The thing is, Dr Goodtrips, is that there are many examples of evidence falsification and meaningless arguments being presented as evidence for evolution. It was just too easy to pick that one up to resist. Evolution is a looong way from being proven. Dawkins statements are just too typical of what goes on in evolutionary circles.

Here is one for you, Dr Goodtrips. A horse has 16 pairs of chromosones, a donkey has 14 pairs. the two can be hybridized to produce a mule. The mule is sterile because of the unequal number of chromosones. In this case there is a difference of 2, but the same thing would be true if the difference were only one. There are many similar examples. A lion can be hybridized with a tiger producing the sterile liger, a buffalo can be hybridized with cattle producing a beefalo. In each case, the genes are similar enough to produce a viable offspring, but the chromosones don't match so the offspring is sterile. It only takes a difference of one so this is a barrier to change. Yet there is no consistency in the number of chromosones in living creatures. So how is it that the barrier is broken so many times?

*Smacks open hand against head*

First of all, what "evidence falsification"? Science isn't a anti-trust trial. The only reason that scientists would "falsify evidence" is to gain personal notoriety, which would be incredibly stupid, since 1) they would get blasted on peer review and 2) any benefits received would be short lived prior to their disgrace. This is the problem with the arguments of pseudo-scientists and their followers. You insinuate a grand conspiracy to "falsify evidence" in favor of evolution by millions of scientists over the last 150 years. Your source? The "studies" of fringe "scientists" who never subject their work to peer review. And you're also forgetting that evolutionary biologists and the vast majority of scientists don't take creationism at all seriously. Why would they engage in deceptive practices to "discredit" something they consider nonsensical to begin with. This is like suggesting that round earthers make up ridiculous studies and invent space flights to discredit flat earthers - it's preposterous.

Secondly, all theories are a long way from being proven, as was the point of this thread to point out. I'll help you out - the Theory of evolution will never, ever be proven. Unfortunately, the fact that the theories of gravity, round earth, and relativity will never be proven either probably takes the air out of that artificially inflated line of trickery that pseudo-scientist capitalize on.

Third, when you talk about "what goes on in evolution circles" what you are actually referring to is groups of people with an interest in education as opposed to field research. Scientists like Dawkins are fighting to stop fairy tales from replacing science and derailing the scientific careers of potential future scientists. They are playing politics as they view it in the best interest of science - but it is still politics. Anything that they say or do in this arena has absolutely no bearing on the theory itself, and to insinuate that it does is just you clutching at straws and throwing out ad hominem. You not approving of the way that Dawkins or anyone else comport themselves has no bearing on the work of millions of scientists who have contributed and refined the theory of evolution.

You are confusing science with politics. This isn't like the abortion issue where there are two schools of thought and the group that is "right" is a matter of subjectivity. In science, there is only one right answer to the question addressed by a theory. The theory is right, or the theory is wrong. Contrary to how you've been mislead, this isn't open for interpretation, affected by the behavior of the people studying it, or better understanding opposing viewpoints and teaching them.

In the end, there is only one right answer. Science is the art of using available evidence to puruse that answer where as pseudo-science is the "art" of twisting the information to cast doubt for the sake of an agenda. Sure no theory is complete - but they're a hell of a lot more reliable than throwing up your hands and claming that it's hopeless to try to progress any further - which is exactly what Intelligent Design is: the "theory" that some things are just too hard, and that we should give up.

__________________
[b][SIZE=2]"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."[/b][/SIZE]

-Thomas Jefferson

I see that you've made a strong argument for why having sex with other species is not a good breeding strategy. Beyond that, I'm not sure I understand your point.

If you want to debate the nuts and bolts of evolutionary theory, I'll be happy to. There are several threads on the subject already, and you can feel free to start your own. In this thread, however, all I want to discuss is the defintions and implications of the language of science - what constitutes a theory, law, or proof, for instance. I'm not looking to turn this into a show case of "answersingenesis.org" talking points.

And, if you want to have that debate on evolutionary biology, feel free to post a link to the thread that you've created, and I'll come discuss it with you. Here are some existing threads on the subject:

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/foru...ad.php?t=15182

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/foru...ad.php?t=13762

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/foru...ad.php?t=14003

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/foru...ead.php?t=9139

__________________
[b][SIZE=2]"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."[/b][/SIZE]

-Thomas Jefferson

Theories most certainly are NOT "scientific fact". You are confusing hard data with theory. Theories are always amenable to alteration and development, and are sometimes disregarded entirely. Alteration is far more likely.

It is very important not to allow condescension and contempt for the opposing view to interfere with the search for truth. Any attempt to transform a theory into something that must never be questioned or doubted only crushes debate and hampers the scientific process. It is understandable, perhaps, that the current debate regarding evolution is threatening to both sides. Nevertheless, there MUST be free and open dicsussion without attempts to crush the opposition through ridicule.

[Digression]First of all, the only way to "wipe" a hard drive is to format it, which causes any operating system to ask you several times "Do you really want to do this?!?". A pop-up asking the user to validate this procedure would certainly be a tip off.

If, somehow, you could suppress this built in utility, you would still need to execute a binary file that would run this procedure. No browser will run an executable simply because you click on it - it will ask you first if you want to proceed. At this point, any anti-virus software you were sporting would go absolutely bonkers over some object code intended to format your drive. Some firewall/browsers won't even let it happen if you wanted it to, depending on security settings.

Assuming that you somehow got around all this, you would be faced with the proposition of finding a web host that was okay with your serving executable code. Very few, if any, will allow this, since there is a huge potential for liability (you aren't the first person to think of storing malicious executables on a website). If you want to do this, you'll likely have to serve the site yourself, or else pay someone to do this, and such an overtly malicious program will be traced neatly back to you, resulting in pesky federal agents hassling you.

Assuming that you did your homework and figured out how to cover your steps, and that you got around all of these other obstacles, you'd still be hosed because the format utility won't format a drive that's in use - and your hard drive is in use whenever you're running Windows.

There are more, but these are some pretty major problems...[/Digression]

If you want to chat more about this, start up a thread in off-topic, or PM me - I can happily talk shop for hours...

__________________
[b][SIZE=2]"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."[/b][/SIZE]

-Thomas Jefferson