http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061218/posts?page=650#650
As usual you either didn't understand the post, or you lied about it. Here is my post #650:
The theory of evolution stands independent of the origins question. Here are five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.a) Natural processes occurring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.
b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension traveled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.
c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.
d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.
e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.
The theory of evolution works just fine with any of those.
Lie: claiming that I advocated any of these. They are hypotheses.
Lie: claiming that I don't have a Ph.D. You know nothing about my educational background.
Lie: claiming that the theory of evolution depends on any of these. The theory of evolution stands independent of origins in spite of creationists' misrepresentations.
If that had any truth to it Darwinists would not be in fits over ID. Perhaps Darwinists themselves are unaware that the TOE is independent of origins.
No one said you do not have a PHD. You have posted those 5 hypotheses probably a few hundred times, and now you run away from them, throw them under the bus Mr. NobamaCoyote.
About your five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life/forms. So these statements of yours, is your scientific assessment?
ad·vo·cate
1. to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly:
So apparently we can assume that you do not advocate anything that you post, including this one? Kinda like speaking the 'truth', which you have publicly-stated and posted references from the most worshipful house of natural philosophy CalTech, is not the intent of science either. Or maybe not. I'm not sure that you ever really say anything at all.
So, between you not advocating the things you post and science not intending to communicate truth, why should anyone listen to anything you say? We could get as much from a random word-generator as we get from you.
"Lie: claiming that I don't have a Ph.D. You know nothing about my educational background."
Nobody ever said you didn't have a PhD. I believe that you have stated that you do. I don't *know* that you do or do not have a PhD. I only know that you *claim* to have one.
In post: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1685030/posts?page=493#493 you said (or maybe not):
"I follow the scientific method, which has outlined a procedure for dealing with different kinds of evidence. I have studied those skulls at some length in grad school, as well as evolution (two of my four fields for the Ph.D. exams were human osteology and fossil man). Accordingly, I do not regard my opinions in this area as metaphysical but scientific."
Never mind the fact that you absurdly claim that your 'opinions in this area are scientific', I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you had your PhD. Maybe you don't.
"Lie: claiming that the theory of evolution depends on any of these. The theory of evolution stands independent of origins in spite of creationists' misrepresentations."
The ToE commits the fallacy of exclusion by avoiding origins. Origins should be included in evolution because it is important information that would undermine the ToE.
By claiming that origins is off-limits, science gets to avoid saying where the 'poof-zap' magic of space aliens/time-warping humans ended and 'evolution' began. Evolutionists avoid that distinction like the plague because, once admitted, there is no logical, intermediate defensible position that would distinguish it from biblical creation.
Unfortunately, that would expose the fact that 'evolution' is nothing more than adaptation, the starting point for life is way down the imaginary path and 'evolution' is falsified as a model.
I didn't lie or misunderstand your post. You did misrepresent mine though.