Another Try At Examining Alleged Evidence For The Darwinian Process

[JonFromMinnesota]

Well, there you go with your 'links are evidence' evasion again.

Can you actually, maybe, possibly post some content which supports your claim?

Shall we go over these court cases 1 by 1?

1. Epperson v. Arkansas 1968- Arkansas had a law that prohibited the teaching of evolution. U.S Supreme court case shot it down as it was in violation of the 1st amendment. They then tried to teach creationism alongside evolution. Guess what? They were also denied. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epperson_v._Arkansas

2. Edwards v. Aguillard 1987- The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools, along with evolution, was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

3. Segraves v State of California 1981- A parent sued the state of California stating that teaching of evolution violated the right to free exercise of religion. On March 6, 1981, Superior Court Judge Irving Perluss ruled that the teaching of evolution did not violate the Segraves' rights. Gee I wonder why? Probably because Evolution is supported by verifiable and testable evidence.
http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/segraves-v-california

4. McLean v Arkansas BOE 1982- Judge William Overton handed down a decision on January 5, 1982, giving a clear, specific definition of science as a basis for ruling that creation science is religion and is simply not science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas

5. Webster v New Lenox 1990- a court case in Illinois, in which a social studies teacher Ray Webster sued the New Lenox School District 122 in New Lenox, Illinois, which he accused of violating his First Amendment right to free speech for stopping him from teaching "creation science" in class.The court found however that the school district had a right to restrict Webster to teaching the specified curriculum, and that in any case the teaching of "creation science" was illegal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_v._New_Lenox_School_District

6. Peloza v Capistrano 1994- The court found against Peloza, finding that evolution was science not religion and that the Capistrano Unified School District school board were right to restrict his teaching of creationism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloza_v._Capistrano_School_District

7. Freiler v Tangipahoa Paris BOE- This one was over a disclaimer the school board had that was supposed to be read when discussing evolutionary biology. They got sued over it and surprise surprise.....they lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiler_v._Tangipahoa_Parish_Board_of_Education

And then we have the Dover case which is mentioned in my previous post.

Long story short, Evolution is supported by a vast body of overwhelming amounts of evidence that is verifiable and testable. Creationism....is not. It loses in court every time. They will continue to lose any time they try to challenge it. It's a waste of time and money. Evolution is established science no matter how much you want to scream it isn't.

 

[justlookinla]

Shall we go over these court cases 1 by 1?

1. Epperson v. Arkansas 1968- Arkansas had a law that prohibited the teaching of evolution. U.S Supreme court case shot it down as it was in violation of the 1st amendment. They then tried to teach creationism alongside evolution. Guess what? They were also denied. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epperson_v._Arkansas

2. Edwards v. Aguillard 1987- The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools, along with evolution, was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

3. Segraves v State of California 1981- A parent sued the state of California stating that teaching of evolution violated the right to free exercise of religion. On March 6, 1981, Superior Court Judge Irving Perluss ruled that the teaching of evolution did not violate the Segraves' rights. Gee I wonder why? Probably because Evolution is supported by verifiable and testable evidence.
http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/segraves-v-california

4. McLean v Arkansas BOE 1982- Judge William Overton handed down a decision on January 5, 1982, giving a clear, specific definition of science as a basis for ruling that creation science is religion and is simply not science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas

5. Webster v New Lenox 1990- a court case in Illinois, in which a social studies teacher Ray Webster sued the New Lenox School District 122 in New Lenox, Illinois, which he accused of violating his First Amendment right to free speech for stopping him from teaching "creation science" in class.The court found however that the school district had a right to restrict Webster to teaching the specified curriculum, and that in any case the teaching of "creation science" was illegal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_v._New_Lenox_School_District

6. Peloza v Capistrano 1994- The court found against Peloza, finding that evolution was science not religion and that the Capistrano Unified School District school board were right to restrict his teaching of creationism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloza_v._Capistrano_School_District

7. Freiler v Tangipahoa Paris BOE- This one was over a disclaimer the school board had that was supposed to be read when discussing evolutionary biology. They got sued over it and surprise surprise.....they lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiler_v._Tangipahoa_Parish_Board_of_Education

And then we have the Dover case which is mentioned in my previous post.

Long story short, Evolution is supported by a vast body of overwhelming amounts of evidence that is verifiable and testable. Creationism....is not. It loses in court every time. They will continue to lose any time they try to challenge it. It's a waste of time and money. Evolution is established science no matter how much you want to scream it isn't.

Worthless claims and worthless links.

You've forgotten the OP....."No single court of law has upheld the how/process claim of Darwinist evolution."

Now, take the first link you posted and actually produce content showing that the court of law upheld the how/process of the claim of Darwinist evolution. Actually do something other than post links and empty words.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course Justlookin could try to get a court case started against teaching the theory of evolution since it is "faith based". How far do you think that the creationists would get with such a claim? There would probably be no such court case since any judge would probably throw out such a ridiculous case. Judges understand the nature of evidence. Many, if not most, creationists do not.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course Justlookin could try to get a court case started against teaching the theory of evolution since it is "faith based". How far do you think that the creationists would get with such a claim? There would probably be no such court case since any judge would probably throw out such a ridiculous case. Judges understand the nature of evidence. Many, if not most, creationists do not.

It would probably be as embarrassing as the Dover trial was for the ID folks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Worthless claims and worthless links.

You've forgotten the OP....."No single court of law has upheld the how/process claim of Darwinist evolution."

Now, take the first link you posted and actually produce content showing that the court of law upheld the how/process of the claim of Darwinist evolution. Actually do something other than post links and empty words.

No, that was your strawman argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It would probably be as embarrassing as the Dover trial was for the ID folks.

And just as enjoyable for us to watch.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Worthless claims and worthless links.

Is this your favorite go to argument? I would call it a defense mechanism you use so you don't have to address anything.

You've forgotten the OP....."No single court of law has upheld the how/process claim of Darwinist evolution."

Nice strawman. Do you have any real arguments?
The court cases demonstrate that evolution is established science with an overwhelming amount of evidence and that creationism is nonsense that has no place in the classroom.

Long story short: You lose every time.

 

[justlookinla]

Is this your favorite go to argument? I would call it a defense mechanism you use so you don't have to address anything.



Nice strawman. Do you have any real arguments?
The court cases demonstrate that evolution is established science with an overwhelming amount of evidence and that creationism is nonsense that has no place in the classroom.

Long story short: You lose every time.

And more worthless and baseless claims.

 

[ecco]

Previously ecco said: ↑

Are you referring to the article Maynard Smith co-authored? The article where you tried to quote the introduction out of context by ignoring the word "nevertheless"? Yes, I remember. I also asked you several times to quote from the body of the article those portions which supported your view point. It was only after you refused several times that you admitted you had no views.​

yes, that's the one.
here is the link yet again for the curious.
www.researchgate.net/publication/15314671_The_Major_Evolutionary_Transitions

maynard makes it plain that life does indeed show an increasing complexity, but there is no empirical evidence on how it happens.

Is it just audacity or do you think no reads these posts? I just stated:

I also asked you several times to quote from the body of the article those portions which supported your view point.​

How do you respond? You drop the same link and, again, you don't "quote from the body the article those portions which supported your view point". Do you really think this helps your credibility?

 

[bhsmte]

Previously ecco said: ↑

Are you referring to the article Maynard Smith co-authored? The article where you tried to quote the introduction out of context by ignoring the word "nevertheless"? Yes, I remember. I also asked you several times to quote from the body of the article those portions which supported your view point. It was only after you refused several times that you admitted you had no views.​

Is it just audacity or do you think no reads these posts? I just stated:

I also asked you several times to quote from the body of the article those portions which supported your view point.​

How do you respond? You drop the same link and, again, you don't "quote from the body the article those portions which supported your view point". Do you really think this helps your credibility?

Credibility was determined a long time ago.

 

[ecco]

Of course Justlookin could try to get a court case started against teaching the theory of evolution since it is "faith based".

That is really an excellent idea.

 

[whois]

How do you respond? You drop the same link and, again, you don't "quote from the body the article those portions which supported your view point". Do you really think this helps your credibility?

do you have anything to say about the article at all?

 

[bhsmte]

do you have anything to say about the article at all?

I think they just said it.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Worthless claims and worthless links.

Is this your favorite go to argument?

And then you reply with this.

And more worthless and baseless claims.

So I guess you have nothing of substance to say.
Why am I not surprised?

 

[ecco]

You can't show, based on the scientific method, that the diversity of life is solely the result of naturalistic mechanisms. That view is a faith-based view.

There is a book published in 2002 that address your concerns stated above and also the "hows" you and others keep asking about. The book is over 1300 pages of copyrighted material, so I cannot cut and paste it here. However, you can go to this link...
http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Evolutionary-Theory-Stephen-Gould/dp/0674006135
...click on the book and read it all on line.

You want the "hows"? Well, the how's cannot be posted in a few short quips. The "hows" are many and varied and complex. For every "how" posted, the easy rejoinder is "...but that doesn't explain (next nitpick)".

Your ad nauseam requests for "hows" are just nonsensical. We know it and we know it is just a way for creationists to allow themselves to believe "HaHa, they are wrong because they can't prove squat".

We also recognize that average creationists will never make the effort to actually read something that does address the "hows".

However, there are some creationists who do make the effort. Then they quote actual excerpts like "The Creator foresaw the needs of each species", and post them on their websites. The lazier followers of creationism cut and paste them on forums and facebook pages accompanied with "SEE! Even Gould recognizes GOD".


Bye for now, dinnertime.

 

[ecco]

do you have anything to say about the article at all?

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the naturalistic development of complexity from simplicity.

 

[whois]

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the naturalistic development of complexity from simplicity.

correct, maynard gives a plausible explanation for how it might have happened.
there are 2 things to notice about this.
1. this explanation does not happen by "small accumulating changes" over a long period of time.
2. in the conclusion, maynard states this is something that isn't known, but only a guideline for further research.

 

[ecco]

correct, maynard gives a plausible explanation for how it might have happened.
there are 2 things to notice about this.
1. this explanation does not happen by "small accumulating changes" over a long period of time.
2. in the conclusion, maynard states this is something that isn't known, but only a guideline for further research.

Those are your interpretations or something you made up. Please show the actual relevant text from the article to support your assertions.

 

[whois]

Those are your interpretations or something you made up. Please show the actual relevant text from the article to support your assertions.

maynard makes no statement as to a time frame, but he gives no indication it is any length of time.
the conclusion of the article is plain.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑

Those are your interpretations or something you made up. Please show the actual relevant text from the article to support your assertions.​

maynard makes no statement as to a time frame, but he gives no indication it is any length of time.
the conclusion of the article is plain.

Then just quote it so that we can know you are not just making it up.