So, all evolutionists are in agreement with every aspect of evolution, and see it exactly the same?
Sounds like a tu-quoque fallacy...So, all evolutionists are in agreement with every aspect of evolution, and see it exactly the same?
Evolutionists don't claim to base their beliefs on a book written word for word by God and free of error of any kind,So, all evolutionists are in agreement with every aspect of evolution, and see it exactly the same?
Sounds like a tu-quoque fallacy...
Oh, I see, both have disagreements...The level of disagreement among 'evolutionists' is nowhere near the level of disagreement among creationists.
Evolutionists tend to disagree on details. Creationists disagree on fundamentals.
Evolutionists don't claim to base their beliefs on a book written word for word by God and free of error of any kind,
No, I was up-front with my initial comment.Sounds like a tu-quoque fallacy...
No, they go with Darwin's 'error-free' book.Evolutionists don't claim to base their beliefs on a book written word for word by God and free of error of any kind,
Oh, I see, both have disagreements...why was it you brought it up?
LOL! No, they regard it as an interesting historical relic.
And, it's not fundamental to evolutionary belief???Nobody thinks that On the Origin of Species is "error free". This is just a strawman on your part.
And, it's not fundamental to evolutionary belief???
No. Darwin's was the initial insight and he is respected for it, but the content of the work has long been superseded by advances in science and is no longer considered particularly relevant.And, it's not fundamental to evolutionary belief???
My use of 'error-free' was jest only, in response to speedwell's comment. Surely by now, you don't believe I think it's error-free? I know what I'm arguing... and you're scrambling again.Natural selection is one of the mechanisms by which biological evolution proceeds, sure. But that's not the same as claiming On the Origin of Species is error-free.
You appear to be completely mixing up your own arguments. Take some time to figure out what you're trying to argue first.
My use of 'error-free' was jest only, in response to speedwell's comment. Surely by now, you don't believe I think it's error-free?
I know what I'm arguing... and you're scrambling again.
So, its fundamental to the foundation of evolutionary belief.No. Darwin's was the initial insight and he is respected for it, but the content of the work has long been superseded by advances in science and is no longer considered particularly relevant.
You seemed to be arguing that Origin of Species is regarded in the same light by evolutionists as you regard Scripture.My use of 'error-free' was jest only, in response to speedwell's comment. Surely by now, you don't believe I think it's error-free? I know what I'm arguing... and you're scrambling again.
Not really. The idea of evolution was being considered by a number of scientists at the time. Darwin just happened to publish first. If all copies of Origin of Species vanished overnight along with our memory of it, evolutionary biology would not be affected by it.So, its fundamental to the foundation of evolutionary belief.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?