Incapable of being able to read and understand as well, read what has been written in this thread, or show us where that statement is used in On the Origin of Species

You will not find it, it was only his first notes 20 years before the book was published.

The statement was that Darwin never used them words. It is false, he did. Spin it anyway you wish but the text of what was said is the text of what was said.

Bottom line...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

If you cannot even agree with us about what evolutionary theory states, how can we ever have a logical argument about them?

Evangelists are at a loss when they are thrown off their script; no script no argument.

Not only taught by books my friend!

[edit] Science isn't either...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

If you cannot even agree with us about what evolutionary theory states, how can we ever have a logical argument about them?

Evangelists are at a loss when they are thrown off their script; no script no argument.

---

I did. It's where I got the quote in the first place.

You know, the quote that set your buddies back in their seats, shamed them.

The quote they said Darwin didn't say.

Kinda hard to argue with the Smithsonian, they do science....

ID, whatever Darwin wrote in his diaries is not the theory of evolution which scientists use today. Darwin knew nothing of genes or DNA or inheritance. He merely outlined the idea of evolutionary forces. This has been developed over the last 200 odd years into the theory of evolution. If you read this thread, no one denied that Darwin made this statement. Instead, they pointed out that this statement is not part of the current theory of evolution. So using it to attack evolutionary theory is incorrect.
If you cannot even agree with us about what evolutionary theory states, how can we ever have a logical argument about them?

Yes, and the context I was providing by linking to the Smithsonian article was exactly this: that Charles Darwin wrote a note in his diary decades before he, hesitantly and after devoting years to his studies, published his work.

I venture that your response, Robert, is a classic straw man argument.

---

I did. It's where I got the quote in the first place.

You know, the quote that set your buddies back in their seats, shamed them.

The quote they said Darwin didn't say.

Kinda hard to argue with the Smithsonian, they do science....

ID, whatever Darwin wrote in his diaries is not the theory of evolution which scientists use today. Darwin knew nothing of genes or DNA or inheritance. He merely outlined the idea of evolutionary forces. This has been developed over the last 200 odd years into the theory of evolution. If you read this thread, no one denied that Darwin made this statement. Instead, they pointed out that this statement is not part of the current theory of evolution. So using it to attack evolutionary theory is incorrect.
If you cannot even agree with us about what evolutionary theory states, how can we ever have a logical argument about them?

---

Hi Clyde:) That's because I don't know him yet probably...

[edit] Or if you mean Intelligent Design, I must agree that I do:)

Hi Julie..

Yes. Meant Intelligent Design.

An edit: I meant the Poster, not the theory.

I think I didn't correctly clarify my meaning.

Sorry Julie for any misunderstanding.

No problem Clyde:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Just a question, from an Atheist, to other non-believer's:

What was BEFORE the 'Big Bang', or BEFORE what caused the 'Big Bang'.

If one says 'IT' was eternal. That only appears to be a rehash of the 'Steady State Theory'. Which explained, before observations proved The Universe to be expanding: The Universe was Static, and eternally Static, with Scientific conviction.

Hi Clyde! How are you? :)

That is a very good question, with a number of hypotheses :) all of which are fascinating! I personally like M-theory - but then I also like the one that says we're not real at all :) but other than knowing the ones I like, I have none I can believe in in particular. So I'm stuck keeping an open mind, and reading with interest everything that furthers our knowledge of the universe.

Don't you think it's brilliant that so many great minds are not only out there still seeking answers, but also finding new questions to ask though? :)

Agreed.

And if you or I slip in a red herring on accident? How do you wish to address it?

Well slip ups do happen ID :) but I promise to eat any I accidentally fling into the thread :) ... unless I feel you might have inadvertently misclassified it as a fish...? You know... like the beaver once was :) in which case I would like to be given the opportunity to briefly defend it, if that is agreeable to you? :) Of course a little explanation as to why it IS a red herring would be greatly appreciated... and would help keep me on topic :) and all the above would be reciprocated of course :)

Also, don't get upset if it takes me a day or longer to get back. I'm not here on weekends; I'm Bass fishing. ;-) It is a very cerebral sport I use to crowd out the past weeks events. :-) I'll keep room for you. LMAO!

Oh I won't get upset :) I think thinking time is very important :) though... I certainly couldn't do that whilst waiting to hook a fish :( live bait or lure...

Whilst feeding them I could :)

Late edit: Oh and I have no problems with whatever name or term is used to describe the perpetrator of this universe :)

ID, just a question,

I believe your position is this:

There IS a Creator of The Universe, and afterwards, evolutionary processes took over, possibly with some help from The Creator.

Am I basically correct?

Yes, for argument--Causal Agent. That passes most smell tests...

Using the term Creator or God does not offended me, nor cause me to go berserk, as some others do (still don't understand why).

Great, it is fine with me too.

But, the theory uses Causal Agent.

I have no idea why is ticks off people here either. I'm not very P.C., so I really don't care what ticks them off to be 100% honest.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Hi Julie... I guess we are the only persons who believe ID is interesting.

LOL!

ID, just a question,

I believe your position is this:

There IS a Creator of The Universe, and afterwards, evolutionary processes took over, possibly with some help from The Creator.

Am I basically correct?

Yes, for argument--Causal Agent. That passes most smell tests...

Note: We both sometimes have 'long winded' answer's. But a shortened answer would be greatly appreciated for my understanding.

I'll save the long winded stuff for the debate. ;-)

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

I have been and I told the truth. Hardly be right to start out lying...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Hi Clyde:) That's because I don't know him yet probably...

[edit] Or if you mean Intelligent Design, I must agree that I do:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Be a gentleman for crying out loud ID!

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Agreed.

And if you or I slip in a red herring on accident? How do you wish to address it? Don't matter to me, address the point, and as I said..."Ladies first".

Also, don't get upset if it takes me a day or longer to get back. I'm not here on weekends; I'm Bass fishing. ;-) It is a very cerebral sport I use to crowd out the past weeks events. :-) I'll keep room for you. LMAO!

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Pick a version, don't matter to me. I'll consider it the ground rules.

Ladies first...

:) That is very generous of you ID, and gentlemanly :) Thank you. In your own thread too! May I just check one detail?

Am I choosing between the two choices provided by John? It's not a problem - I can abandon critical thinking... though... I do hope you will be patient with me if I occasionally fall off the wagon :)

Have had a quick re-read of the two choices to make sure I know what I'm getting into... and came across this bit which I hadn't read before a link from point two of the vanilla version. Do we ignore this bit? :)

Okay... assuming your answer is yes to my first question... I'm ready to choose! I think it would be nice to have a go at your favourite version! :) (Clyde liked it too! Hi Clyde :))

(Um... Would that mean logical fallacies such as these are off limits though?: (the argument to antiquity or tradition) (argument to ignorance) (argument to logic) (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition) (argument or appeal to authority) (circular argument) (Complex question) (Red herring) and (Straw man)? There were others but I think these are the main ones we'd have to avoid...)

There! :) Off to swat up on the ground rules now... will be back :)

Late edit: I will factor in adjustments, where necessary, once I have your answer to my second question :)

...

Ladies first...

Oh, thank you.

I am sure I am repeating myself here, but I'll give it another go.

It is obvious to most of us here that can do science that a lot of your arguments are straw man arguments.

You state what you think the theory of evolution is incorrectly and then go on to explain why your incorrect version of the theory is wrong.

You then use this statement to go on and offer another explanation that is not supported by the evidence.

On top of that you do not understand the scientific process and keep insisting that your theory follows the scientific process. It does not. It has been shown to you many times with lots of evidence that it does not.

I am aware I am wasting my time here because you break the biggest rule of debating. You will not admit when you have been show to be wrong.

---

Reality Internet Personality

It is damned unfortunate that none that have posted here know the art of debate.

Ah, the lost art of debating! Here's the vanilla version, and here's my favourite version. Hands up now: who's seen a few logical fallacies lying around in this thread?

I'm fond of the vanilla version.

How about you anniet?

Oh thank you for asking ID! :) I can definitely see the attraction of the vanilla version :) but there's nothing like a good dip into and a thorough knowledge of the role logical fallacy plays in debate :) It really helps to develop critical thinking skills... :)

Critical thinking is the ability to apply reasoning and logic to new or unfamiliar ideas, opinions, and situations. Thinking critically involves seeing things in an open-minded way and examining an idea or concept from as many angles as possible. This important skill allows people to look past their own views of the world and to better understand the opinions of others. It is often used in debates, to form more cogent and well-rounded arguments, and in science.

I do like trying to be open-minded you see... even though it does create some... well... awful draughts up there sometimes :)

Pick a version, don't matter to me. I'll consider it the ground rules.

Ladies first...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

It's not a matter of Faith, it's a fact...

Wasn't it the other way around? In order to believe a fact, you must have faith...

Faith in what? That is a critical point and I'm not talking about thermodynamics...

Faith in the fact of course:) Not talking about thermodynamics either...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

I did. It's where I got the quote in the first place.

You know, the quote that set your buddies back in their seats, shamed them.

The quote they said Darwin didn't say.

Kinda hard to argue with the Smithsonian, they do science....

Where's a post that has a comment along the lines of "Darwin didn't say X"? There have been many comments that the theory of evolution does not hold with the idea of one species changing into another, and you found a reference to a note by Darwin where he suggests he has found evidence of this happening. Do you believe the comments about the theory and Darwin's to be incompatible? You know that Newton was wrong about his own theory of gravity don't you? In science it's often the case that the originator of a theory gets some details wrong mainly because s/he doesn't have access to all the evidence that future scientists can draw on to develop a theory.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...