Free Republic

That's plain English. But not the whole story. The "facts" are never enough.

What more, exactly, do you propose is involved?

Am I to take it, then, that you agree with my statement that the theory of evolution has no political bias?

Do you mind if we turn this question around, so that I might ask you: What part of evolution theory have you directly observed?

Remnants in the fossil record, DNA relics across species previously concluded to be closely related, imperfect replication of organisms in biological populations and reproductive success relative to environmental conditions as a result of heriditable traits leading to increased expression of those traits in future populations have all been observed.

f Bohr is right -- epistemologically speaking -- then it needs to be recognized (IMHO) that even such a widely-accepted theory as Darwinist evolution is to some degree compromised as science, because it rests so much on things that no one has ever directly observed.

To what as yet unobserved events do you refer?

You have yet to provide any evidence to show that my statement that the theory of evolution has no inherent bias is incorrect. Comparing me to Wolf Blitzer is not a substitute for providing actual evidence.

I do not believe it an unreasonable conclusion that you were presenting what you believe to be my position as a means of mocking it, as evidenced by your comparison to Wolf Blitzer.

The inherent bias is that metaphysical considerations are not allowed.

This is a limitation of the scope of science, not a "bias" specifically of the theory of evolution.

Evolution must explain all human behaviors and the outcomes of those behaviors.

Do you have evidence that it does not?

ALL behaviors are the product of, and allegedly explainable by, physical processes, there is no such thing as true free will. We are all, as Pearcey states in her book Total Truth, machines made out of meat.

Please justify this claim with evidence.

And Pearcey illustrates the logical conclusion of such thinking, by evolutionists, with the examples brought out in the article at the beginning of this thread (e.g., Pinker).

How does this demonstrate a "bias" with the theory of evolution? For what, exactly, are you arguing?

No EVIDENCE

You are incorrect.

You are free to dispute the validity of the evidence presented for the theory of evolution, but claiming that no evidence exists at all demonstrates only that you have not actually researched the subject at all.

There is no I mean no testable method of evolution only fantasy.

Your ignorance of the existence of research supporting the theory of evolution does not negate the existence of research supporting the theory of evolution.

You never have anything to say but circular reasoning.

Please reference a specific argument that I have made wherein I assume the conclusion that I am attempting to demonstrate.

You never prove anything only claim that I am wrong without evidence.

You have claimed that nothing can be known from "dead bones". You are wrong.

. You claim I do not understand yet every time I prove you wrong.

You have proven nothing. Thus far you have asserted that evolution is false, but you have provided no explanation to demonstrate that you understand what the theory of evolution is, nor have you show that you have any understanding of the evidence used to support the theory of evolution. You have made references to "dead bones" and responded to questions with complete non-sequiturs. Your statements have "proven" nothing thus far.

You bash me to make your self feel better

I am not "bashing" you. Stating that your claims are incorrect is not an attempt to insult you.

But you have not that is right not given me evidence that dead fossil bones gave birth to anything.

You are again misrepresenting evidence. "Dead fossil bones" do not reproduce, and no one has claimed that they do. That you make such a demonstratably false claim further reinforces my belief that you have not actually studied any information relevant to this topic.

Please show me evidence contrary to what I said.

Your use of the word "proof" suggests that you do not understand how science operates. Nothing in science is "proven". Rather, reasonable conclusions are drown from evidence. In the case of the fossil record, educated inferences are drawn from the appearance and layout of the fossil record. Merely saying "dead bones" does not demonstrate that you have actually analyzed the evidence. You cannot dispute evidence if you have not actually studied it.

Please show me my ignorance of the theory of evolution by my demonstration of evidence. You will not.

You claim that "dead bones" are the total evidence presented for the theory of evolution. That is not true. You are simply wrong.

In a court of law I would win you would lose.

You have not demonstrated this to be the case. Asserting that you are correct does not demonstrate that you are correct.

Your evidence is based upon what if, could have, might be, all circumstantial at best.

Given that you have not demonstrated that you even understand the evidence, I see little reason to trust your claims as accurate.

You do not have a leg to stand on, but Hey faith in your religion of evolution will evolve a leg someday.

The theory of evolution is not a religion. Claiming that it is a religion demonstrates either that you are wholly ignorant of the theory and as such are not qualified to discuss it, or that you are lying and as such are not qualified to discuss it.

But the real problem is an advantage: Dimensio says, "The theory of evolution has no inherent political bias." In his view, the fact is evolution. Since evolution is science, voila! ergo-propter-hoc, evolution is without bias or prejudice.

If you believe that the theory of evolution actually has inherent bias, then it is your responsibility to demonstrate as much. If you believe that my statements are false, then explain how they are false. Claiming that I am either arrogant or dishonest while providing no evidence for the claims does not support your position.

Dead Bones = dead bones, nothing else no proof that any thing else other then another one of the same kind came from it.

This is both a complete misrepresentation of fossil evidence for evolution and completely irrelevant to my questions. You do not demonstrated that the theory of evolution is folse by demonstrating that you are wholly ignorant of the evidence that is said to support it.

I was not responding to the fact that evolution does not exist in the real world

Your claim is demonstratably false.

and I know those who worship naturalist ways will never admit that God exists.

You are now willfully lying about those who accept the theory of evolution. This does not, in any way, support your claims.

But it is another grasp at a fictional process using evidence that proves nothing.

Given that you have made no demonstration that you actually understand the information in the article, or that you have even read the article, your claim is difficult to accept as reliable.

You are asserting that because you believe the formation of the universe is unlikely without intelligent intervention, that intelligent intervention must have been involved. This is known as "appeal to ignorance". You are asserting that your lack of an alternative explanation is evidence for the explanation that you are putting forward. This is not a logical method of reasoning. You must provide positive evidence to support your claim in order for your claims to be credible.

Oh and one other thing, I am Catholic and to be Catholic one must, of necessity, be a creationist.

Curious. Why, then, do you believe that Ken Miller claims to be Catholic?

Well Dimensio it does because you think you are important.

Considerations of "importance" are relative. I have never assumed myself particularly "important" with respect to your website. It would appear that your presumption is inaccurate.

You assume too much importance.

Your unjustified presumption of my perception of importance has no relevance to my statment.

Just shooting fish in a barrel I guess.

I do not believe that this statement is a valid analogy for the current discussion.

You claimed that I had requested others to "prove" that the Ten Commandments were authored by God. You were clearly incorrect, as I had merely inquired as to how they had arrived at that particular conclusion. You have also not explained how such a request is an application of science, nor have you established that such a request is an insult or attack.

It's obvious for everyone to see that you enjoy taunting posters.

Given that you have made a demonstratably false claim about my behaviour, it would not be wise to accept your assertion without further evidence.

Sheesh, the innocent one again.

I have asserted no inncoence. I am merely requesting clarification of your claim.

Apparently, you've never been on a "crevo" thread.

You are mistaken. I have witnessed many such discussions, and I have participated in many of them as well.

Not worth the effort.

If it is "not worth the effort" to support your claim with evidence, why then did you make the claim?

FGS! Go read some of your own posts. You play head games with religious posters --- asking them to PROVE the Ten Commandments are God's words.

Even if your assesment of my postings is correct -- and you have provided no direct references to support your claim -- how would that be an application of science, and in what way is insulting or "beating up" religious conservatives?