[Last Visible Dog]

"Dude," when you learn the difference between "evolution" of the cosmos and what 99.9% of humans mean when they talk about "Evolution," and when you can learn to take a joke, and when you learn that repeating stupidass claims 100+ times on the same thread doesn't make you right, then, "dude," we'll talk again.

Pardon me for referring to you with a familiar term; I will never do it again.

You claim 99.9% of humans believe evolution only means fish-to-man Darwinism (biological evolution); do you have any supporting evidence for this claim? I am guessing you just made that up. How can you insult other peoples intelligence when you make up “facts” in your statements?

The funny part of all of this is: I use to term “evolution as cosmology” to avoid confusion between one specific theoretical application of evolution and evolution as a concept. Clearly people like “whattajoke” are not here for debate or intellectual exchange – they are here to play “gotcha” – whattajoke thought he found a gotcha in my statement “evolution as cosmology” based on his misunderstanding of the term evolution.

Another point: I only repeated my point when somebody insulted me by attacking me personally and not the position I was taking.

You look really pathetic when you admit I was correct yet you still continue to insult my intelligence.

To sum up: the term “evolution as cosmology” defines cosmological theories where evolution in the key principle (the concept, not fish-to-man evolution) – this term is needed so that I can differentiate between “religion as cosmology”. Before you run off on yet another red herring – I am not implying there are only two cosmological theories – there are many “evolution as cosmology” theories and many "religion as cosmology” theories and even hybrids that contain a little of both.

The entire point is all cosmological theories have giant holes so present all of them in school to allow students to think rather than telling them what to think – this quickly degraded into a game of gotcha in an attempt to insult my intelligence. What is funny is the absurd nature of the gotcha arguments like “evolution has nothing to do with cosmology”

Now whattajoke is trying to save face by admitting I am correct while he continues to insult me. A wise man once said (related to Internet decision forums): He who resorts to insults loses – every time.

Essentially, you're pulling a Clinton here. Y'know, what the definition of "is," is? Moron.

Are you capable of rational thought? You are the one pulling a Clinton. I am using the actually COMPLETE MEANING of the word (Words do have meaning) - you are trying to claim your personal meaning of the word is the only meaning of the word. Clinton tried to claim “is” only meant “right now” and you tried to claim “evolution” only meant “biological evolution”.

You really make a fool out of yourself when you call me names while making irrational and not well thought out statements.

[whattajoke]

Oi vey.

first of all, you may call me dude if you wish.

Ok, I'll admit, there has never been a study to determine what percentage of humans think of "biological evolution" when the term "evolution" is used. So my figure of 99.9% was, indeed, "made up." A study of this type has never been undertaken, perhaps, because everyone (save for you) already knows the outcome. When someone tells you to "Xerox" a report, do you sit and stare blankly because you have no idea what they mean because your office uses Canon Copiers? Should we have a study to determine how many people use the term, "Copier" instead of the more accepted and universally understood, "Xerox?"

Also, back in my post #208 (one of my first to you) I did state that your use of "cosmology" must be some sort of strange caveat that only you understand. 400 posts later, i've been proven right. So far, you are alone on your intellectually devoid island in your understanding of the world.

I am no fool. I've "admitted you are correct" in the context of your singular reasoning. If some hippie on an acid trip tell me the clock is melting, how can I tell him otherwise? To him, the clock is indeed melting. to you, the term "evolution" is much broader and expansive than an as yet undetermined percentage of humans typically believes it to mean. Is that fair?

I've been meaning to ask you... after your 100 or so posts arguing your tenuous position, What's your point again?