Quote
Quote
Don't leave us in suspense, what's the result? Is the Theory of Evolution a bunch of made up lies that were pushed onto the unsuspecting science establishment and is held there by a conspiracy of ardent atheists bent on world domination?
I can understand how you would think so. Unlike pop history, I prefer to do research before reaching conclusions.
Yet you bring up this topic as if that were the case.

Quote
Quote
Does this conspiracy still hold sway over all scientists even though the Theory of Evolution can be easily disproved and the scientist disproving it would win the Nobel prize?
Seems this could be incongruous. Would 'all scientists' include those on the Nobel Prize Committee?
Sure, but my comment was a purposeful overstatement. You have brought up the fact that some scientists don't agree with the conclusions of most. Of course if they did bring up conclusive evidence that evolution could not have happened, you believe that the scientific community would not be able to recognize that evidence. The inability of most scientists to understand evidence is the main reason the fields of Medicine, Physics, Chemistry, Electronics, and Geology are in the poor state that we find them.

Quote
Quote
No, there is no evidence of a connection, but that doesn't stop AIG from saying it is true.
And lack of evidence hasn't stopped you from falsely claiming AIG said something they didn't. I think I see how this works... Do you think the X Club's propaganda machine operated on similar principles?
AIG links the teaching of evolution directly with the moral decay in society. See here
Please take back your accusation that what I stated was false.

Quote
Quote
The fact that scientists conclude that the evidence in the natural world supports the Theory of Evolution, is not evidence that those men pushed something onto the scientific establishment that they believed was not true. Their actions in getting support for the Theory of Evolution among scientists is not evidence that the Theory of Evolution is not true.
Damage control? You may need to do better.
So now you claim that their actions do make the Theory of Evolution untrue? Evidence please or take that one back too.

Quote
Are you aware of the conclusions of your fellow evolutionists* who've looked into the subject? Might they know what they're talking about, or is there some evidence they're blowing smoke?
Well informed we are...no? Since almost all of them are ID or creation proponents except the ones that are quoted out of context, I don't see how what Russ provided (What? Can't go to the original sources?) is worth anything at all.
Quote
Quote
I saw a thread where you claim this, but fail to support even one of your assertions.
Untrue. I provided three links supporting my claim that circular reasoning is invalid.
Yes, and I agree that circular reasoning is invalid. So what! You failed to even try to show that use of the items in box 1 as evidence in support of evolution WAS circular reasoning. Well, except to say it was so and that I was suppose to accept what you say as fact.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Why do you oppose this investigation?
If they are so easily deceived with evidence that you (don't know chemistry, don't know biology...by your own admission) can easily see through, then they must be pretty stupid.
My question wasn't answered I see. And I dispute that people lacking insights are stupid. It's rather difficult to learn what one isn't taught or doesn't observe. "Stupid," on the other hand, refers to people who consistently fail to learn things that are clearly presented to them, and even then one needs to allow for lack of aptitude in a given area.
So most scientists are not taught the scientific method? You have evidence of this?
If they were taught the scientific method, then they apparently couldn't learn it or apply it properly. From my point of view and from your definition above ("consistently fail to learn things that are clearly presented to them") that means that most scientists are stupid. This is especially so in the fields of biology and geology since they work with the stuff every day.

Of course, it could be a mass conspiracy of almost all scientists. Yes...that must be it!! They are all in on it and are lying about the evidence in favor of evolution and hiding any evidence that refutes evolution. In fact, they hide the evidence so well that scientists that disagree with them (Dr. Abraham) can't even find it.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Now that I think about it, there's a pattern: the more someone becomes involved in evolutionism, the less they seem capable of applying the rules of science. They contradict themselves more frequently, and their words make sense less frequently. Maybe there is some stupification involved at some point after all. 'Nother topic.
Another baseless claim with no evidence to support it whatsoever. Of course you'll start another topic. Bullcrap is cheap.
Oh, I wouldn't say "no evidence". I'm confident others have observed this pattern. It's not like effective steps are being employed to conceal it.
Yet these "others" also fail to provide one scrap of evidence that "stupification' is occurring. Of course you wouldn't say "no evidence", saying so would mean you would have to take back that baseless claim. So how about you actually pony up with something that might achieve a level higher than "because I say so".

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke