Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

I'm still working my way through this thread. I haven't read past the post I'm responding to yet, but I will. I'm really hoping, however, that there's something I'm missing, as it appears from the one post 10 that Willowtree has no intentions of listening to or discussing anything.>>The mere placement of my handle in the title is unethical. It is also a disrespectful way of trying to bait me.<<Grow up>>Page after page we could not get to first base because nobody would acknowledge the truth that the atheist world view is automatically included in the scientific evidence embraced by neo-Darwinism.<<47 per cent of the United States believes in evolution, and they would mostly be "neo-Darwinian" by Milton's definitions. Only 10% of the United States is atheist. Mathematically, that means that approximately 78.7% of neo-Darwinians are theists.That means that at least 78.7% of the population would completely disagree with your assertion that the atheist world view is automatically included in the scientific evidence for neo-Darwinism.I'm as non-atheist as anyone, and I'm a "neo-Darwinian," so I guess by your assertion, I and most of the neo-Darwinian U.S. are just too ignorant to see how our beliefs prove atheism.>>Unless this admission is at least assumed I will not debate<<If this assertion of yours is required to make your point, then your point is wrong. So you don't need to debate. You lost already.Maybe people still want to discuss whether there was actually any scientific evidence provided by you in the other thread. That doesn't seem unethical to me, and you might as well just let them, since you have conceded the debate by requiring it to be built on a patently false assumption.Now I'll go read the rest of the thread, and see if anyone asked you to debate with even more courtesy than was presented in the OP, which was not discourteous. I wouldn't bother, however, as there's no point. As far as I'm concerned, you have conceded the debate.

Ah TL, our very own voice of reason. Willowtree has a habit of offering "evidence", making assertions and then claiming bias if people ask for this evidence.The only "evidence" ever offered has been quotes by Milton and Gene Scott. At one point, he offered temper tantrums in two different threads concerning a topic title change, and, like this one, a problem with others using his sn in a title in an attempt to alert him that the topic was directed towards him.------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

The worldview of neo-Darwinism is atheism this is not a matter of opinion.Let's see. It's your opinion that that the worldview of neo-Darwinism is atheism. It's the opinion of most of the population that it's not. With you are a few dishonest religious zealots, also all non-Darwinian, who are also of the opinion that Darwinists (please, everyone, excuse me for labeling you all "Darwinists," it's just convenient for now) have a foundational worldview of atheism.It's a matter of opinion, because there are a lot of people, like yourself, completely uninterested in truth or evidence, who like that opinion. You are a tiny minority. The rest of us could say that it's not a matter of opinion and dismiss people like yourself, and I think we'd be justified.However, either way, once you've made "Darwinism is based on atheism" the foundation of your argument, you've lost your argument, especially when you ask us to "just accept your assumption."I have to agree with NosyNed about it being impossible to underestimate how low anti-evolutionism can stoop intellectually. I am constantly astounded anew.

Hi, Asgara. Yeah, I think I've figured out, now that I've read this thread, that WT is as bad as his first post made him sound. Very sad.I used a debate between Richard Milton and Jim Foley in my science class last year (home school thing with a dozen teenagers--I'm not really qualified to teach science). I assume that's the same Milton being talked about here.I remember what astonished the teenagers was Milton's assertion that the Java Man exhibit had been taken down at the American museum of Natural History because they knew Java Man was a hoax. When Jim Foley got a letter from the AMNH saying that Java Man had been taken down because they were rebuilding the exhibit, Milton said he was very sorry that AMNH was backing down from their realization that Java Man was a hoax.The kids were experiencing the same astonishment I always do at the incredible numbness of mind with which anti-evolutionists carry out their attack on curiosity, research, and truth. Willowtree and Elder have renewed my astonishment today.(Fangorn, I suspect, would be horrified at their chosen names, as he must have been at the dumbing down of the Ents by Peter Jackson in what still remained a pretty phenomenal series of movies.)

I've read over your link.It seems the whole arguement comes down to:
I don't see it when I look at it.This seems to me to be a lot like the Milton "virtually identical" skulls game yet again. He says only and expert can tell them apart. I look at them and can tell them apart. I presume his argument would be "I can't".It seems that your source simply can't "connect the dots" they are actually asking for all the fossils for a complete sequence in one place.

quote:

---

Ideally this should be demonstrated in a long sequence, ten or twenty or fifty successive fossil species, showing major generic evolution - but a short sequence would be enough. But this simple relationship is not what is shown in the sequence of the rocks. Nowhere in the world has anyone met this simple evidential criterion with a straightforward fossil sequence from successive strata.

---

An obviously silly requirement and an unnecessary one.What is wrong with some samples from one place and some from another?Again, we go back to: It happened. We see some of the steps. What is wrong from inferring that the other steps were there?One problem with the view taken by this site is they take each sample and each sequence independently. When we look at them all it takes a particularly stubborn view to not see that something is going on.In addtion, those holding this stubborn view have no other explanation for it of their own. They simply don't like what they see.

Your posts contain a lot of words but you've said nothing.I detect a lot of anger and hypocrisy. Do you know where the word "hypocrite" comes from. It comes from ancient greek drama where an actor would wear a mask and proceed to put down the audience.Your posts are text book examples of hypocrisy. Everything you said without exception is true about you and your kind in reverse.You are also massively ignorant concerning the rules of debate. Certain things must be assumed or debate cannot take place.Your stats are completely misleading and any veteran debater knows that anyone can prove anything with stats.Neo-Darwinism sits in the worldview of atheism - this is common knowledge and not in dispute. You can call yourself anything you want but in the process you have revealed your embarrassing ignorance.
The common person in this debate (pro-evolution) is an atheist and they do not have the honesty to admit what I've just pointed out.
If you cannot admit the obvious then there is no chance of you ever conceding anything in debate so what is the use.If you are a neo-Darwinist and not an atheist then this makes you a freak of miniscule proportion that all the other atheists tolerate in order to convince themselves and everyone looking as to how open minded and tolerant they are.Darwinism was created and offered as the explanation of the origin of life in place of creationism - that is a fact of history.The only thing you have done so far is to howl and fling excrement as a creationist approached, while admitting that you haven't read the thread.All I asked was for one thing to be assumed and you start acting like a fundie defending dogma. Now you need to reveal that you have a brain that can debate and come down from the trees and be civilized.

Neo-Darwinism is completely consistent with deism, for example. Consider this, Willowtree:You die, and God Almighty decides to take you on a guided tour of the history of the Universe. As you go back in time, you start noticing evolution happening. And more and more the farther and farther back in time you go. What will you then say?

Please cite where TL has been hypocritical. This is not a formal debate setting. Things cannot be assumed to be true if one side unquestionably disagrees with that which you want assumed. The FACT that many here consider themselves theistic evolutionists makes your assumption untenable.Can we get back on target? All are still waiting for your evidence, personal opinion and quotes are NOT evidence.------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

"Misleading"? Does that mean you accept that they are at least technically correct?Misleading, in what why?"anyone can prove anything with stats" -- only if those being given the stats allow it to happen. You can show what is wrong with the stats given if you are able to.It is apparent by this kind of reply that contains no real rebuttal that you are so far out on a limb that even you recognize that you are.------------------
Common sense isn't

Has Brad Mcfall taken on a new handle?

So willow has reinserted the dummy and offers scientific evidence which contradicts evolution? Hardly.willowtree admits that he starts with an assumption (evolution is not true) and then seeks anything to support it (The evidence I offer is from a non-creationist Richard Milton. This person becomes independant corroboration). It's evident that willow doesn't understand what evidence is.willow proclaims: "Anyone who cares needs to read this thread. It is the foundation of my evidence which also evidences my proven claim that included in the scientific evidence offered by Darwinists is the assumption of their worldview that God does not exist."Whilst this assertion is laughable on its own, it borders on hilarious when one reads the Milton webpage and discovers that Milton does not once mention "god", "divine" or "worldview".The closest that Milton comes to supporting willow's views is in his ravings about the evolutionist conspiracy to conceal or ignore fossil evidence. But surely willow would not fall into such behaviour. So, surely willow will address the test of Miltonism vs neoDarwinism in the question of the thylacine relatedness as proposed in message #1.

Projection (noun)
...
8. Psychology.
a. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others
b. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.

Just for general info on debate I started this thread so as not to clutter up this topic.http://EvC Forum: Rules of Debate -->EvC Forum: Rules of Debate------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Nothing is wrong with inference. It is just when the opposite side of the debate does it you all instantly like parrots scream "prove it" - "thats an assertion" etc.etc.The point being you are not consistent, you are not even consistent for the sake of argument to say something like "I understand but disagree".I understand why you make this inference even though you lack the physical evidence in the strata.BUT, this is what the debate is about ultimately. That until this type of evidence is found you cannot claim victory.Milton claims evolution cannot be demonstrated to an intelligent person who is not a evolutionist. NOBODY had one word to say pertaining to the second paragraph of my post #112 in the other topic that has now been closed. When will evolution be demonstrated in the the exact same way that these other disciplines demonstrate their respective claims.All lot of people slammed me for not posting scientific evidence but the evidence I did post was conveniently ignored. Although you Ned are for the most part not guilty of this.If evolution is true on the scale neo-Darwinism claims it to be then there must be some strata -`come on !!!The debaters in this topic have used their "this is not evidence" card enough. It is time for someone to refute the evidence of the thread I provided and cease quitting the game when it is no fun to play.Also, it is time to stop attacking Milton, this is classic messenger asassination that has been redundantly mouthed. Persons can attack Milton but this takes the debate away from the pure scientific basis and if this continues then it is fair game for me to attack the ideology issues and biases.Milton is not credible in your views but to me he is because he is not a creationist who independently confirms my starting assumptions.If a Mensa IQ science reporter for 20 years rejects evolution and he rejects creationism then this is called independant corroboration.We part ways obviously in his rejection of creationism but this does not effect his objectivety in evolution in my opinion.What about Hunt's very unscientific use of assertion under the guise of proven fact in order to prove claims of evolution ?Milton deserves an answer to this obvious observation in his conclusions at the end of the thread.

Willow, No, it isn't, it's called someone changing their mind. Opinions do not equal evidence.If opinion is so important to you as a substitute of real evidence then you should still accept evolution on that basis.I haven't seen you provide a single legitimate evidence that falsifies evolution. Why shouldn't it be? You claimed to have presented scientific evidence against evolution, & now admit you didn't? Why is anyone commpelled to rebut non-scientific evidence?Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall