Is there any evidence for evolution?

[mark kennedy]

Then your paper should be a cakewalk. Go on, start writing.

That's a fallacy called a red herring wrapped up in the ubiquitous ad HOMINEM. Why don't you try satire that would at lest be half way entertaining. Spaming the same fallacious rhetoric in circles will burn your brain cells. Just trying to warn you before you wander into the muke and mire of fallacious argumentation. I've been doing this for a while and I have never seen an evolutionist recover. In a short space of time they abandon all rationality in favor of pedantic fallacious rhetoric. Your getting close to the trees better pull up before its too late.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's a fallacy called a red herring wrapped up in the ubiquitous ad HOMINEM. Why don't you try satire that would at lest be half way entertaining. Spaming the same fallacious rhetoric in circles will burn your brain cells. Just trying to warn you before you wander into the muke and mire of fallacious argumentation. I've been doing this for a while and I have never seen an evolutionist recover. In a short space of time they abandon all rationality in favor of pedantic fallacious rhetoric. Your getting close to the trees better pull up before its too late.

Can you show that the theory of evolution is not a scientific theory or a hypothesis?

 

[mark kennedy]

Sell out?

Like accepting physical reality?

Natturalist assumption of universal common descent of all life. That's a wholesale sell out going back to and including the big bang. I've been on biologic and I've never seen anything resembling theism let alone the Gospel

 

[lesliedellow]

Sell out?

Like accepting physical reality?

At bottom, all it comes down to is a creationist's emotional dislike of the idea that he shares a common ancestor with chimps.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

"Kind" is a word in the Bible that baffles the snot out of scientists, and that suits me just fine.

Let'em eat cake for all I care.

The word is not baffling to scientists. It is merely a vague word, and this is something you should admit.

And you are of the mammal kind.

 

[mark kennedy]

Can you show that the theory of evolution is not a scientific theory or a hypothesis?

A unified theory is what Darwinism would have to be to explain all natural history which is an impossible burden of proof for an inductive approach to natural phenomenon. Futher an hypothesis has to have a null hypothesis that I have demonstrated in this thread Darwinians are absolutely incapable of.

Its not a theory or an hypothesis and it has nothing to do with real world adaptive evolution. Its a social and political agenda conceived by atheists who vowed to replace religion with their mystical naturalistic assumption.

So how many times you going to ask this one in circles?

 

[VirOptimus]

Natturalist assumption of universal common descent of all life. That's a wholesale sell out going back to and including the big bang. I've been on biologic and I've never seen anything resembling theism let alone the Gospel

You have had this explained to you several times.

Metaphysics is not allowed in science. As soon as you introduce metaphysics you loose the scientific debate.

 

[VirOptimus]

A unified theory is what Darwinism would have to be to explain all natural history which is an impossible burden of proof for an inductive approach to natural phenomenon. Futher an hypothesis has to have a null hypothesis that I have demonstrated in this thread Darwinians are absolutely incapable of.

Its not a theory or an hypothesis and it has nothing to do with real world adaptive evolution. Its a social and political agenda conceived by atheists who vowed to replace religion with their mystical naturalistic assumption.

So how many times you going to ask this one in circles?

When are you going to write your article for peer review?

 

[VirOptimus]

That's a fallacy called a red herring wrapped up in the ubiquitous ad HOMINEM. Why don't you try satire that would at lest be half way entertaining. Spaming the same fallacious rhetoric in circles will burn your brain cells. Just trying to warn you before you wander into the muke and mire of fallacious argumentation. I've been doing this for a while and I have never seen an evolutionist recover. In a short space of time they abandon all rationality in favor of pedantic fallacious rhetoric. Your getting close to the trees better pull up before its too late.

Ohh, Im shaking now internet tough guy.

The reality is that you have already lost. Common descent is settled science and is taught the world over. You will never be able to battle this.

The only way to challange settled science is with the peer review system. As you cant do this, well, nothing will change for you.

 

[lesliedellow]

A unified theory is what Darwinism would have to be to explain all natural history which is an impossible burden of proof for an inductive approach to natural phenomenon.

Induction, or at least abduction, is what the physical sciences are all about sunshine. Deduction is for mathematics, and not much else.

Besides which, science doesn't deal in proofs. That is mathematics again. Science deals in well supported theories.

 

[mark kennedy]

At bottom, all it comes down to is a creationist's emotional dislike of the idea that he shares a common ancestor with chimps.

On the contrary atheistic materialists haven't got a monopoly on the evidence or rationality. I'm a Creationist because I'm a Christian. I'm opposed to Darwinism because it passes off chimpanzees as HOMINEM fossils and it disparages and demeans religious conviction shamelessly.

 

[USincognito]

The theory of evolution has never Been defined scientifically because it not a scientific theory its not even an hypothesis and it conflicts with the only two laws of science related inheritance. That's why the need for a synthesis. The thesis was Mendilian genetics. The antithesis was Darwinian universal common descent. See my signature.

Oh stop. You're just embarrassing yourself. Your ersatz gentility, ennui and metaphysics might impress the rubes, but those of us who have been her reading the same tired shtick for over a decade are bored with it.

 

[VirOptimus]

On the contrary atheistic materialists haven't got a monopoly on the evidence or rationality. I'm a Creationist because I'm a Christian. I'm opposed to Darwinism because it passes off chimpanzees as HOMINEM fossils and it disparages and demeans religious conviction shamelessly.

Science is agnostic when it comes to god(s).

Science only describes physical reality. If you have trouble with science, well, then you have trouble with physical reality.

 

[VirOptimus]

Oh stop. You're just embarrassing yourself. Your ersatz gentility, ennui and metaphysics might impress the rubes, but those of us who have been her reading the same tired shtick for over a decade are bored with it.

Indeed, the same hopeless position for 10 years (or more). Sad really.

 

[lesliedellow]

On the contrary atheistic materialists haven't got a monopoly on the evidence or rationality. I'm a Creationist because I'm a Christian. I'm opposed to Darwinism because it passes off chimpanzees as HOMINEM fossils and it disparages and demeans religious conviction shamelessly.

That first sentence may be true, but everything which follows it is about your emotions.

 

[mark kennedy]

Induction, or at least abduction, is what the physical sciences are all about sunshine. Deduction is for mathematics, and not much else.

Besides which, science doesn't deal in proofs. That is mathematics again. Science deals in well supported theories.

Science was exclusively deductive until the scientific revolution and none of the contributors too what is now called sciences thought it was mutually exclusive with Christian conviction chief.

 

[VirOptimus]

Science was exclusively deductive until the scientific revolution and none of the contributors too what is now called sciences thought it was mutually exclusive with Christian conviction chief.

It isnt. Many scientists are religious.

 

[mark kennedy]

That first sentence may be true, but everything which follows it is about your emotions.

I'm anything but emotional I'm just bored enough to field these pedantic rationalization hoping someone will actually say something substantive. Its usually newbies who haven't learned that the goal is to course and conflate substantive reason.

 

[USincognito]

I'm anything but emotional I'm just bored enough to field these pedantic rationalization hoping someone will actually say something substantive. Its usually newbies who haven't learned that the goal is to course and conflate substantive reason.

Oh my. You are Ennui incarnate.
http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm

Ennui only rouses himself from his torpor to cajole other Warriors to be more interesting - without, of course, ever contributing anything of interest himself. Ennui has limited weaponry at his disposal, but his majestic affectation of boredom provides an effective defense to attacks. When pressed in battle he will announce his intention of moving on to a more stimulating forum, but instead he will generally lurk quietly until the threat passes.​

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A unified theory is what Darwinism would have to be to explain all natural history which is an impossible burden of proof for an inductive approach to natural phenomenon. Futher an hypothesis has to have a null hypothesis that I have demonstrated in this thread Darwinians are absolutely incapable of.

Its not a theory or an hypothesis and it has nothing to do with real world adaptive evolution. Its a social and political agenda conceived by atheists who vowed to replace religion with their mystical naturalistic assumption.

So how many times you going to ask this one in circles?

Yeah, here's the funny thing: you keep saying this a lot... but you have never, ever, EVER shown that it's real. You just repeat this claims ad nauseam and when called out on it, you go on the defensive. Without ever showing that what you say is right.