Why Argue Against Evolution and a Natural Origin?

[inquiring mind]

Evolution (as a whole, including macro, common descent, etc.) has the law, science, academia, and even some religious affiliations on its side, fully supportive, and even protective… which makes it pretty much factual by most standards... doesn’t it?

 

[VirOptimus]

Evolution (as a whole, including macro, common descent, etc.) has the law, science, academia, and even some religious affiliations on its side, fully supportive, and even protective… which makes it pretty much factual by most standards... doesn’t it?

Evolution is an observed fact. The ToE explains how and is a scientific theory explaining facts and data.

Get the basics right.

 

[Stranger36147]

 

[inquiring mind]

Evolution is an observed fact. The ToE explains how and is a scientific theory explaining facts and data.

Get the basics right.

Get the question right.

 

[RichardY]

Presupposition that the laws of causality in evolution are absolute, and not deficient.

 

[inquiring mind]

Presupposition that the laws of causality in evolution are absolute, and not deficient.

Yep, but do you know of any other science related 'body of conjecture' that holds the support TOE does?

 

[VirOptimus]

Get the question right.

?

Its not my problem you are ignorant of terms and science.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yep, but do you know of any other science related 'body of conjecture' that holds the support TOE does?

What does this even mean? Do you have any biology education at all?

 

[inquiring mind]

Its not my problem you are ignorant of terms and science.

I may be... but try not to get this thread derailed.

 

[inquiring mind]

What does this even mean? Do you have any biology education at all?

Yep, caution.

 

[VirOptimus]

I may be... but try not to get this thread derailed.

It didnt start great so that optimistic.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yep, caution.

So, thats none then. Dont you think you should understand what you are posting about? At least the basics?

 

[inquiring mind]

So, thats none then. Dont you think you should understand what you are posting about? At least the basics?

I honestly don’t see where you’re coming from with this. For starters, my question includes macroevolution, which is not an observed fact (your post #2), and therefore far beyond basics.

 

[VirOptimus]

I honestly don’t see where you’re coming from with this. For starters, my question includes macroevolution, which is not an observed fact (your post #2), and therefore far beyond basics.

Define macroevolution.

Also, what is the ToE according to you.

 

[RichardY]

Yep, but do you know of any other science related 'body of conjecture' that holds the support TOE does?

"Climate Change." Which like the idea of a causally absolute evolution. Is a non-sequitur.

 

[VirOptimus]

"Climate Change." Which like the idea of a causally absolute evolution. Is a non-sequitur.

Climate is static?

 

[RichardY]

Climate is static?

Climate changes by definition. So adding change is irrelevant. "Climate Change". So what.

 

[VirOptimus]

Climate changes by definition. So adding change is irrelevant. "Climate Change". So what.

Well, its very serious. Man made climate change is very solid science and incredibly well supported.

Thinking otherwise is tin-foil hat territory.

 

[inquiring mind]

Define macroevolution.

Also, what is the ToE according to you.

Oh, you’re gonna work me… don’t expect a dissertation though. Two basic parts to TOE, I guess I could put it like that. Microevolution which can be observable (variation and adaptations for survival), and macroevolution which covers unobservable lengths of time and suggested changes that I don’t agree with and don't think is backed-up with evidence. In other words, species don’t gradually appear by lengthy transformation.

 

[VirOptimus]

Oh, you’re gonna work me… don’t expect a dissertation though. Two basic parts to TOE, I guess I could put it like that. Microevolution which can be observable (variation and adaptations for survival), and macroevolution which covers unobservable lengths of time and suggested changes that I don’t agree with and don't think is backed-up with evidence. In other words, species don’t gradually appear by lengthy transformation.

What you agree or not agree with is irellevant to science. Its all abot facts snd data and all the facts and data support the ToE. All of it!

You want to argue against it you should at least understand the basics, you currently seem to understand none of it.

So its pretty hard to take your posts seriously.