Re-Theory of Evolution

Perhaps creationists could help alleviate this confusion by not constantly lying to the "man in the street" about what evolution is and pretending that the theory of evolution includes abiogenesis.If you guys are really finding that this lie is rebounding on you, and that the result is that the "man in the street" thinks that abiogenesis is as certain as evolution, you do not exactly have my sympathy.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Obviously I am not. This is why there was nothing whatsoever in my post which any person both sane and honest could possibly interpret as saying that Darwin was a creationist.

And does not claim that they are explained by the theory of evolution, no matter how much you lie and twist and obfuscate. No. The people here holding that "apricot" doesn't mean "small tree-dwelling marsupial" will never accept anything else.They are as bad about something like that as the YEC's are about some of their belief's.Apart from not being drivelling, cretinously wrong, of course. Good. And if they get it wrong, will you please tell them?There is enough confusion in the world.---I don't see why it's important to creationists to be wrong about everything.My best guess is that they have observed that every time they put up an argument for creationism, people with scientific knowledge tell them that they're being bloody stupid --- and have concluded from this that anything that gets derided for being bloody stupid must therefore be an argument for creationism.But it is possible for a statement about science, even about biology, even about evolution, to be moronically, droolingly stupid without being an argument for creationism.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes they do.You don't know, but that doesn't mean that no-one knows. Because you are not everyone. In particular, you are not a geneticist and you know nothing about genetics. Perhaps you will change your mind if you ever learn anything about basic biology.

Then you are wrong.It's quite a good statement of the evolutionist position, but it clearly has bugger-all to do with materialism, a topic that it never mentions. Oh, look, it appears that I'm a staunch non-materialist, since I believe passionately in the reality of free will. And yet I also believe that: "all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; . the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for living systems."So what the heck do these "materialists" believe? If "materialism" is about admitting the facts of evolution, then I guess I'm a "materialist". If "materialism" is about denying free will, then I'm not a "materialist". Your call. Please come up with a single self-consistent definition of "materialist", and then I'll know whether or not I am one.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.