Leigh me ol’ mate, you’re not an ogre! A bit of a dill occasionally? Mmmm, possibly. But a nice dill, at least compared to some (:>/

You and I have interacted on this forum for a long time now without any bad blood. Your views are valuable. But you are a bit unnecessarily gruff at times….. like many of us, including me I guess!

You’ve got to admit, straight-up alienation of someone who hasn’t even expressed a view, let alone one counter to yours, let alone expressed disagreement or had a go at you, is a bit rugged. For all you know, Zacco could be (or have been) your new best buddy in terms of holding similar views.

.
Freediver, I can’t see how you can call theories conclusions. That doesn’t make sense to me at all.

It is also extremely hard to fathom how you can still call natural selection theoretical. We long ago reached the point where the evidence and acceptance in the scientific community rendered it factual.

“Ultimately, what we are arguing here is philosophy.”

Yes it is philosophy, but that doesn’t mean it ain’t science.

I think that we just need accept that the concepts of science, and of arts, politics, economics, environment, etc, are fuzzy and overlapping.

For every person who tries to define them, someone else will come along and express different views. Who’s right? Perhaps everyone is. Or perhaps everyone except the really fringe-thinkers are. Who knows…. and who really cares.

My concepts of science are strong, and not likely to change. And that’s what matters as far as I’m concerned.

Commendable persistence in attempting to drive traffic to your website, freediver.

Anyone looking for a summary of the logical fallacies without the polemic might prefer to start here: http://web.uvic.ca/psyc/skelton/Teaching/General%20Readings/Logical%20Falllacies.htm

freediver: there's little point in this argument. The fact that you adamently claim that 'evolution is not science' clearly demonstrates your mind is operating well and truly outside the bounds of reality.

If it's not science, what is your theory as to why the entire scientific community accepts it as such? A terrible accident? Are they all under satans spell? Sounds like a good premise for a movie.

There's no hope here. It's like trying to teach a monkey (with whom we do in fact share a common ancestor) physics.

Ludwig,

I am “suitably chastened”. Walter Matthau hasn’t got a thing on me. I’m the original grumpy old man; I am not always tolerant or diplomatic, and I sometimes give someone a spray when I should simply ignore what they have posted for the sake of the forum.

You and I agree on many things, and on the things we don’t, I can’t remember being rude to you or you to me. That’s because we can communicate effectively without causing upset.

Sadly, that is not the case with some people, and I will never able to accept that their grunts and whines constitute anything useful.

I don't know where Zacco fits in, but I cannot abide a person who introduces himself to the forum by blaming it for preventing him from presenting his or her verbose opinions. I think that beats my own lack of diplomacy by a long shot.

I have given up on the original OLO where "professionals" beat their drums with articles far wordier than we are allowed, and rarely deign to respond to our criticisms.

I prefer "General Discussion" where any member of the hoi poloi can submit a topic and I will, in future, endevour to be more accomodating.

Regards

For Chr*st's sake Leigh, I joined this forum in good faith after I came across it by sheer accident. I didn't expect to be called a dill because you jumped in thinking I didn't read the rules of posting. FYI I did. As I explained previously, (which you obviously missed in your blindness to continue in your denigration) I stated I was not aware of the word limitation until I signed up, AFTER I had already prepared my reply for posting. My beef was that the site didn't explain this limitation UNTIL I was ready to join!! (an obvious oversight on the webmaster or moderator or designer of the site or whatever– it should have been spelled out before that step was entered into) So pull your head in!! I (and most likely others) don't believe 'flaming' is conducive to a good argument. I've a good mind to just drop the whole thing as a bad joke, so bite your b*m you miserable sh*it.

freethinker,
I, too, believe that the evolution theory is a science and is falsifiable.

Read this:(Source http://www.springerlink.com/content/x05n5w520g614xt1/ )

"The theory of common descent permits a large number of predictions of new results that would be improbable without evolution. For instance, (a) phylogenetic trees have been validated now; (b) the observed order in fossils of new species discovered since Darwin's time could be predicted from the theory of common descent; (c) owing to the theory of common descent, the degrees of similarity and difference in newly discovered properties of more or less related species could be predicted. Such observations can be regarded as attempts to falsify the theory of common descent.

We conclude that the theory of common descent is an easily-falsifiable & often-tested & still-not-falsified theory, which is the strongest predicate a theory in an empirical science can obtain. Theories intended as causal explanations of evolution can be falsified essentially, and Lamarck's theory has been falsified actually. Several elements of Darwin's theory have been modified or falsified: new versions of a theory of evolution by natural selection are now the leading scientific theories on evolution. We have argued that the theory of common descent and Darwinism are ordinary, falsifiable scientific theories."