More from the Theist dishonesty department

[Hatter23]

http://www.youtube.com/user/CartesianTheist#p/u/6/74gCqznK-AA


I posted:
@CartesianTheist There is no such thing? as "Darwinism" there is "The Theory of Evolution" and unlike religion...there's this little thing called "evidence" to support it. Not that you care about evidence or facts.

His reply:
If you just google 'Darwinism' you will find all kinds of reputable sites using this word to represent the theory of evolution. If you care about the evidence you'll look. If you accept evidence you'll apologise for making an arse of yourself. If you don't care about truth you'll try to defend yourself or not bother replying at all.

And I:

So you say either I cannot defend myself, or I don't reply...or I'm not truthful. SOOOOO, you create a false dilemma and poisoning the well. Logical fallacies. And the term "reputable" in your lexicon means "Creationist" so were dealing with a No true Scottsman as well. So all you? have is logical fallacies as arguments.So try your own medicine: "If you don't reply to this, your aren't a 'true Christian" and if you do reply or delete this comment you are a liar"

[Nam]

[1]Darwinism: The principles of natural selection set out by Charles Darwin in the Origin of Species (1859) and other writings.

-Nam

1.	Wiktionary

[Historicity]

Sorry, Hatter23, I googled it and as painful as it is to say it, this creationist was right.

Darwinism^Wiki

The meaning of "Darwinism" has changed over time, and varies depending on who is using the term. In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection.

The term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in April 1860...

TalkOrigins -- What is Darwinism?

The term "Darwinism", ... has numerous meanings depending on who has used the term and at what period. A better understanding of the meaning of this term is only one reason to call attention to the composite nature of Darwin's evolutionary thought.

Gutenberg Project -- Darwinism(1889) by Alfred Russell Wallace

Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy -- Darwinism

Google gave me 7 links on the first page.  Discountng Answers.com because it is just an aggregator, of the 6 links only 1 was a creationist site.

[Hatter23]

darn, well I stand corrected.

[Nam]

^Are you going to tell the person you had the disagreement with?

-Nam

[Hatter23]

^Are you going to tell the person you had the disagreement with?

-Nam

Already did so.

[One Above All]

^Are you going to tell the person you had the disagreement with?

-Nam

Already did so.

Expect "HAHAHAHAHAHA ME RITE ABOUT THIS ONE THING SO U RONG ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE" type responses. I know I am

[jaimehlers]

*shrug*  I'm sure there are people out there who turn evolutionary theory into a ideology.  I would use 'Darwinism' to refer to such people.  But someone who supports evolutionary theory isn't Darwinist, nor is evolutionary theory itself an ideology.

[nogodsforme]

It's the theory that people don't like, so they try to say it is all from this one guy, without mention of the thousands of other scientists that have contributed to it since Darwin. He was a very smart guy who made good observations and wrote them down. The evidence supporting his ideas have accumulated over the past 150 years.

[Truth OT]

It seems to me that the picture painted is that people are backed into a corner and forced to choose between only two alternatives which of course are the Biblical creation ideas or the "Darwinist" ideas of origins. Is it not possible that BOTH are wrong and other alternatives exists?

[jetson]

I'm with you hatter...Darwinism reminds me of evolutionist, as though they are ideologies, as opposed to real science.  From the creationist camp, they are used in derogatory ways, in an attempt to put religion on the same level, or rather, to drag real science down a few notches, and attempt to make those who follow science look like them.  Ironic.

[jaimehlers]

Evolution isn't about origins, it's about how organisms change over time.

Beyond some academic curiosity (and the opportunity to tweak some creationist noses), I don't really concern myself much with just how life happened.

[Hatter23]

It seems to me that the picture painted is that people are backed into a corner and forced to choose between only two alternatives which of course are the Biblical creation ideas or the "Darwinist" ideas of origins. Is it not possible that BOTH are wrong and other alternatives exists?

Certainly possible. There are things, here in there, in The origin of Species, that have been proven wrong. However, the TOE as a whole seems to gain more evidence each time is is cross referenced with another discipline. Speciesation has been observed three times in recorded history, and pseudo-speciesation is also been observed, as I have found out recently.

Psudo-speciesation is the missing link, when an isolated animal breed is almost different enough not to produce viable offspring with the parent species, to the point more than half the offspring are sterile. But the ones that aren't are nearly indistinguishable from the parent species.

[nogodsforme]

It seems to me that the picture painted is that people are backed into a corner and forced to choose between only two alternatives which of course are the Biblical creation ideas or the "Darwinist" ideas of origins. Is it not possible that BOTH are wrong and other alternatives exists?

It is certainly possible for both to be wrong. Scientists have found mountains of evidence that show the Biblical account(s) of creation to be wrong, ie that possibility has been falsified. When scientists uncover any evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution, that will turn all of the sciences upside down and open up possibilities of other alternatives. That evidence would be something like the discovery of dinosaur fossils next to hominid fossils. So far, no go.

[Hatter23]

It seems to me that the picture painted is that people are backed into a corner and forced to choose between only two alternatives which of course are the Biblical creation ideas or the "Darwinist" ideas of origins. Is it not possible that BOTH are wrong and other alternatives exists?

It is certainly possible for both to be wrong. Scientists have found mountains of evidence that show the Biblical account(s) of creation to be wrong, ie that possibility has been falsified. When scientists uncover any evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution, that will turn all of the sciences upside down and open up possibilities of other alternatives. That evidence would be something like the discovery of dinosaur fossils next to hominid fossils. So far, no go.

And the creationists  had no problem making much ado about a homid footprint found within the middle of a dinosur footprint. Gee, the dino footprint being lowest ground would be where water might accumulate, becoming soft mud....accepting of a footprint. Seriously, it only requires a fourth grade understanding of science to explain that. What would be evidence to support the dinos coexisting with humans...dino copperlites with human DNA...has never been found.