Is "Evolution" a "Theory" or "Fact," ...

Is "Evolution" a "Theory" or "Fact," or Is This Just a Trivial Game of Semantics? (Part 1)

There are 164 comments on the www.evolutionnews.org story from Jul 22, 2008, titled Is "Evolution" a "Theory" or "Fact," or Is This Just a Trivial Game of Semantics? (Part 1). In it, www.evolutionnews.org reports that:

Is "Evolution" a "Theory" or "Fact," or Is This Just a Trivial Game of Semantics? Many members of the general public who are skeptics of Darwinian evolution are intelligent people with a decent understanding of ...

there is also a second part here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/is_evolution_a_theory_or_fact_1.html

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.evolutionnews.org.

First Prev
of 9
Next Last
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#166 May 31, 2012
Neuromap1004 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait - I think I see the mountain now! It's your EGO.:-) And in 2012 you are still using the made up term "fundiot".(CNN post)It's just not catching on , is it? Isn't it fun to be insulting? Now think about the possibility of the non-existence of logic and rational thought. How rational is the 4 year use of a term "fundiot" in nearly every single post rational? I guess it covers up a "mountain" of ignorance, narcissism and lack of imagination. Do you even have a job? Are you being paid to write emotional responses to elicit gut feelings in others that suppress rational thought?... Your contributions are meaningless, except for some slight entertainment value.:-) Wishing you much happiness in your quest to educate the world. Take a look in the mirror and open your eyes to the "Primewonk Mountain".
Bub, way to resurrect a four year old thread.

And yeah, chuck was a 'fundiot', egotistic, libelous, a liar, and apparent fan of in-teh-family pron IIRC. A general nasty character by all accounts, he made Cowboy and Markie look like total sweethearts.

Level 2

Since: May 12

Glen Allen, VA

#167 Jun 2, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Bub, way to resurrect a four year old thread.
And yeah, chuck was a 'fundiot', egotistic, libelous, a liar, and apparent fan of in-teh-family pron IIRC. A general nasty character by all accounts, he made Cowboy and Markie look like total sweethearts.
Wow - Primewonk aka The Dude - did you actually reply? Thanks for the compliment Bub Jr.. You seem to exist to insult and offend, so I knew it would bring you back, even after 4 years. Are you still checking out four year old threads too? I guess we have something in common. Welcome back. You are quite entertaining. Please tell me more. And to think I thought there was actually nothing more to learn from this discussion piece. I might agree with your comments about Chuck,et. al, but I was interested in learning more on evolution from people in the know. My point is that the name calling gets in the way, regardless of who posts it, and detracts from the otherwise intelligent discussion. But, I see in four years some folks have not "evolved." I am just a little wary when a poster calls every other poster who disagrees a fundiot, but I suppose we all fall back on self-serving defenses. I'd like to see discussions transcend such things. Good points stand on their own and are immune to mindless insults. To fire them back detracts from the topic and the otherwise intelligent poster as being uncertain of their position and lacking in confidence......Now, for instance I am interested to know in about what ballpark era scientists believe that the ability of life to evolve first evolved/began? I believe there is someone in this forum or another with imagination/knowledge and "unfundiot" enough to respond without insulting. Maybe I'm wrong.:-)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#168 Jun 2, 2012
Neuromap1004 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow - Primewonk aka The Dude - did you actually reply?
I did reply. But I'm not Primewonk. Opposite side of the world I'm afraid. If you don't believe me then by all means just ask any of the other regulars here, but hey, makes no diff to me either way, pretend I'm whoever you like. Whatever turns you on.(shrug)
Neuromap1004 wrote:
Thanks for the compliment Bub Jr.. You seem to exist to insult and offend, so I knew it would bring you back, even after 4 years. Are you still checking out four year old threads too?
Not in particular, this thread just popped up to the top of the evolution forum because you posted on it. The evolution forum is where I hang out.
Neuromap1004 wrote:
I guess we have something in common. Welcome back. You are quite entertaining. Please tell me more. And to think I thought there was actually nothing more to learn from this discussion piece. I might agree with your comments about Chuck,et. al, but I was interested in learning more on evolution from people in the know.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Neuromap1004 wrote:
My point is that the name calling gets in the way, regardless of who posts it, and detracts from the otherwise intelligent discussion. But, I see in four years some folks have not "evolved." I am just a little wary when a poster calls every other poster who disagrees a fundiot, but I suppose we all fall back on self-serving defenses. I'd like to see discussions transcend such things. Good points stand on their own and are immune to mindless insults. To fire them back detracts from the topic and the otherwise intelligent poster as being uncertain of their position and lacking in confidence.
Or the other possible explanation for insults is due to frustration with dealing with liars who consistently refuse to actually engage in discussion and resorting to ad-hom instead. May not necessarily be the best approach, but hey, it happens. Especially if threads go on for a long time in the same manner.

Now many of us here are guilty at some point at leveling insults towards the opposition, but generally it should be taken with a pinch of salt. Some of it is in jest, some of it may be exasperation, but this is the internet. Thin-skinned types best be wary. In Chuck's case however it descended into distasteful and baseless personal accusations to at least one of our posters, which was bound to incur some reciprocal vitriol.
Neuromap1004 wrote:
Now, for instance I am interested to know in about what ballpark era scientists believe that the ability of life to evolve first evolved/began? I believe there is someone in this forum or another with imagination/knowledge and "unfundiot" enough to respond without insulting. Maybe I'm wrong.:-)
The theory of of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. The current view of abiogenesis is the hypothesis that the first life developed via naturally occurring chemical processes early on in Earth's history. Now before you go pointing out that evolution couldn't happen without abio (duh) keep in mind that the theory of gravity works perfectly well without having to explain the origin of mass, and the germ theory of disease works without explaining the origin of germs. An explanation of the origins is simply not necessary for a working theory which is based on currently observable phenomena. The theory of evolution therefore does nothing more than explain the diversity of biological life on Earth. that's it. Hence abio and evolution can be discussed without reliance on the other.

Level 2

Since: May 12

Glen Allen, VA

#169 Jun 2, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I did reply. But I'm not Primewonk. Opposite side of the world I'm afraid. If you don't believe me then by all means just ask any of the other regulars here, but hey, makes no diff to me either way, pretend I'm whoever you like. Whatever turns you on.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Not in particular, this thread just popped up to the top of the evolution forum because you posted on it. The evolution forum is where I hang out.
<quoted text>
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
<quoted text>
Or the other possible explanation for insults is due to frustration with dealing with liars who consistently refuse to actually engage in discussion and resorting to ad-hom instead. May not necessarily be the best approach, but hey, it happens. Especially if threads go on for a long time in the same manner.
Now many of us here are guilty at some point at leveling insults towards the opposition, but generally it should be taken with a pinch of salt. Some of it is in jest, some of it may be exasperation, but this is the internet. Thin-skinned types best be wary. In Chuck's case however it descended into distasteful and baseless personal accusations to at least one of our posters, which was bound to incur some reciprocal vitriol.
<quoted text>
The theory of of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. The current view of abiogenesis is the hypothesis that the first life developed via naturally occurring chemical processes early on in Earth's history. Now before you go pointing out that evolution couldn't happen without abio (duh) keep in mind that the theory of gravity works perfectly well without having to explain the origin of mass, and the germ theory of disease works without explaining the origin of germs. An explanation of the origins is simply not necessary for a working theory which is based on currently observable phenomena. The theory of evolution therefore does nothing more than explain the diversity of biological life on Earth. that's it. Hence abio and evolution can be discussed without reliance on the other.
Thanks "The Dude" for your comprehensive reply. You are definiely very kind to have gone through the trouble. I am certainly the wiser for it. Your explanation was just what I was looking for. I now understand some more related terminology, and some issues in discussing evolution that are off the table. I did not mean it as a point of challenge.(while I would in fact (in my imagination)still like to know the origin of gravity, but am sure I will never know, and apparently never know the origin of evolution) So, perhaps I won't embarass myself again. Did you see a recent Evolution Debate Alert called "Darwin’s Unfinished Business -A Conversation with Simon G. Powell"?- I don't really see what he is getting at. The logic seems circular and the speech a little dreamlike. Yet, I still like to see the imagination at work, though I don't see how his machinations will ever effect accepted theory, or why it was deemed news, as he as much as admitted to "certain profound psilocybin experiences."

I see your point. It is difficult to ignore written slights, apparent lies,(is it a lie if the person believes it?) and improper forum behavior. Your observations of the perpetrators are I think accurate.

Again, thanks for your reply. Kindest Regards from across the world.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 12 min Endofdays 160,199
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 27 min Subduction Zone 61,029
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 29 min dad1 220,510
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Subduction Zone 28,307
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 5 hr Dogen 2,628
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Mar 16 Dogen 180,394
How can we prove God exists, or does not? (May '15) Mar 15 fransherrell 227
More from around the web