Refuting Darwinism, point by point

WorldNetDaily,com ^ | 1-11-03 | Interview of James Perloff

[balrog666]

You:For you to accuse Dataman of dishonesty is a wholly unjustified slur that in fact reflects poorly upon your honesty.

me: BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! Oh, Phaedrus, you are such a scream!

You again: Honesty is not among the most important fundamental values? Bill Clinton couldn't have said it better.

Once again you demonstrate your total lack of a sense of humor or any shred of honesty on these threads. And you only mentioned your hero, Clinton? I'm surprised you didn't mention Hitler and Stalin again.

[ThinkPlease]

might be interested placemarker.

[Aric2000]

Yes it is. That is why evolution isn't science.

We'll nail you guys every time you SAY you are scientific and then defend the theory for which there is no evidence.

That is EXACTLY WHY IT IS SCIENCE.

You creationists/IDe's kill me.

Evolution is not science, and is that your expert scientific opinion?

I didn't think so.

I hope you don't mind, but I will take the word of 99% of the scientists over a fundamentalist christian on that score, thanks for sharing your silly opinion though.

When you can convince say, 20% of scientists that your opinion is right, we'll talk again.

Until then, Sorry, but, I'll think you're a little loopy in the head.

in the meantime, let's get an ACTUAL scientific opinion. Shall we?

Physicist, radioastronomer, is evolution science, or is it religion, as little loopy head here claims?

Professional SCIENTIFIC opinions please.

[Fester Chugabrew]

". . . but I will take the word of 99% of the scientists . . ."

So evolutionism comes with its own choirboys and you want to hear them sing. But the choir is not as big as you believe. Can a handful croaking swamp toads woo the sane world with their pitiful tune? Perhaps there is a theme song for swiss cheese. Give the swamp toads a few million more years and maybe they'll have something to croak about.

[Aric2000]

You creationists REALLY are a kick in the pants.

You have absolutely NO proof that creationism or ID occurred, you read it in a "holy" book and therefore it must be true.

Then, when a scientific theory comes along, that fits the known facts and evidence, and even tries to say if this is here, then we are missing something here, and that missing something is found, you still have the cahunas to call it faith, or a belief system?

Sorry, but when a theory makes a call for future findings and facts, and those findings and facts are found through study and research, that is called science. So sorry Chester, but your strawman looks like it's burning.

BADLY, thanks for playing though, wanna try again?

[Physicist]

I reject the premise that science requires either facts or evidence.

For example, it is possible to calculate the fundamental magnetic charge of a magnetic monopole. In reality, no magnetic monopoles have ever been found; indeed, they may not even exist. Nevertheless, the value of the magnetic monopole charge is a scientific statement. It is testable in principle, even though in practice it has not been (and may not be).

Another example would be the Higgs particle and the technirho. If the Higgs does not exist, then the technirho must exist; if the Higgs does exist, there won't be a technirho particle. Searches are being conducted for both particles; rest assured that all of the physicists involved in both searches are "doing science", no matter how it turns out.

Evolution is a scientific theory whether there's evidence for it or not. The same may be said of Lamarckism. As luck would have it, there is overwhelming evidence for the former, and overwhelming evidence against the latter.

[Aric2000]

Fester, not chester, my bad, sorry bout that.

[Aric2000]

Thank you physicist, those particle thingies, did I get the technical term right? ;) sound fascinating, someday I would love to see one of those accelerators in person.

It'll be WAY over my head, but it sure LOOKS cool!! lol

Toys, BIG toys, my best Toolguy impression!! huhuhuhuhu

[whattajoke]

Alas, dear Doctor "Chugabrew," your cutesy folkism contains reference to a "Swamp Toad." There is no such thing. And frogs are much better croakers anyway, but why should we expect you to say anything containing a shred of science?

I do, however, find your mention of amphibian evolution intersting, as some amphibians are currently in a dire state, owing to many outside influences. As a complete aside, read this link and learn yourself a thing or two... Caution: Science Within! http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/aw/declines/declines.html

[whattajoke]

oh great, just noticed my link is from Berkeley. Now EVERYONE will jump down my throat! ; )

[beavus]

They just haven't answered it in a way that is close enough to "my god, you're right!" for your tastes.

Heh-heh heh heh-heh. Cool. Heh-heh.

[MEGoody]

"You obviously presume that if matter didn't "create itself", or "always existed", then the only option left was that "matter was created", *and* (your unspoken premise) that if it was indeed created, then it was created *by an intelligent deity*."

If you think matter and energy haven't always existed and you also think they were not created, then please tell me what alternatives you have in mind?

[beavus]

Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.

Personally, I'm partial to callocs.

[MEGoody]

"If you have a TRUE SCIENTIFIC theory that would compete with evolution for scientists attention, I will be the first one to say, GREAT, let's do it, because the students should be allowed to see competing SCIENTIFIC Theories."

I'm glad you are so open minded. Then you would not be opposed to information being presented which some say pokes holes in the theory of evolution - as long as it is scientific information, of course, right?

[general_re]

Pfft. How many C++ programmers does it take to change a light bulb?

[MEGoody]

"BTW, I do not "believe" in evolution. I accept the data that has been uncovered to date."

Ah, good. Then you accept that bones and fossils have been found, but you don't believe the assumptions made about them, because they are just that - assumptions. Right?

(crickets)

[beavus]

Sounds like Liberal Classic has deciphered your code. I'm afraid I haven't.

[general_re]

Then you would not be opposed to information being presented which some say pokes holes in the theory of evolution...

What did you have in mind?

[MEGoody]

"I'd like to ask you if you are truly curious, or just trolling."

If you have a logical answer, then I am truly curious.

[Nebullis]

None. It isn't a software problem.