Yo Areaman, (I know you'll read this.)

Tell me the truth... Do you want these 2 guys on YOUR side???

Aw, Paul, thanks. If it's any consolation, I think Michael Moore's more intellectually dishonest than you are, but not by much.

I'm just giving you whatever credit is due.

UPDATE: Paul's full quoted sentence included at his request.

Thanks - and I'm giving you more than is due.

So Paul, Are you willing to admit that a virus evolves?

And if so, then you would have to admit that something very dangerous right now is the EVOLUTION of the bird-flu, which very well could be the next big natural disaster.

If you DON'T believe it's "evolving" then you won't mind not taking the vaccine developed through studying the EVOLUTION of the GENETIC MAKE UP of the virus, right?

If you DO take that vaccine, then you are a LYING HYPOCRITICAL FOOL.

Read here for further examination of this blatant hypocrisy.

Tman my answer on evolution existing or not has been given over a dozen times. Go read.

The rest of your post was gibberish.

Paul...

Your sentence in full read The term "oozer" is a term I coined for people who believe life started from inorganic ooze and evolved into every flavor of life we have today.

There's not much difference between the two, except that the original is perhaps even more wrong-headed and insulting. It certainly hasn't been "Dowdified" or had its meaning changed.

On the subject of Abiogenesis, it seemed clear to me that the Commissar was talking about his reaction when he first encounted the word. It's quite clear that he knows what evolution is and what abiogenesis is, and you are just making zealots out of molehills.

What you are up against, Paul, is people who understand the subject. The reason you are making no headway with them is that you do not.

Much of what you think you know is simply false, and you are wilfully protecting your ignorance by shouting down anyone who tries to present facts contrary to your beliefs. That's not something I've found to be very productive. I dunno, maybe your experience is different.

It was not a request. I called you on it...

If you acknowledge my full definition your whole rambling post is meaningless because i cover it.

You'll never do it, and I won't even ask because I won't even come close to whining but let me say this...

If you had done that to someone else, I'll tell you that you owed them an apology. The whole point of blogging is that shit like that does not happen. That was uncool.

Paul- What's so hard to understand?

The theory and facts of evolution are absolutely essential prerequisites for the study of virus taxonomy. You are prepared to bash evolution as "too full of holes" to believe, yet will stand in line to reap the fruits of the study of evolution.

Hypocrite.

Pixy, There is a world of difference.

In order to qualify to be an "oozer" you need to meet 2 criteria. Only listing 1 of them changes everything.

abiogenisis = 6 syllables

moot or mute = 1 syllable

straw man = 2

ad hominem = 4

I'm off to my ESL class.

Are you willing to admit that a virus evolves?

Into what? "Another" virus. No one is arguing that viruses, animals and people don't change over time. "New" viruses appear all the time, we have domesticated animals that have been bred from wild ones, humans have grown taller in the last century or two. But viruses are still viruses, dogs and cats are still canines and felines, and humans are still humans. Scientists can get groups of fruit flies to not breed with other groups of fruit flies, but they're all still fruit flies. Scientists can selectively breed generations of flowers until the latest generation looks different from the first, but it's still a flower. And ultimately, all examples of scientists "creating new species" do not support evolutionary theory because these "new species" were created not by natural selection, but by the direction of intelligence. (Intelligent Design anyone?)

What??? Is this bicker week or something???

Let's get out Twister and have some fun!!!

Paul:

"Abby ... what?" It got me, too. "Abiogenesis" mean "life from no life," or "there was no life, and then there was." (I suspect that those definitions are almost as bad as Paul's. Corrections welcomed.)

He had never even heard the term! This moron wants to tell the whole world how much more than me he knows about this stuff and he does not even know the meaning of abiogenesis. They he proceeds to tell me what it means. Next he will we lecture me on Nuclear Physics and then ask his readers what an electron is.

EY: That's not what he said. He did correct his post using a complete sentence from yours. I encourage people to read the complete post Paul is referring to, rather than Paul's mistaken take on it.

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. It deals with how species have evolved and changed over time.

Abiogenesis deals with how life started from nonlife. There's lots of interesting research and debate in that area. There are lots of unanswered questions. The fact that this is an area of research that is very new, with lots of unanswered questions doesn't argue in favor of Intelligent Design Creationism. It only means that there's alot of discoveries to be made in this area.

I'd challenge Paul to name one invention or scientific discovery based on Intelligent Design Creationism theory?

Yo Areaman, (I know you'll read this.)

Tell me the truth... Do you want these 2 guys on YOUR side???

The funny thing is that I understand what you are talking about, and the point you are making about zealots, whether scientists or creationists. Many people on here are misinterpreting your views...but you're not exactly trying to clear that up.

Andy and the Commissar are arguing the case for evolutionary theory, and they seem to generally know what they are talking about. They keep interpreting you as saying that you are anti-evolution, which isnt the case. That doesnt mean that they are stupid, that means that there is a misunderstanding going on.

However, you (and you know it) are not arguing against the actual theory of evolution, but against a popular "street" belief of what evolution is...life from some primordial ooze-bog. Of course you know that abiogenesis isnt at all what the theory of evolution is about.

I posted this elsewhere because at the time comments on this post were closed (and it seemed, deleted, but apparently not):

---------------

So, Paul, is your problem only with abiogenesis, or only with the combination of abiogenesis and evolution, or what? If someone accepts evolution but regards the present theoretical basis of abiogenesis as sketchy, are they then not an "oozer"? And do those hundreds of transitional fossils turn out to exist after all?

I'd ask you directly, only there seems to have been an unfortunate accident at Wizbang where somehow all the comments on your posts got deleted. [Clearly, not actually deleted. - PM]

---------------

Unfortunately, you seem to have been hiatusised, and can't answer here; I just thought I'd copy this comment here for the record. I'll sign off now, but there's a permanent floating Evolution debate over at the Internet Infidels forum if you're interested: http://iidb.org/vbb/ (See the Evolution/Creation sub-forum.)

This is worse than Chinese Water Torture...drip, drip, drip...to the forehead...drip, drip, drip, abinormal, abinormal, abinormal...ooze, ooze, ooze, drip, drip, drip...thump, thump, thump, drip, ooze, ooze, drip, abinormal, abinormal...

Paul:

Getting into a hissy-fit over a person's non-familiarity with a made up term used in junk science is prolixifusic.

If you don't know the meaning of that term, you're not fit to blog.

Cheers.