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.

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'm fine with "certain things" being assumed. False things, however, being assumed leads to false conclusions. You begin with a false assumption, so your side of the debate falls apart at the beginning. My stats proved my point (they're found in post 63). As NosyNed pointed out, if there's a problem with them, and they're being misused, show how.I rest my case. I think anyone can read my post 63, read your reply, and judge the obvious. Of course, I guess that would be true about any of your posts in this thread.

Excuse me? Your references to Milton have received a myriad of answers. (And yes, myriad comes from a Greek word meaning 10,000, so I'm exaggerating. I'll save you one of your powerful arguments ;->)