David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

"JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1118264175.653474.320220@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

Everything evolves... nothing is the same today as it was yesterday.  Let's
not confuse the dictionary definition of the word with Charles Darwin's
attrocious concepts that we were all once amoeba and then monkies,
before suddenly popping into homosapiens.

So you are not using evolution in its biological sense.  Why then do
you say "Evolution (of man) is a theory... a pretty flaky one, at
that."?

Before I continue...  I don't use a spellchecker, and I often have to type
quickly, so if my spelling (or unfamiliarity with Wikli-ickly-pedia) is going
to offend you and take priority points in the discussion, I'll stop posting.

Show me the gaps.

What do I need to show you?

Because you said "See the 'gap(s)' implied by my statement above." when
I asked "> Please show us this evidence for steering and a steerer."

I have no choice but to counter with a
request that you prove to me, that single-cell life evolved into complex
life, which evolved into monkeys, which evolved into homo-erectus.

You are running away from my request thus shutting down this line of
inquiry

So there is evidence for steering in evolution, as 'proven' by your
gaps, but you can't find a steerer.  If there's no steerer, then no one
is steering and there is no evidence (gaps) for steering.

It's simple.  Human life did not originate on Earth.

Now that requires some evidnece.  But please show me the gaps first.

Use a dictionary.  And please, don't claim now that you have a sudden "absence
of belief" in the virtually the same breath you just used to describe your belief in
evolution.  To believe in something is in fact a "faith" in that issue.  Again, see
the Webster's, and do so without being pre-disposed to typical religious terms.

Do you mean definition number three?

I choose this one...

(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Is there a prize?

Not for you.  You told me to use Webster's for a definition.  I went to
http://www.m-w.com/, which is Merriam-Webster Online.  You pull one out
of your hat.

You can't prove evolution, I don't care to consider creationism, and I cannot
(at this time) prove that the race of man originated elsewhere in the universe.

I don't need to.  Its been done too many times to count.  Also, I don't
have too because by your rules nobody has to prove anything.  All you
have to do is dance a bit and change the subject.

Why do either of us have to be "wrong" or defensive of the position or be
forced to prove anything to the other?

Curtisy might be a good answer.  As a matter of curtisy, you could show
me the gaps, sense you started the sub-thread.

So far, this is a room full of defensive, combattant types.

No, many of us are not combative, in the alt.atheism NG at least.  We
just don't like having people pop in, spout nosense, and run away.  We
like folks to share their insights with us and provide some sort of
valid evidence for what they say.  We really do appreciate a good,
sound argument, in the good sense of the word - "2 a : a reason given
in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade" from the
Merriam-Webster website at www.m-w.com.

JohnN