Replies

----From the Western University, Department of Biology---

Alright... I've been doing some digging (in the non literal sense. Let me be clear with you, since you require this: I did not go outside with a shovel and actually dig the ground, I've been "digging" through the net and WWU's website. Got that?

It appears the emminent David L. Alles did indeed work at WWU and did indeed teach a couple courses there. Note the past tense... although I have no idea why he no longer teaches there, or anywhere according to google among others.
The course he taught that used LVD's purported support of his idea was called, "Introduction to Science and Biology." Interesting, notice the distinction between generalized "science" and "biology." This course is for non science majors to fulfill a science requirement. Fair enough.

Mr. Alles seems to approach teaching non science majors from a very broad view. His lectures and syllabi try to tie in many different concepts, which can be pretty interesting. Then again, they can be used by the LVD's of the world to bolster his porous theories. Since LVD only linked an acrobat description, making it difficult to get the true gist and context of why a biology teacher would evoke cosmology in the first place. But I think a fair reading of his entire course outline will put it in better perspective. Here's his old course outlines and such.

At any rate, one guy's course outline from a small liberal arts school does not a coherent theory make.

Mr. Alles seems to approach teaching non science majors from a very broad view. His lectures and syllabi try to tie in many different concepts, which can be pretty interesting. Then again, they can be used by the LVD's of the world to bolster his porous theories. Since LVD only linked an acrobat description, making it difficult to get the true gist and context of why a biology teacher would evoke cosmology in the first place. But I think a fair reading of his entire course outline will put it in better perspective. Here's his old course outlines and such.

Whattajoke – you are farily clueless on this topic. Cosmology is studied both by physics departments and philosophy departments (it is pretty much out of the scope of biology although biology is not out of the scope of cosmology). The physics department focuses on different concepts of cosmology than the philosophy department. Like I said from the beginning I approach this subject from the philosophy side – my initial point included that position “cosmology falls more in the realm of philosophy than science”. Whattajoke – it is clear you have never studied philosophy – cosmology is a school of thought in philosophy that deals in theories of the address every aspect of the universe in totality – soup-to-nuts (big bang, evolution, biological evolution, that nature and evolution of thought and reasoning) – philosophy focuses on thought process unlike the discipline of physics.

You are disparately trying to pretend cosmology has nothing to do with evolution (because you backed yourself into a corner by making the silly statement). The best you have done is prove cosmology is a broad subject that means different things to different people depending on how they approach the subject (physics, astronomy, philosophy). I have studied cosmology both from the philosophy side and the astronomy side – guess what: different topics were address from the astronomy-based classes and the philosophy-based classes. BTW: I also presented supporting evidence in the form of various cosmological theories from a various group of philosophers that incorporate evolution (including Darwinism)

If one dictionary definition exists that supports my position – you position is rendered fallacious – end of story (maybe that will teach you not to make broad brush statements – if you would have said from the perspective of the physics discipline of leaning – biological evolution is not addressed (of course cosmic evolution is addressed – that too renders your statement null and void)

All you are doing now is applying your own personal delimiters to the subject and trying to somehow argue that supports your broad-brush all-encompassing statement “evolution has nothing to do with cosmology

The existence of one dictionary definition that supports my position renders your position fallacious (no matter how much you whine, change the subject, type endless and meaningless messages, or spew insults)

You can’t talk your way out of this one – your statement was in error – you know it and I know it and you will never spin your way out.

BTW: evolution as a noun or verb was the silliest and most pathetic attempt at spin

Then again, they can be used by the LVD's of the world to bolster his porous theories.

Please state (specifically) what you claim are my porous theories.

At any rate, one guy's course outline from a small liberal arts school does not a coherent theory make

Who ever claimed it did, Joke-boy?

(to quote Snoop Doggy Doggy) Now back to the topic at hand- Joke-boy claims evolution has nothing to do with cosmology. The existence of ONE dictionary definition that states evolution is included in cosmology or the existence of one university that states evolution is part of cosmology proves my statement and Joke-boy's position is rendered bogus. I have presented three major forms of supporting evidence - all Joke-boy has done is prove that the word cosmology does not always have the same meaning depending on context (which is totally irrelevant in the context of Joke-boy's absolute statement)(all together everybody “duh!”)

BTW: whattajoke, you have not addressed my supporting evidence from the NASA website. I can't wait to see you try and shoot that down. “NASA is a two-bit operation that can’t even land the space shuttle safely” (to quote Mick Jagger “you guys are a gas”)

although I have no idea why he no longer teaches there, or anywhere according to google among others.

So if a google search does not return his place of employment - Joke-boy assumes he must be unemployed

Do you actually believe innuendo is a valid debate tactic?

Joke-boy, you are such a clown.

Since LVD only linked an acrobat description

Joke-boy, you can’t get anything correct – I linked to an HTML page

teehee

But I think a fair reading of his entire course outline will put it in better perspective. Here's his old course outlines and such.

So? No matter how much you twist and distort - your position is false.

"evolution has nothing to do with cosmology" is a false statment. No amount of spin can change this