Darwinists? and other names for "evos"

I have no explaination for whatever visceral feeling YOU get. As I explained, my experience has been the most common reaction to the term Darwinist is not offense but rather a somewhat pained chuckle. It's more the reaction you get when a little kid uses terms totally incorrectly. It pains you that they know so little but try to sound so grown up, but you still hope that one day they will grow up for real. The problem is figuring out how to help them over the hurdles without damaging their little psyche.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

But Darwinists/Evolutionists accept spontaneous generation as true just the same.

​

No they don't. It seems you are again approaching science with dogmatic labels, then simply stating as fact your opinion as to what all scientists believe.

---

They don’t? Then what was Miller trying to prove with his bottled lightening apparatus that he had to rig to make amino acids?If the first living thing did not originate with spontaneous generation, how did it originate?If Darwinists/Evolutionists do not accept spontaneous generation, why did the college course I took on evolutionary biology at Emory University spend several class days discussing the issue?

quote:

---

"Abiogenesis" is the theory dealing with the arisal of life from non-life ("spontaneous generation" is a different theory and has been falsified).

---

Explain how abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation- you may want to consult http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0015900.html or http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=... first.

quote:

---

Also, the Theory of Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the Theory of Abiogenesis, so whether or not someone supports Evolution says nothing of their beliefs regarding Abiogenesis.

---

So you, as an Evolutionist, have never thought about how and why life originated? Doesn’t life have to originate before it can evolve?

quote:

---

Science deals almost solely with "theory" - "facts" and "truth" and "proven" are terms often misleadingly applied to theories.

---

If science never proves anything, why isn’t arsenic marketed as a remedy for the common cold?

quote:

---

And you've met how many professional, and how many amateur evolutionists? And you've met them where? I'm asking about the size and randomness of your sample.

---

Considering I have a B.A. in biology from Emory University, I have meet quite a few professional Evolutionists. And should I take it that you are yet one more amateur?

Stay on Topic. Nothing in your post has anything to do with the topic.PinkSDon't respond.

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

Change in Moderation? (General discussion of moderation procedures)
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
or
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum

quote:

---

If evolutionary scientists were really simply a dogmatic, faith-based group, why would they ever disagree on major points as you bring up?

---

If evolutionary scientists (there’s that —ist again) are not a dogmatic group, why do they object to having any form of Creationism taught in public schools? What are they afraid of?

quote:

---

How do you explain the visceral reaction I get when I use the term Darwinist when the offended person does not yet know that I am Creationist?

​

I have no explaination for whatever visceral feeling YOU get.

---

You blamed the reaction to the term Darwinsist on the source of the term, but now you cannot explain the reaction when the source is unknown? You made it sound as if the Darwinists are reacting to me rather than to the term I use- but I get the same reaction from Darwinists regardless of whether or not they know my beliefs.

Hey jeafl-I won't reply to your points here due to topic restrictions. I'll just state (on-topic) that you clearly have some basic misconceptions regarding science, and that these misconceptions seem to lead to your use of ideological labels for scientists.Here are two recent threads regarding Miller and Abiogenesis if you are interested; I'll try to respond to you there if the posts are on-topic: The lies behind the Miller experimentAbiogenesis by the Numbers

How does being a Creationist preclude me from being a scientist? Why must I accept Darwinism, evolution, punct eek or whatever else you want to call your beliefs to be acceptable to you? Are you part of some cult?

You've answered your own question again: non-dogmatic scientists do not want dogmatic Creationism taught as science.Again this is veering off-topic; I'll suggest one of the many, many threads in the entire topic devoted to: Education and Creation/Evolution

I can't imagine how you got that out of what I wrote. Let's look at what I said again. That is the feeling I see most often. I can't begin to guess what feelings you get.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

With a name like Creationism versus Evolution, I half-way expected there to be some Creationists here. I was hoping for an open and even-handed discussion. Instead I find the same miasma of Darwinists with an axe to grind. I also found that these Darwinists are just as dogmatic and just as lacking in tolerance and just as void of knowledge as the Darwinists I have found on other boards to be. With that in mind, I won’t waste any more of my time here.Also the restriction on posting new topics and the constant nagging to stay on topic creates a cult-like atmosphere. I have serious doubts about this board's commitment to freedom of speech.

It doesn't, and I didn't say it did. Creationism is not testable by science because it involves the supernatural, but again, we've moved off-topic.And again, there are many, many threads on these issues in the forum, "Is it Science?", perhaps try: Can science support creationism?Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad ScienceI'll look for your further arguments in other threads.

There are a number of creationists here (of various persuasions). We have even managed to persuade some to be admins. Odd that you would think there is a void of knowledge when you haven't been here long enough to determine that. With a number of people here actually doing research in a variety of sciences I find it suprising that you would think there is a void.Leaving when asked to support their views is a very common tactic of literalists. It's maybe that you don't like being expected to back up your assertions. We are all free to post pretty much whatever opinions we may have on the topics covered. (with obvious control over polite behavior). I don't see how there is any restriction on freedom of speech.As for controls on new topics: we were forced to that by individuals who were more or less spamming. It also helps some to get their thoughts straight before turning them loose for everyone to jump on.The requirment to remain within the topic of a thread is part of both politeness to others and a way of organizing the material. We find that everything has been discussed before (slight exaggeration ) and it helps to refer back to it sometimes.If you don't have the discipline then I guess this isn't the right place for you.That might be one reason why we have more long-term, regular science type posters; they like the give and take of discussion and are not afraid to defend their views. They also don't mind some discipline.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-29-2004 12:27 AM

Why would you assume that you have freedom of speech on a privately run internet site? This is Percy's place, he pays for it, if you dont want to follow his rules then please leave.edited several hours after the fact to be more civil.This message has been edited by DrJones*, 11-29-2004 06:05 PM

---

*not an actual doctor

I am not a scientist and I am interested in science.You majored in biology at Emory. Did you believe in YEC at that time? Did you challenge theories of evolution during your undergraduate studies?lfen