to another, you've already been shown plenty, both in the fossil record and in current research on living organisms today.

"Observed Instances of Speciation" -http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

"More Observed Speciation Events" - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

"Transitional Fossils in Vertebrates" - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Pick a referency, any reference. These aren't "speculation," they're observed transitions. One species becomes another, over and over again.
 
Anonymous,

Those references you keep posting simply show possibilities with huge gaping holes in the fossil record and can only be called factual if you are willing to accept it on faith. What difference is there in that and Creationism?

Pick one species that you say originated from another and I'll debunk it. Sounds pretty simple doesn't it, are you scared to try?
 
The twenty-four hour update is now posted on the front page.
 
Nobody called anything factual. The evidence supports the theory. Whenever somebody offers evidence to support the theory of evolution, RW replies "that doesn't prove it's a fact". Nobody is claiming that evolution is a fact. Short of the stop-motion film mentioned earlier, nobody is ever likely to make such a claim.

The difference between the theory of evolution and creationism? Creationism is religion that requires the "faith of a child". The theory of evolution is science supported by evidence. Conclusions reached from the evidence (i.e. theory) requires adult reason. Maybe this explains why RW is having such a hard time understanding.
 
Coward,

Nobody asked you the difference between evolution and creationism. Learn to read please.

At 12:12 you had this to say.

Pick a referency, any reference. These aren't "speculation," they're observed transitions. One species becomes another, over and over again.

That sure sounds like you are claiming a fact. Now pick one of these species you claim as fact has turned into another species and let's discuss it.
 
RW acts as though each anonymous comment comes from the same person. He can't fathom the idea that more than one person supports the theory of evolution.

RW wrote the following at 12:17:

Those references you keep posting simply show possibilities with huge gaping holes in the fossil record and can only be called factual if you are willing to accept it on faith.

For the record, using reason to fill in the holes in the fossil record is, in part, the theory of evolution.

RW then asked:

What difference is there in that and Creationism?

RW got his answer and then responds at 12:21 with:

Nobody asked you the difference between evolution and creationism.

Having a discussion with this guy is like playing whac-a-mole. You respond directly to what he writes, and he cries "I never said that".
 
Coward at 2:15,

The question at 12:17 was this:

Those references you keep posting simply show possibilities with huge gaping holes in the fossil record and can only be called factual if you are willing to accept it on faith. What difference is there in that and Creationism?

It's a little different when placed in the proper context now, isn't it coward?

So when do we get ONE species that ever changed into another species?
 
How's it feel to lose every debate you ever start, RW?

rushncap
 
rushncap,

Thanks for at least signing your posts. The other libs could learn something from you.

As to your point, this debate hasn't even started since nobody will show a species that has become another, so it would be impossible to have lost it. Thanks for asking, maybe I'll link to some of the dozens of times I've kicked your ass in debates at ml's one of these days and let people see how well you represent a black hole.

Happy Hanukkah to you.
 
RW wrote at 12:21

It's a little different when placed in the proper context now, isn't it coward?

And the answer is ... no.
 
What is with this clown? The person posted RW's quote at 2:15. Then RW reposts the exact same quote at 2:17 while claiming the 2:15 quote wasn't placed "in the proper context". Of course, we can all see the original quote a few inches above.

Whac-a-mole is right. RW is in his fifties, but he whines like a first grade sissy.
 
RW wrote "...this debate hasn't even started since nobody will show a species that has become another..."

He seems to think he's outsmarted the world since no blogger has proved the theory of evolution to him.

Hey buddy, they didn't have video cameras a few hundred million years ago, and we could never find all the fossils you require. Those of us with the ability to think use logic to fill the gaps.

You can discount the combination of the fossil record, molecular evidence and mathematical models if you choose, but don't expect others to join you in your igloo of ignorance.
 
Coward,


Name one species that ever evolved into another one.
 
Hey buddy, they didn't have video cameras a few hundred million years ago, and we could never find all the fossils you require. Those of us with the ability to think use logic to fill the gaps.

Anonymous (et al),

Are you so lacking in creativity and courage that you can't come up with a freaking name to use to identity yourself, albeit temporarily?

There were no video cameras around for Christ's birth either. What does that prove? By your "standards" history didn't commence until the mid-1990s when the camcorder came along.
 
Buy Danish,

Now you know history starts each day for a liberal. It looks like Honu's words set OotMVoD off on a spam frenzy.
 
RW,

Ugh.

The people who worship at the Church of Darwin are universally unpleasant creatures.

Between OOt, Thomas, Huge, Stalker Boy, and rushncap they are one bunch of miserable MoFos.

Let's just say hypothetically* that the choice was between Darwin and Christianity and you had to make a choice. Why would you choose the side of the nattering nabobs of negativity?

*Note to Darwiniacs: When I say hypothetically I mean exactly that.
 
Dr. Blogspot just ate my freaking response! errrr......


Buy Danish,

They don't care what you say about the words you use, they'll just pick the ones they want to claim you said like that that little prick or prickess Jessie did at Wooten's at the end of the day.

You;re not kidding about how miserable these people are. Oot thinks we are in the dark ages and the rest of the world has passed us by. Now that's miserable, and I bet the rest of these Darwin worshippers believe it.
 
NOTE TO ANONYMOUS COMMENTER/S

We have been closing old posts since another breed of anonymous commenter has been dropping off all kinds of spam links. They're actually more interesting than "all" of you, but I digress.

The comments on this post are set to shut down at 6:00PM tomorrow. If any of you Darwiniacs have come up with a species that has turned into another species by then we'll extend the comments, if not it'll close.

You have about 21 more hours. It's amazing how long this is taking since you say you have all the evidence at your fingertips.

I know if I was so sure of something and after three days I hadn't been able to find anything that backs my beliefs, I would start questioning them.

I look forward to watching you scramble and obfuscate, stomping your feet like three year olds, while still not offering a single example.
 
RW,

Oot is the sort who would gladly tell a child that there was no such thing as Santa Claus - and get pleasure out of ruining a child's happiness.
 
Buy Danish,

That's the least of the kids problems if Oot is really a teacher.

Did you see that Jessie just admitted over at Wooten's that he knew nothing about anything and therefore had not promised any information?

The weirdest thing is he says I taught him how to hit the post button. These libs will say absolutely anything to get out of answering a question.
 
Some dude makes a point that in order to understand evolution, you have to use deductive reasoning since video cameras weren't around millions of years ago. Then a subsequent blogger responds:

By your "standards" history didn't commence until the mid-1990s when the camcorder came along.

What a dumbass. That's exactly the point the person was making to RW. Apparently, this point went right over the clueless blogger's head.
 
Buy Danish,

The anonymous pussy is calling you out now. This has got to be the most ignorant bastard we have ever had show up.

Anonymous pussy,

Buy Danish was showcasing how you have no proof of a species turning into another species and making fun of the fact that while you believe it happened you are such an intellectual lightweight that you project your inability to present your case onto your opponent.

You clowns are the ones that said we would need video proof, not us. I'm still waiting for you to just name one species that turned into a different one. You can't even provide that so don't flatter yourself by pretending that you're just not showing quite enough evidence to convince us.

Until you come up with one example, we aren't even entering the evidence phase. Just because you're gullible enough to walk over the evolutionary cliff doesn't mean everyone is. I, for one, remain completely open minded to having Darwin proved to me, so do it if you can.
 
Anonymous,

I understand the "theory" - I'm looking for what counts as "proof". Using "logic" to "fill in the gaps" is insufficient particularly when everything Libs do is illogical (like believe in Utopian pipe-dreams and Marxist economics for example).

You're basically saying that I have to have faith in Darwin's theory and use that faith to fill in the considerable gaps.

Considering the lack of proof, I find it interesting that it is so blasphemous to question your sacred theory that you and the acolytes will not even entertain the possibility that there could be another explanation, and will actually conduct witch-hunts to punish anyone who is not a true believer.
 
RW wrote something about the myth of Darwinism. Jesse called him on it, and RW finally admitted that the statement was hyperbole.

Jesse was right. RW was wrong. All the rest is "kill the messenger".

RW should recognize his mistake, stop whining and move on with class.
 
Anonymous @ 1:52,


Let's overlook the fact that you're an idiot that can't keep facts or the sequence of posts in order. Please provide us with the name of a species that has evolved into another species.
 
Buy Danish,

By defintion, a scientific theory lacks definitive proof. If the proof you seek were available, then the conclusions regarding the evolution of species wouldn't be theory; they would be considered to be scientific law. One example of a scientific law is the law of gravity. You'll probably get up-in-arms about this, but you're both making fools out of yourselves by asking a bunch of lay bloggers to prove a theory.

I have a theory of my own. My theory is that both of your minds are already made up and your only objective here is, like a couple of school yard bullies, to ridicule anybody who disagrees with you, no matter how polite or sincere they may be. If so, you've accomplished your goal.
 
"Let's overlook the fact that you're an idiot..."

Anonymous,

I guess that "with class" part was a little too much to ask. Come to think of it, the "move on" part didn't seem take either.

Somebody also commented that RW shouldn't expect somebody to join him in his "igloo of ignorance". That person was wrong too. Buy Danish has moved in with RW, and she seems quite comfortable there. What's the expression? Ignorance is bliss? RW and Buy Danish have proven that theory nicely.
 
Anonymous,

We've long since given up on you being able to provide the proof that you claim is overwhelming, we're just looking for you to name one species that has ever evolved into another.

Is there even the slightest chance that you'll come up with one?

Buy Danish,

This has got to be the most elusive "overwhelming" proof in the history of mankind.
 
We've long since given up on you being able to provide the proof that you claim is overwhelming...

RW up to his usual tricks. Claiming somebody said something that nobody said. In all this discussion, not a single person claimed to have overwhelming proof (it's a THEORY). Again, the fact that something isn't true doesn't stop RW from saying it.
 
Note to RW: It's a blog. We can all see what others said and didn't say. Who do you think your fooling with such lies?

Nevermind. I forgot about your friend, Buy Danish.
 
Anonymous,

The proof is supposed to be in the fossil records. Where is it?

Don't you see the irony in your insistence that this particular theory above all others is sacrosanct?

I have a theory which, based on observation which is far easier to prove: The more adamant the Darwiniac, the more passionately anti-religious the adherent.

It wasn't until 1997 that evolutionary biologists were even willing to drop their insistence that evolution was "unsupervised" and "impersonal".

If you ever do find that fossil, it still will not disprove the existence of God, which seems to be the reason true Darwiniacs are so sold on the Theory of Evolution in the first place.

All the fossils in the world still do not explain how man has a conscience and a soul, or explain Shakespeare. If you account for man's physical being you still can't account for his spiritual being. Darwiniacs want science to explain things that cannot be explained by science.

Secularists of all stripes are convinced that religion interferes with scientific discovery, which is also a very unscientific conclusion, since the Christian churches initiated much scientific discovery.

The assumption that anyone who is less that awed by Darwin's theories is a Creationist is not a scientific conclusion either. Every time the subject of Darwin's fossils comes up the Darwiniac immediately throws Creationism out as the only alternative and you very unscientifically assume that people like myself fall into that category.
 
RW,

I think I have discovered a new species!:

Anonymous Anonomi
 
Anonomous Anonomi,

I want to clarify one thing - My use of the term "Creationist" refers to the literal interpretation of the Bible in Genesis.
 
Anonomi, (I like it BD)

This new obfuscation of yours, claiming evolution is a theory just like gravity or electricity, is ridiculous. Those "theories" prove out when they are tested. You still haven't been able to name one species that became another and as tired as I am of saying that it's the only thing that will show that you have one shred of credibility.

Oh by the way moron, this is a multi-blog conversation and do you really want to stick with the claim that nobody on your side of the debate has said the evidence is overwhelming? 12/20/2006 08:26:09 PM comes pretty darn close and there are many other examples at the AJC sites that began this conversation.

You have 7 1/2 more hours freak, don't waste them.
 
RW,

Isn't it amazing how this very discussion is "illegal" in the public schools thanks to the efforts of those "open-minded" Darwiniacs and the ACLU?

You'd think that if they were so sure of their beliefs they wouldn't have a problem debating them. How do you convince people that Earth is more than 6,000 years old if you won't allow the discussion to take place?

This whole concept of "separation of church and state" does nothing but impede reasonable discourse. It is impossible to entirely separate religion from science, history, art, music, literature, or any other "enlightened" discussion, and if nothing else we should be free to discuss where ideas diverge or meet.
 
Buy Danish,

The reason they outlaw the debate is because of just what we see here. They have nothing whatsoever to base their worship of Darwin on so they insist you can't talk about it.

That's why the sticker that said basically "keep an open mind" is blasphemes to them and has to be portrayed as teaching religion. Liberalism relies on a brainwashed herd and they won't tolerate open minded, free thinking people.
 
RW,

Exactamundo.
 
BD,

Did you see the latest from Dio over at Wooten's? In my copy of A Christmas Carol, Scrooge turned back into a generous and happy man, not a charlatan that has voting cats and carries on imaginary conversations.
 
RW,

I did see it and left her a message. Does Dio really believe that she is the paragon of virtue and that Jim Wooten is going to look to her for guidance of how to live one's life and gain redemtion?

The arrogance and self-importance of these Libs is just an amazing thing to behold.
 
Maybe a new bumper sticker idea could be:

Do it like Dio


Of course the background would be a little old lady, 168 cats, and 45 years of AJC back issues.
 
RW,

When Dio didn't show up yesterday I was going to say that "A day without Dio is like a day without Moonshine".
 
Buy Danish,

Dio was probably having lunch with Lucy yesterday. None of the anonymous coward visitors came from the library, although remarkably they usually managed to use the same computer.
 
RW wrote at 9:13:

We've long since given up on you being able to provide the proof that you claim is overwhelming...

Anonymous wrote at 9:29:

In all this discussion, not a single person claimed to have overwhelming proof.

RW wrote at 12:22:

...this is a multi-blog conversation and do you really want to stick with the claim that nobody on your side of the debate has said the evidence is overwhelming? 12/20/2006 08:26:09 PM comes pretty darn close and there are many other examples at the AJC sites that began this conversation.

Did anybody notice how RW went from "proof" in his lie at 9:13 to "evidence" and "pretty darn close" at 12:22? In fact, the comment that RW specifically references (12/20/2006 at 8:26) specifically says "although not yet proven...". The opposite of what RW claimed at 9:13, "proof that you claim is overwhelming".

RW understands the difference between a scientific theory, support by evidence and a scientific law supported by proof. But he and his friend, Buy Danish, can only bloviate if they mischaracterize what others write.

RW, when you find a comment where somebody said they had proof, as you claimed at 9:13, please let us know. Otherwise, the scientific theory that your only objective is to ridicule anybody who disagrees with you becomes scientific law.
 
Coward,

Call it what you want, but just quit stalling and provide it.

Come on, can't you even find one single solitary species that ever turned into a different one?


It's a pretty empty theory that can't show even one example don't you think?
 
Anonymous Anonymi,

Why is it that Darwin's theory is the only one we're allowed to discuss?

Is that a mischaracterization or can you show me where a discussion of any other theory, or merely the weaknesses in Darwin's theory, is legally permissible in the public schools?
 
Here's one example coward:

By Diogenes

November 26, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

RW (the original),

Show me proof of any species ever evolving into another.

What would you regard as proof? There’s tons of it. The finches on The Galapagos Islands are as good an example as I can think of, and that was Darwin’s starting point.

 
Check this one out --

Anonymous wrote at 2:21

By defintion, a scientific theory lacks definitive proof If the proof you seek were available, then the conclusions regarding the evolution of species wouldn't be theory; they would be considered to be scientific law. One example of a scientific law is the law of gravity.

RW writes at 10:32:

This new obfuscation of yours, claiming evolution is a theory just like gravity...

Honestly, I can't tell if RW is stupid or dishonest.

Anonymous (2:21) painstakingly tried to differentiate between a scientific theory and and a scientific law. This person uses the law of gravity as an example of scientific law specifically to distinguish it as being different from the theory of evolution. How does RW respond? "This new obfuscation of yours, claiming evolution is a theory just like gravity..."

Serious question for RW: Are you dishonest or stupid? I, for one, would like to know.
 
Coward,

Neither


If you are Jessie, you've picked up the responsibility for backing the statements made by Diogenes because you claimed they were all accurate when you butted into the conversation. If you're Diogenes we already know you're a lying, sniveling little ankle biter. If you're someone else you've inherited the role of Jessie.

So again, name one species that has ever evolved into another.
 
RW can't help himself.

Okay, I'll bite. Where did somebody claim that statements made by Diogenes were all accurate? Having trouble finding that one too.
 
RW,

Here's another Dio bumper sticker:

I have cats and they vote.
 
Coward,


When I laid out the premise and it wasn't rejected. Don't try backing down now that you've figured out what a loon you are supporting in this debate,

How long before we get the name of the species that became a different species, loser? Maybe you can just weasel out of that one by claiming nobody ever said that either.
 
RW: You've picked up the responsibility for backing the statements made by Diogenes because you claimed they were all accurate

Anon: Where did somebody claim that statements made by Diogenes were all accurate?

RW: When I laid out the premise and it wasn't rejected.

My opinion? RW is stupid. No intelligent person could believe that they could get away with such dishonesty. He's gotta be stupid.
 
Kudos to RW at 12:06. Seriously. I'm very impressed. He made a statement, and he "proved" it. I think that's great.

Diogenes' comment was overstated. There is no proof of speciation, only evidence to support the theory.

Here's a link that includes the following:

At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.

Overwhelming evidence supports this fact
(note to RW -- the "fact" they're referring to is that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time -- not speciation). Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.

The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. In this section, we will explore the lines of evidence that are used to reconstruct this story.

These lines of evidence include:

1. Fossil evidence

2. Homologies

3. Distribution in time and space

4. Evidence by example


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

Everybody on the same page now?

As for the search for the missing link, RW might try looking in the mirror.

Merry Christmas everyone!
 
Coward,


We have three days of your personal opinions about me. Now it's time for you to name a species that ever changed into a different one or admit that you can't and slither away in shame.
 
Cool! The coward admitted he was wrong and slithered away before I even asked.

Merry Christmas Coward!
 
RW

And since a new species called "anonymous anonymi" appeared out of nowhere, we have disproved Darwin's theories using his own standards of proof.
 
Buy Danish,

I love the way this circled around to the anonymi saying "I told you it didn't happen." It's like arguing with Pee Wee Herman.
 
RW,

The only question is whether Jessie is Pee Wee Herman, or if he is an entirely different animal, er, species.

Ready to hit the road - I'll check in later...
 
53 hours and not one single species identified, although one of the moonbats did finally say evolution of one species to another never happened except in one's imagination. Sounds more like blind faith to me.

The commenting is now closed for this entry.
 


Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?