Not exactly correct.

Yours is a common misinterpretation of evolution due to the overwhelming pressure exerted upon that theory by creationists.

"Evolutionism", is defined by the OED as "[t]he theory of evolution, evolutionary assumptions or principles". Creationists tend to use the term evolutionism in a misleading sense in order to suggest that evolution and creationism are equal in a philosophical debate.[/I]"

Actually, I'm not calling evolution a belief. I'm simply stating what evolutionists believe. In order to dismiss creationism and embrace the theory of evolution as the sole determinant of existence requires a belief about evolution and a belief about creationism. Just as feminism isn't a belief, however, feminists themselves have beliefs. I'm saying the belief required to accept one theory and reject another - not that either theory is in fact a belief.

I'm certain you won't hear pure creationists telling you what they "believe" - to them, the Bible is fact. There is nothing to believe.

I find it interesting that evolutionists - oops, I'm not sure what to call them now, ummm....maybe proponents of biological evolution via natural selection??

...regardless, I find it interesting that one would argue over a word. Whether you accept or reject evolution, whether you accept or reject creation - does not matter. Neither side considers themselves believers. But to argue that belief is devoid from your respective perspective is to argue that you are not human. And I'm certain we believe better than that. But its certainly interesting that proponents of biological evolution via natural selection would attempt to distinguish themselves as objective.

But that is exactly what I was looking for - a proponent of biological evolution via natural selection to assert their objectivity. That only makes them that much more wrong.

But to argue that belief is devoid from your respective perspective is to argue that you are not human. And I'm certain we believe better than that. But its certainly interesting that proponents of biological evolution via natural selection would attempt to distinguish themselves as objective.
But that is exactly what I was looking for - a proponent of biological evolution via natural selection to assert their objectivity. That only makes them that much more wrong.You're arguing "right and wrong" based solely upon opinion and your interpretation of the situation, not upon verifiable fact.

Evolutionists for the most part only argue that which has been scientifically theorized, tested, documented and verified. Those who propose evolution have come about with that concept because of the extensive work and research that has been done on the topic. Their proof exists. This is what science is about, finding and documenting facts regarding a system of thought.

Evolutionists do not consider creationists to be a threat, not only as the topics are not in the same philosophical domain, but due to the fact that mere religious belief cannot compete with concrete scientific results and findings in any event. Again, this highlights the root difference of evolution vs creationism. One is fact based and the other is comprised of ideas and beliefs.

Holy books and religions are based upon the incomplete opinions and accounts of men. These holy books give non-scientific and quite fantastical stories of past events, which in some cases were passed down several generations before being written. Taking into account the inaccuracies such a system would have, combined with the lack of human knowledge at that time, mankind could have led himself falsely down a continuing road of misinterpretation and folly regarding this existence.

The very nature of religion only could have come from man and his ego's attempt to explain something greater than himself. Proponents of ID are attempting to push these ego driven beliefs as facts, instead of taking them for what they are - mankind's "personification" of the universe's continual transfer and transformation of energy. As such, the arguments that religions and proponents of ID offer can be reduced and compared to a belief that an inanimate object, like a river for example, is "intelligent" because it can "find" its way to the sea. No, that's called gravity. It is merely doing what it is supposed to be doing and in the process modifies of the earth's surface (erosion, which is more transference of energy) and supports other ecosystems in the process (even more support and transfer of energy to plants and animals).

This universe in its magnificence is awe-inspiring to us, but merely is a composition of pure energy in different forms, which continuously undergoes many different transformations and transmutations. This does not demean its value, but neither does it connotate an ultimate intelligence that needs to be worshiped or given any semblance of reverence. Although some would indeed beg to differ.

You're arguing "right and wrong" based solely upon opinion and your interpretation of the situation, not upon verifiable fact.


Did you just say that "right" and "wrong" should be based upon verifiable fact and not opinion or interpretation??

For one, I'm not arguing right or wrong. I'm not saying evolution is right or wrong, or creation is right or wrong - I'm arguing that the beliefs of those that refer to themselves as purely objectivists are wrong. That is not a judgment on evolution itself.

For two, what is right or wrong, except opinions?? If you can show me any right or wrong based solely upon facts - then I'll show you a fact, and rightness or wrongness has nothing to do with facts - facts are merely consistencies. Rightness and wrongness change with the prevailing opinions.

For one, I'm not arguing right or wrong. I'm not saying evolution is right or wrong, or creation is right or wrong - I'm arguing that the beliefs of those that refer to themselves as purely objectivists are wrong. That is not a judgment on evolution itself.
Before you digress into a debate which is based solely upon semantics, allow me to ask a few questions.

What you are saying is that you are judging the "beliefs" of the people who support evolution rather than evolution itself, is that correct?

If so, why would you choose to nitpick over the "beliefs" of these persons who merely support a theory which already has been documented as fact and not fiction?

Is this tactic an attempt to somehow diminish the validity of concrete (fossilized stone, to be correct) evidence?

Before you digress into a debate which is based solely upon semantics, allow me to ask a few questions.

What you are saying is that you are judging the "beliefs" of the people who support evolution rather than evolution itself, is that correct?

If so, why would you choose to nitpick over the "beliefs" of these persons who merely support a theory which already has been documented as fact and not fiction?

Is this tactic an attempt to somehow diminish the validity of concrete (fossilized stone, to be correct) evidence?

*smiles*

You know...you're the one arguing semantics. You're the one bringing up evolutionist and evolutionism. I mean...come on..

...and it appears that you have no issue with confusing theory with fact. Evolution is theory supported by fact. That does not make the theory factual, that makes it sound or solid. Just as the theory of relativity is sound or solid - however, the uncertainty principle does not allow the theory of relativity to be factual. The same with euclidean geometry. Evolution is still a theory.

If it were fact, we would have missing links. The half bird-half amphibian, or the half man-half ape would be present. Mutations happen over time, not instantaneously, therefore, we would indeed see evolutionary processes in nature. We do see these processes, I'm not saying we don't, but for a fact to be factual, there needs to be consistency. Consistency makes it objective. In other words, what has happened will continue to happen no matter the observer. I am not only questioning the consistency of biological evolution - as it is not consistent - I am also question the objectivity of the observer - or in this case, the evolutionist.

No, this is not an attempt to discredit the validity of a fact - however, the truth can always and must always be questioned. Every time the theory of evolution is tested or questioned, the more proof there is. Only liars are afraid to be questioned. If evolution is indeed fact - you should welcome questions.

the truth can always and must always be questioned. Every time the theory of evolution is tested or questioned, the more proof there is. If evolution is indeed fact - you should welcome questions.Good points.

Questioning or reanalyzing research with new techniques has kept science progressing.

It must be admitted, however, that such weak documentaries like "Expelled" do not fall in the logical category of scientific or reasonable questioning, but is merely an irrational and disconnected attempt to demonize the work of renowned scientists.

Evolutionists for the most part only argue that which has been scientifically theorized, tested, documented and verified. Those who propose evolution have come about with that concept because of the extensive work and research that has been done on the topic. Their proof exists. This is what science is about, finding and documenting facts regarding a system of thought.
I don't think this is true. How could they? They are just looking at remains and making assumptions. Since no one has observed evolution any thesis is still just a theory.
There was a time that learned people thought that the world was flat. Until the means was established to actually travel around the world, all theories that had supposed that it was in fact round was just an educated guess.
Your proof is just a bunch of remains that tells us certain things but in themselves they do not prove evolution.
Personally as I've said elsewhere I suspect how we are here is probably a combination of the two theories.

Good points.
Questioning or reanalyzing research with new techniques has kept science progressing.
It must be admitted, however, that such weak documentaries like "Expelled" do not fall in the logical category of scientific or reasonable questioning, but is merely an irrational and disconnected attempt to demonize the work of renowned scientists.
Again thats not entirely true. "Expelled" in fact really just looks at how scientist and academia demonize people who believe in creationism and intelligent design.
Your comment is typical of the evolutionist respond to anyone that questions their theory.

I don't think this is true. How could they? They are just looking at remains and making assumptions. Since no one has observed evolution any thesis is still just a theory.This is the wrong discussion to step into without a proper awareness of facts (or the ability to deflect and divert like Tingum did)

Evolution is continuously occurring and scientists have recent proof of its existence within the human genome itself. Evolution has been observed.

Your assertion is incorrect.

Again thats not entirely true. "Expelled" in fact really just looks at how scientist and academia demonize people who believe in creationism and intelligent design.
From clear accounts it was the makers of "Expelled" who were doing the demonizing. Get it right.

Comparing evolutionists to Nazis and showing clips of the Berlin Wall in an attempt to signify a lack of freedom of speech is more than an "attempt" to demonize. It is an instance of blatantly doing so.

You might need to reanalyze your defense of this ridiculous documentary.

The scientific community has its own means of weeding out those who haphazardly throw logic and reason out of the window. This ensures that the scientific community is not reduced to a circus of freaks who do not abide by the scientific code.

Were those persons rejected by the scientific community? Perhaps, but it is certain that the decision to do so was based upon maintaining the integrity of the reputation of scientists who follow proper lines of research and investigation instead of fantastical meanderings of thought which do not fall in line with scientific procedure.

What happened to those scientists was probably the same thing that would happen to a doctor who loses impartiality regarding a patient. When standards are not followed, repercussions should be expected.

Good points.
Questioning or reanalyzing research with new techniques has kept science progressing.
It must be admitted, however, that such weak documentaries like "Expelled" do not fall in the logical category of scientific or reasonable questioning, but is merely an irrational and disconnected attempt to demonize the work of renowned scientists.

I haven't seen "Expelled" so I cannot comment.

Comparing evolutionists to Nazis and showing clips of the Berlin Wall in an attempt to signify a lack of freedom of speech is more than an "attempt" to demonize. It is an instance of blatantly doing so.


Actually, philosophically speaking, the comparison may be quite accurate - I thought I would get a chance to quote some Wittgenstein, but unfortunately we didn't get to go that far....

This is the wrong discussion to step into without a proper awareness of facts (or the ability to deflect and divert like Tingum did)
Evolution is continuously occurring and scientists have recent proof of its existence within the human genome itself. Evolution has been observed.
Your assertion is incorrect.
Gee somebody with a little edumakation I see. Please read my previous post in context, and note that I did not say evolution is not happening.

I get it, you're smart........... stop assuming everybody else is dumb.
By the way I meant to misspell education.

From clear accounts it was the makers of "Expelled" who were doing the demonizing. Get it right.

Comparing evolutionists to Nazis and showing clips of the Berlin Wall in an attempt to signify a lack of freedom of speech is more than an "attempt" to demonize. It is an instance of blatantly doing so.

You might need to reanalyze your defense of this ridiculous documentary.

The scientific community has its own means of weeding out those who haphazardly throw logic and reason out of the window. This ensures that the scientific community is not reduced to a circus of freaks who do not abide by the scientific code.

Were those persons rejected by the scientific community? Perhaps, but it is certain that the decision to do so was based upon maintaining the integrity of the reputation of scientists who follow proper lines of research and investigation instead of fantastical meanderings of thought which do not fall in line with scientific procedure.

What happened to those scientists was probably the same thing that would happen to a doctor who loses impartiality regarding a patient. When standards are not followed, repercussions should be expected.
Kind of like what you did to me because I did not completely agree with your assertions hey? By the way you made the point that the film was making.

I did not say evolution is not happening.
You said:

"Since no one has observed evolution any thesis is still just a theory."

and

"Your proof is just a bunch of remains that tells us certain things but in themselves they do not prove evolution."

My comments were focused in direct response tothe above statements. What else is to be derived from such incorrect declarations?

I get it, you're smart........... stop assuming everybody else is dumb.Don't make my response out to be something that it is not. You merely were corrected on both counts - proof of evolution does exist and has been observed.

Don't cop an attitude at me for stating facts.

Kind of like what you did to me because I did not completely agree with your assertions hey?

By the way you made the point that the film was making.
Just like the scientists in that film, who probably overreacted to the scientific community's logical response to those who do not follow scientific doctrine, you have made this conversation out to be a completely different scenario that what was intended.

You can't expect to be able to spit out anything that is not scientifically factual without being corrected. Especially when the information to the contrary is easily attainable.

And the film made no point at all, except to serve as a "last stand" for those who let religious belief cloud their scientific processes. The reputation of the entire scientific community is on the line. What's worse is that the scientists who support the creationism theory should know better. They KNOW what high standards they are held to, yet they wish to decrease the standard for the sake of their own beliefs.

It's amazing that we trust the overall scientific community to shape our existences on this planet in countless ways, but yet when they make a stand on something that doesn't meet the standards that they have used for centuries, we have people accusing them of being Nazi-like! That does not make any sense.