OgreMKV Chokes and Conflates "Evolution" the Word with the Theory (of Evolution)
-
This is just too funny- OgreMKV has conflated "evolution" the word with the theory of evolution.
Thanks for proving that you are totally clueless. I even provided definitions of the word, not the theory. The theory is about the HOW evolution took place. The debate wasn't about that. The debate was about the word- "evolution" and its definition.
There is a huge difference between the two.
This is just too funny- OgreMKV has conflated "evolution" the word with the theory of evolution.
Thanks for proving that you are totally clueless. I even provided definitions of the word, not the theory. The theory is about the HOW evolution took place. The debate wasn't about that. The debate was about the word- "evolution" and its definition.
There is a huge difference between the two.
posted by Joe G @ 7:56 AM
5 Comments:
At 7:17 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
I'm hoping that at least one thread of messages can stay free of the petty stuff and stick to the topic at hand.
Of course Ogre is going to conflate evolution with his version of what he believes caused it. Personally, I dont even consider "The Theory of Evolution" to be a term to be used for Darwinism. If there are multiple theories about evolution, then none of them should use the term "The" as their special name. Least of all should the false theory of random accident use it.
I support evolution and am a proud evotard evolutionist. I am also an IDist who is not afraid to state the obvious: Life is the intelligent animation of matter. ALL, not just some, of life's movements and functions are intelligently controlled and impossible without the involvement of intelligence. "Standard chemistry" is not observed in any of life's activities. Like it or not that is the fact. That is, unless any of you can think of any of life's movements or formations that can be explained by any stochastic process and actually explain the process.
Agree or disagree, can we please talk without the insults?
At 7:46 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Some here have complained that ID is too "elastic", "vague" or even "equivocating." Ogre even said that it is unclear exactly what ID stands for.
I can understand the complaints, but I dont agree. ID is actually just a very wide umbrella theory that covers any scientific observations best explained by intelligent cause. This is a very clear, concise and unequivocating definition.
It is such a wide scope that I probably have strong disagreements with many other IDists. Thats ok because the unifying and defining theme is still solid: scientific observation best explained by intelligent cause. Differing opinions within the umbrella concept are subsets of the larger group, such as the various string theories. Nothing wrong with that.
We clearly oppose the two high-profile but foolish extremes: Materialism (opposes intelligent cause explanations) and Creationism (religious not scientific). Both base their theories on belief systems not the scientific method.
Some complain that when applyng the scientific method, ID always "wins". We always will win but I wont apologize for that.
At 9:57 AM,
Joe G said…
The weird part is Ogre refused to define "evolution". That alone put thewhole "debate" in a tailspin.
At 5:57 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Joe G, he refused to define it, he said, because he feared you would contest his definition. Then he said your definition was fine and then added certain key words to it later.
I dont think he really attempted to win the debate. He alternated between agreeing that ID is not anti-evolution and out of the blue bald statements that it is.
At 6:32 PM,
Joe G said…
I am sure in the minds of Ogre and the evotard minions he did "show" that ID is anti-evolution.
Unfortunately I doubt I could get him nor any of them to place a wager on it and let moderators decide.
Post a Comment
<< Home