Have I in any way indicated I was talking about venerated evolutionary atheologists? I don't think so.
Oh, I thought you were debating and trying to debunk the theory of evolution. Since you are only trying to highlight misunderstandings stated by lay persons who believe evolution to be true, then more power to you. I don't like it either when the science behind evolution is inadvertently misrepresented by those who say they believe it to be true. Thank you.
I have made clear that I use the classic English definitions. That excludes last week's fad evohype bar-lowering, obfuscation-promoting twist.
Thanks again. Those who misunderstand evolution should not try to debate it. They just wind up saying things that make the theory look rediculous.
If you are criticizing the theory of evolution then you need to use the same definitions that they use. Otherwise you are not really criticing evolution.
Baloney! I can express myself using any terms I choose. If what I say is valid, it's valid. If it ain't, it ain't.
You might be overstepping your bounds a little bit. I doubt that you are the final arbiter of what is valid and what isn't. Well, unless you want to claim that your moderatorship allows you to judge the validity of claims on this forum.
That's one of the silliest things you've ever claimed. Non-English-speakers can't discuss evolutionism? Non-English-abusers can't? What cowardly "science" this is! No other science has to be protected in such a manner. No other concept, for that matter. Well, Islam. I forgot. The policy is there on paper, but I've never seen anyone claim it in a real-world discussion if Islam.
I agree wholeheartedly. Down with evolutionism. That darn religion is slinging mud on the science of evolution. It is a mockery and a sham whose participants don't have the guts to submit it to the cutthroat world of scientific peer review the way the theory of evolution has.
This issue is a dead giveaway, too. All the real sciences strive to refine their terms and make them specific, more clear. Only when evolutionism is involved to we find the exact opposite. I think this rule is so consistent it can be used to make predictions. Should one happen to notice a redefinition in any field of science that blurs meaning, obstructs clear communication, and promotes misunderstand, it should be investigated. If this field were aerodynamics, for example, you can bet your britches there's some implication somewhere that has an impact on evolutionism. Pterodactyl analysis or something to do with an imagined "evolutionary path" of some flying insect would be behind the change, although it might take some digging to find it.
That's the way to slam them!! Let's see those evolutionism claims be put before real scientists like the theory of evolution has. The biologists who study real evolution will make mincemeat out of those evolutionism religious fanatics.
