dan

no one said "only a theory", and i wasn't claiming anyone had. that's why it was a straw man. but what we do have is people like you demanding an absurd absolutist level of proof, and an absurd disregard for the proof there is. you don't know the meaning of the word "fact". it's time you learned.

you introduced denton as someone who "casts doubt on evolution", referring to his "a theory in crisis". and now denton's a believer? but you seemed to miss the point of the book review: denton's later book threw denton's earlier book under a bus.

ah, but you don't break stride. not a word about why denton might have changed his mind. you simply slap the back of this "open-minded" evolutionary theorist, and stride into how evolution might be directed. hilarious. no religious motivation there. just honest open-minded scientific enquiry!

the reality is that there is no crisis. there are huge unresolved questions about evolution, but absolutely no crisis. evolution is a fact. honest scientists with integrity debate the nature of that fact, the mechanism and extent of evolution. but this debate has nothing in common with the conclusion first argument second absurdity that you, and denton, throw up.

dan,you are a joke. there is not an ounce of integrity in the manner in which you represent science or the arguments over evolution. i'm bored of your nonsense. you complained of having to respond to five writers: it's now down to four.

george, i've enjoyed your posts. i take your point about my emotional manner of addressing the issues here. but my manner of expression has no bearing on the truth or otherwise of what i've written.

bushbasher, so have I.

Dan,

You're a master of tricky wording... But it won't work.

<<And you are right in saying that this does not mean that evolutionists would never change their views on Darwin’s theory. It only means that they will never be compelled to.>>

I like the way you've used the word “compelled”. By using the word “compelled”, you are trying to suggest that evolutionists are somehow “forced” to support evolution.

In fact, it sounds like, you're subtly trying to suggest (again) that evolutionists are fundamentalists too?

<<By the way, I am hoping for a level playing field. Why can’t we compare apples with apples?>>

...Yep, you are.

The key word here is: “Motive”.

Perhaps "level playing field" was the wrong term to use. All I was saying that you can't just drag evolutionists down to the same sub-standard fundamentalist level as Theists, by implying that they too are fundamentalists.

Again, there's a big difference between being believing something because the evidence suggests it, and believing something because a Holy Book says that's what you should believe - regardless of what the evidence suggests.

So for the second time, evolutionists are not fundamentalists because they would be willing to dump the theory of evolution if is was either, conclusively dis-proven; or if another theory started to look more plausible.

Theists, on the other hand, are fundamentalists because they will never change their view on anything scientific if it clashes with what their Holy Book says. The key here word being: “Never”.

This is a distinction I am happy to make over, and over, and over again, because Theists have been getting away with muddying the waters with this misconception for far too long.

<<They are free to hold to them as long as they believe the evidence warrants. But then again, so are creationists.>>

So why don't you start showing the evidence for Creationism, instead of playing with words?

<<We try to make a case for a model which best fits the evidence.>>

And hence, evolution.

Continued...

...Continued

<<If you can point out which pieces of evidence I’ve glossed over>>

Colinsett's point about fossils.

<<The fossils. No one has really said anything about fossils, except to say that they show evolution. That’s not evidence. That’s an assertion.>>

And here you are playing with words again. I'll get to the definition of “evidence” soon.

<<Radioactive dating. No one’s brought that up yet.>>

Doesn't mean it's not a part of the evidence.

<<You alledge that there is all this evidence that all living things evolved from simpler life forms. Well, I haven’t read much on this thread.>>

Dan, you haven't addressed much at all in your previous posts. And what you have addressed, is minimal considering the mountain of evidence to suggest otherwise. The points you have made just beg more questions about evolution, they don't necessarily dis-prove it.

In fact, all you've really done, is nit-pick with the definition of “evidence”.

<<(And remember evidence, the things we touch, see, and measure, don’t speak for themselves. They are to be interpreted by the human element. So please don’t confuse evidence with conclusions.)>>

...See what I mean? Yet another sloppy debating tactic. The definition of “evidence” is a lot broader than you're admitting:

Evidence: Information or signs indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/evidence?view=uk)

If you're after some evidence on evolution, how about you read a bit about it here http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html ?

A good place to start would be the page on the misconceptions about evolution here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html.

Dan, I've gotta say, I'm not impressed with your debating style at all.

How about you come up with some evidence for creationism, instead of nit-picking with definitions? Because, one important point you need to remember, is that even if you could dis-prove evolution, that wouldn't necessarily prove creationism. This kind of logic is as absurd as saying: “The sky is not red, therefore it must be blue”.

I await you nonsensical reply, with the same arguments, worded differently...

August 3, 2016 AD

An earthquake hits California.
On the beach, a domestic cat is chasing a pelican.

The quake collapses the earth beneath them, burying them on top of each other.

August 3, 3418 AD

A meteor shower hits Earth, destroying almost the entire human race and all computer files.

All knowledge of history, archeology and paleontology is lost.
Mankind must build civilisation (and its knowledge) again from scratch.

August 3, 450985 AD

Paleontologists digging in California discover some bone fragments.

The ten fragments indicate the extinct animal had legs and a tail like a cat, but the head and beak of a bird.
Only one specimen is ever found.

It is presumed the animal lived on the land, but could fly into the sea to feed on fish.

The "Pelican Cat" becomes a pop cultural phenomenon, with millions of posters sold.

They should DNA test the bones. Even a bone density test should prove it was different animals. Or haven't they invented that stuff yet?