This is my example as promised,
If it seems silly, remember;
Part of UOG’s challenge.
It is in two parts.

UOG says
"did darwins geo distrubution make the finches evolve to be NOT finches[or the
turtles evolve not to be turtles its all micro progression WITHIN a species]

budgie breeders have isolated budgies for 200 years [they have not evolved into
parrots or doves]"

OK
so we have shades of grey (gumtrees)
but what about the black or white?

T-rex 'n chicken are very very different after all
(if they meet, don't bet on the bird ;-)

* if a T-rex could become a chicken through
evolution, what of ID? *

The fiveyear old arrives...

"yesterday we learned evolutun in class
that a dinosaur can turn into a bird'
I don't understand!

[-kids nowdays! remember,
I'm going to have to simplify...]

I could see how that kind of darwinist thinking
could really throw you for a loop!
make you believe all kind of things
like my great.gt.....grandady was a monkey!

* How could nature alone do that like magic!
- doesn't make sense! those teeth!

> well young man,
fossils have been found
(pressed in like your smiley stamp)
in old rocks that show birds came from
one type of dinosaur ...
- don't believe it?
[are you a scientist or a creationist?]

> Let's take a guess
for this to be true
- T-rex & chick would have to have a
great.g.g.g.grandaddy together...
> maybe they are cousins!

* 'But chickens weren't around then!
* How did the T-rex change to a small chiken?

Well that’s a long story but he didn’t actually change
he disappeared and his cousins took over...
they were the chickens great grandaddys

There was a race on between all the cousins
to see who was the best...

wow! what happened?

> Maybe T-rex and chickn's great
grandaddy were side by side in a race for survival
(think of trains, Thomas the Tank v's
the little engine who could)

>>continued

but but
* Where is the half T-rex / chicken?
Well, you see that's not what scientists
said happened, others said that to confuse people.

> can we watch the race?

- lets go outside & look at a tree
- their racing is like small branches
sharing the same main big branch...
side by side branches
can divide at different times
without telling one another you know...
or a branch could stop suddenly
or make it all the way to the top!!

> SO I'm waiting!
- how did the T-rex DISAPPEAR?

* well they're racing along and...
* what's that!! a big rock from space!
* Many scientists think this
made smaller animals faster after that
* some have other ideas
* so they are looking for clues like detectives
and playing show and tell

- but how do they know what happened back then?
* well if a big rock hits earth really hard
you get a lot of dust - and that
dust is still around underground
but that's also a long story
wait till youre older...

* But about the T-rex, hes so scary!
> Well, they found some blubber from a Trex.
And using their looking glasses
to look this goop from the T-rex & the bird
guess what?

T-rex & chickens may be cousins after all...
it may be true!

* But that's also a very long story
and it'll have to wait for when you're older

-- gee thanks for the magic story,
now can I tell you what I want for Christmas?
a dinosaur versus chicken book!
And a looking glass.

stuff and nonsense db8r
you give a location[link] TO LAWYERS
who no doudt would like to remove god from their courts

its rules appear to be

QUOTE>>Who gets to determine what is science?.<<

no doudt the moderator
following the forum guidlines
see below

QUOTE>>>Science or Creationists?

To answer this with sufficient authority.
We would require. A suitably qualified forum.
An arena of world's best practice...<<

at what rebuttinmg?[or censoring?]
my EXPERIENCE is censoring
and banning then via court to jail

Its not very scientific[but such are the COURT-forum_rules[right]?

SO HERE ARE THE balanced?,unbiased?FORUM RULES[of the lawless]

QUOTE:..>>"ID is not science.

We find that ID fails on three different levels,
any one of which is sufficient
to preclude
a determination
that ID is science.

They are:
(1)
ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science

by invoking and permitting
supernatural causation;

2) the argument of irreducible complexity,
central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's;

and(3)ID's negative attacks on evolution have been
refuted by the scientific community."
(page 64)..>>

great
page 64
WHICH LINK?[2de]

PS i replied PTP
at this link
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2317

i will let you get back to your
'fair and balanced'cop/show/law and order ;LEGAL tv watching judges

PART 1
This has been an entertaining thread.

Of course he's a troll.
If he wanted a real discussion with people who have knowledge of where our current research into biogenesis stands, he would have posted this on a forum where these people are likely to be.

It seems the comments about OUG's intractability of his position are correct - he has yet to write anything here that sufficiently rebutts the conclusions decades of scientific effort have led to, The constant biblical quotes and poor writing style makes it also difficult to read.

He does seem to have one valid point though: Many of the ideas that science (actually, the media and uninformed laymen) states as demonstrated fact are not. They have workable theories backed up by supportive evidence, that eventually (it is hoped) is backed up even further by understanding the mechanisms at play. I for one am sick of seeing theories elevated to the level of fact by people who misunderstand the nature of scientific enquiry - the rest of the world buys into that and opens scientific knowledge up to attacks from people who already Have All The Answers.
The FACT is that scientists do not Have All The Answers, nor do they claim to. What they do have is a working method of finding answers in a fairly sensible way: ask fair questions and take the answers to increase our understanding, even if that means reworking the old ideas.

PART 2
OUG has asked that we explain how science has come to a supposed conclusion about the origins of life.

Sorry to have to break this to you, but they havent come to any particular conclusions yet, and they may never.

Judging by your references, your understanding of certain elements of argument and discussion, you are not as undereducated as you make out. Utilising the powers of logical argument only where it suits however instantly reduces your point of view to being one of the Closed Minds (or worse one with an unstated agenda). As I should now justify, this isnt being written to attempt a 'conversion' of such a mind, but to point out there is no case to answer to. If OUG thinks that Science has proclaimed it is a Fact that Life started out in This Particular Way, well they are wrong - and even if at some stage in the future a scenario of biogenesis obtains enough supporting evidence to be considered as Fact, it will still be only a statement of the most likely of possibles. Even if we do create life from scratch in a test-tube using only conditions available in primordia, it will not disprove the idea that life was created instead of spontaneously organising itself.

A debate where only one side has any real evidence to offer up, and the other side refuses to follow logic or impartial standards of said evidence.... ISNT A DEBATE AT ALL.

The only reason I can divine for OUG's post is to attempt to legitimise 'debate' or 'controversy' on subjects that further Creationist's agendas. Its possible he/she doesnt even know they are doing this but even so they are. A scarier thought is that he knows exactly what he is doing and everyone who has read this thread has been exposed to an attempted manipulation of community thought-space.

.....attempted manipulation of community thought-space.
PART 3

Which makes him not a Troll, but an Agitator. Possible we need a new term: not a Troll but an OUGre....?

Which is almost exactly what this forum is good for! Lets start asking for submissions to the Most Inflammatory Thread Competition (this one doesn't quite rate sorry, maybe try a debate on a topic where actual thought is not wasted).

This thread should maybe remain active as we dissect the abilities, motivations, techniques and antidotes to such agenda-driven posting personalities. We will be seeing many more, some of whom are actual professionals in the fields of intelligence, Public Opinion Management (PR) and market research, as well as the fringe oddballs we traditionally associate this with. Detection will always be the issue - an articulate position by an individual with a view can easily be the guise of an organisation's proxy whose sole purpose is to influence a public debate to their direct benefit (as opposed to society's as a whole).

Dont know if anyone else has noticed, but the World Wide War on Secularism is quietly raging even in your comfortable Australian suburb. Once I figure out who is going to win in my neighbourhood I will know which religious(scientific?) books I have that will need to be burnt to keep my family safe...