it is as i said...born mute
you got nuthing

you googled some science mags
cause you got no info..of your own

hence you reveal
you got faith
in mags

see how dumb that really is
ya got faith mate

you didnt name the first
but named the magazines

so here we go ol mate
which ones name the first life genus
which name the first evolution...

[thing is they and thus you
dont got no clue]

thank you
for proving your ignorance..on the topic is complete
replete without fact...

not naming the names...lol

ignorance..claiming genious..
in lue of knowing genus

you name lol..names
[spin arms...of science]
cause you got no names...

[thats like claiming to know religeon..
yet unable to give reasons for your religeous beliefs..by chapter nor verse]

so you think your clever..
but only by those dumber than yourself
more ignorant..on just egsactly what ya theory says

its ok born_mute..NO ONE KNOWS...this first life
hence the absurdity..of ya own..*belief..in a theory

heck dont take my word..for it
here is what anthonye..just wrote on..another thread

""definition of a theory.
In science..an hypothesis becomes a theory
only when it meets..certain criteria.""

i say
they havent been met..{ever]

""
1...It must be possible
to make predictions..based upon the hypothesis; and..""

thus bornmute..what is your predictions?

""2...(This is critically important)..it
*must tbe possible to design..and conduct experiments
based upon..those predictions..""

..""and the predictions
*MUST be verified..*every time.""'

ok mate..so
what ya got?

""If a verified experiment..produces results
contrary to the prediction -..even if only under specific circumstances -..

then the theory*
must be modified.""

but you couldnt even claim
a working hypothesis..let alone a theory[lol]

STATE YA THEORY..in ya own words

""Only when..an hypothesis..*meets these conditions
can it be called..a theory.""

go ahead
name names ol man
not maggi-zeen arty-icle's

slightly modified words continue

Thus,..your idea of..[evilootion]..is
a perfectly valid hypothesis
but it is not considered a theory..

because you cannot design and conduct
an experiment..to verify your prediction about..{the next genus to evolve]..nor state declare..lol..what it evolves into

plus ya cant name first
nor,..second..[see the joke ol bloke?]

Thus the{THEORy of evolution..of genus]..
remains an hypothesis..and cannot be given
the same weight...in science...not even..as a theory....

LET ALONE FAULSIFYABLE..[science]..*FACT
it needs to be..a science

[but its all greek to you
who know not even..the base of ya theory..
you claim to support..with your BELIEFS...[lol]

""Essentially,..an hypothesis
is an untested belief system.""

lol

""We can,..for example,
hypothesize that there is life[edited]
but it is not a theory..as we cannot experimentally verify it...

..Once this difference is understood
it might help to clear up your concern
as you are now dealing..*with a belief system..and not a theory.""

lol
""We are all perfectly entitled..to believe

what we choose,
but it cannot be called a theory..

*until it meets..the described requirements.""

and it dont..!

""Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au ""

yep..great stuff mate..!

Seems OUG is not a creationist at all:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876

"Evolution is both fact and theory" is a statement appearing in numerous publications on biological evolution. The statement is framed to clarify misconceptions about evolution primarily in response to creationist statements that "evolution is only a theory".

“In the context of the OUG's "creationist" claim, theory is used in the vernacular, meaning an imperfect fact or an unsubstantiated speculation. OUG's purported intent is to discredit or reject the scientific credibility of evolution. However, OUG's claim cannot be substantiated. Indeed, evolution as theory refers to the scientific (as opposed to OUG’s vernacular) definition of theory – a salient point he can’t (or doesn't) comprehend.

In the scientific sense, a theory is an overarching framework that makes sense of otherwise disconnected observations. For example, the germ theory of disease was similarly highly controversial when first proposed, yet it was validated in the late 19th century and is now a fundamental part of modern medicine and clinical microbiology, leading to such important innovations as antibiotics and hygienic practices. In another example, the theory of gravity unifies astronomical observations with observations about the acceleration with which an object falls to earth.

Similarly, the theory of evolution unifies observations from fossils, DNA sequences, systematics, biogeography, and laboratory experiments. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a key contributor to the modern evolutionary synthesis, articulated the unifying power of evolutionary theory in a famous paper entitled: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Moreover, the scientific theory of evolution describes the causes of evolution, as distinct from the more straightforward factual claim that evolution occurs. For example, natural selection is an example of a theory of evolution.

Since Darwin, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection has not only been expressed mathematically, but has also been rigorously tested and corroborated empirically by scientific evidence from countless studies. Evolutionary theories continue to generate new testable hypotheses within palaeontology, genetics, ecology, and developmental biology.”

OUG wouldn’t know this (obviously) because he hasn’t even looked at the research (as a real sceptic would) – he just asserts guff.

oh dear...name calling in lue of facts
liklely a cut and past of some athiest rave

the link shut down my computer
frozen solid

so im finally back

to try the link again
but thought i would post something first
cause what i read of ya rave..well its a rave

"Evolution is both fact and theory"

lol...[the pers say so]
and im too dumb to explain why in mu own bonnie mute words

""statement appearing in numerous publications""'

wow[the same words egsactly..[rote?}

""on biological evolution.""

lol nice touch...adding in biological
to the spin of evolution

""The statement"'

this rote statement[spin]
lawyer crafted limitators

""is framed to clarify misconceptions""

lol

when ya face is rubbed in the fact
that ya theoryaint science...lol[my how clever]

but mate lets sumise what you said so far
relitive to the fraud..of micro evolution
as mechanism..lol..to macro evolution of new genus]

but back to ya spiel[in lue of science fact]

"""about evolution''[by the evolution PEERAGE]
..""primarily in response to creationist statements"""

ha ha ha ha ha

when we say UNREFUTABLY.."" that./."evolution is only a theory".""

lol
make it up as you go

this is a collusion top decieve
not explain fact

but my computers still acting funy
gotta go to se ya stinking link

not worth replying to ya destractions
in lue of naming names or mechanism's..or dna proof

just more spin
but will anilate it too in time

the joke is on ya theory
and the collusive lengths your pers will go

umise their words
no..instead you wave them like some sort of talisman
[just like the peers of the priest hood's...
wave their smoke into theit faithfull's eyes[mirors]

""OUG's purported intent..is to discredit
or reject the scientific credibility of evolution.""

no its up to you to present THE SCIENCE PROOFS
your still saying nuthin

thus..its YOUR..""claim cannot be substantiated.""

my claim is i can refute anything
you think proves...lol..even a single instance
of evolving...lol..of a new genus

When a chicken wipes its cloaca with an onion, you know you're in trouble.

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Because it really was a turkey.