Let's review the facts of evolutionary theory.

[CabVet]

Oh, I am shaking in my boots because I do not have your approval. But just to get things in perspective I demonstrated a knowledge of "punctuated equilibrium" & "phyletic gradualism".

I am not disapproving you, I am saying (and you keep proving) that you know nothing about evolution. You said (want a quote?) that "Neo Darwinism represents gradualism" which can only be put into a sentence by someone that knows nothing about evolution.

 

[[serious]]

<staff edit>

He was saying that you misstated what neodarwinism is.

You said neo-darwinism was gradualism (in contrast with punctuated equalibrium).

Neodarwinism was actually the unification of evolution with mendelian genetics (as opposed to lamarcian evolution)

As such, he is right that you demonstrated that you are not familiar with the subject.

 

[[serious]]

I am not disapproving you, I am saying (and you keep proving) that you know nothing about evolution. You said (want a quote?) that "Neo Darwinism represents gradualism" which can only be put into a sentence by someone that knows nothing about evolution.

I wouldn't say "knows nothing of evolution" as much as "knows nothing about the history of evolutionary theory."

I knew a fair bit about how evolution worked before I learned any substantial amount about the shifts in thought since darwin that took us to where we are now.

 

[CabVet]

I wouldn't say "knows nothing of evolution" as much as "knows nothing about the history of evolutionary theory."

I knew a fair bit about how evolution worked before I learned any substantial amount about the shifts in thought since darwin that took us to where we are now.

I would agree with you if this was the only mistake he made, but check some of his posts elsewhere He demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge in the subject.

 

[[serious]]

I would agree with you if this was the only mistake he made, but check some of his posts elsewhere He demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge in the subject.

I'm not disagreeing that he knows nothing about evolution. I'm disagreeing with this line:

I am not disapproving you, I am saying (and you keep proving) that you know nothing about evolution. You said (want a quote?) that "Neo Darwinism represents gradualism" which can only be put into a sentence by someone that knows nothing about evolution.

It's perfectly reasonable for someone who knows some degree of detail about evolution to remain that ignorant about the history of the theory.

 

[cupid dave]

Wasn't your prediction for a seventh, Theistic Evolution right?


The seven types of creationism:
1) Young Earth creationism
2) Old Earth creationism
3) Day-Age creationism
4) Progressive creationism
5) Gap creationism
6) Intelligent design
7) Theistic evolution: Genesis 1: The Theistic Evolutionary Creation

I see you are back on the numerology kick, which means you will purposely include made-up items tor leave out very real items in order to hit those magic numbers of 7 or 12.

It will probably be no surprise to you when I point out that you left out neo-creationism, and omphalos hypothesis, among others.

You comment here actually underscores your bias attemptsto depreciate these constant organizational techniques which show the theory of the Urim and Thummim is a Pattern of human thinking used subtly in everything man contemplates.

Neither of you weak attempts to come up with more than seven is a Christian interpretation:


These two poor examples fail to increase the present seven CHRISTIAN interpretations of Genesis, because one is JEWISH (and/or secular), and not supported by any mainstream Christian Church,.


The other, Neo-creationism, is a general even secular, non-denominational movement whose goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators and the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture. is actually an attempt to promote Theistic Evolution by adjusting the Church position in accord with the facts of Science.

SEE:
Some Jewish commentaries on the age of the Universe delve into the Omphalos hypothesis. In particular, Slifkin, a Jewish guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

 

[Huram Abi]

Oh, we're counting only creationism that is specifically Christian?

Take ID off your list then.

 

[cupid dave]

Oh, we're counting only creationism that is specifically Christian?

Take ID off your list then.

You bias attemptss to discredit the simplest and clearest statements are getting ridiculous...


Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[n 1][3] and believe the designer to be the Christian God.[n 2]


Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

You bias attemptss to discredit the simplest and clearest statements are getting ridiculous...


Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[n 1][3] and believe the designer to be the Christian God.[n 2]


Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the ID movement is trying really hard to deny that is part of the 'theory' (I'm being waaaayyyy to kind refering to it like that)

Course its true they arent fooling anybody with their ageda but if asked they'd claim its non-specific.

 

[Huram Abi]

Sorry, Cupid. Christians don't have a monopoly on intelligent design. The Discovery Institute is a proponent, but guess what? The whole of the Baha'i faith embrace it, which is a much larger slice of the pie than a think tank.

ID stems out of middle eastern, non Christian sentement and Christians have come to the idea quite late after its introduction. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs all represents proponents of ID.

Everytime I point out a flaw in one of your claims, you make some sort of arbitrary rule that superficially makes your claim appear true. That is, until I point out that if the arbitrary rule is applied consistently, then your claim is still flawed.

You are now engaged in special pleading. If neo-creationism doesn't make the list, then neither can ID.

 

[cupid dave]

Sorry, Cupid. Christians don't have a monopoly on intelligent design. The Discovery Institute is a proponent, but guess what? The whole of the Baha'i faith embrace it, which is a much larger slice of the pie than a think tank.

ID stems out of middle eastern, non Christian sentement and Christians have come to the idea quite late after its introduction. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs all represents proponents of ID.

Everytime I point out a flaw in one of your claims, you make some sort of arbitrary rule that superficially makes your claim appear true. That is, until I point out that if the arbitrary rule is applied consistently, then your claim is still flawed.

You are now engaged in special pleading. If neo-creationism doesn't make the list, then neither can ID.

Oh, yeah...

For sure.
But as I said, the Christians ALSO are proponents of this Intelligent Design idea.

 

[Huram Abi]

Christians are ALSO proponents of neo-creationism.


Any other rules you want to introduce now?

 

[ProScribe]

I'm still more 'prospect' in Darwinist thought than modern ToE.