Quote:

theory9 said:
But I'd still like to see some citations--links and the like.



Every single one of my sources was from books moreso than websites. Very few, I made sure, were relgious. However, I could not find all of this information from a singular source. Every book I read usually catered to the representatation of evolutionary evidence by saying, "This is false--But all these are true!" Each time there'd be a different denotation of what's false out of the bunch. Anyways, I'd have to get to writing down my citations later, but I'm 90% sure that there's an online source for everyone of my references. I mean, I'm pretty sure I checked before hand.

Quote:

theory9 said:
  • Your reliance on fossils as the primary method of disproving evolution assumes that everyone agrees on every significant fossil discovery.



    • Hold on there. I haven't been using the fossils, or lack there of, to disprove evolution. Four things I've tried to demonstrate with their mention:

    a) Evolutionary discovery has irreversably corrupted modern science through the use of false evidence.

    b) This so called evolutionary empirical evidence ceased to give evolution any sort of empirical value over half a century ago.

    c) Evolutionist scientists who proclaim science much more credible than religion in the rite that scientific discovery doesn't require faith are throwing stones in a glass house.

    d) Modern Darwinism is supported by nothing. What its followers say it's supported by was debunked as either falsly labeled or inconclusive, and yet any 8 out of 10 people on the street you talk to will answer, "Missing links" to the question of, "What proves evolution?"

    Quote:

    Numerous searches on the "Taung Child" didn't reveal the conclusions you claim in your original post. (Now I understand that both the religious and scientists have their own dogma, but I accessed several pages without a mention. Which is why I asked for your sources.) Your conjecture simply isn't enough to sway opinion without additional proof.



    Again, all of my sources were from various secular and slight few religous books, I don't have them on hand. I did, however, www.fuckinggoogleit.com and came up with a mention on my first try.

    Scroll down till you hit "Australopithecus Africanus", and then there's a summary below.

    Quote:

    Your characterization of evolution falls closely to the classic straw-man argument, setting up the weakest of theories to be shot down.



    I've already explained the nature of evolution as scientific theory when I outlined the fallacy of labeling it unfalsifiable within my post. I didn't slouch on that subject. The transitions were just categorically easier to write out first.

    Quote:

    When you ignore arguemnts contrary to your own opinion, you cannot strengthen your argument.



    Point of information: The idea that Miller-Urey was able to synthesize living material from non-living material is a mass misinterpretation. Just like Fredriech Wohler's synthesization of Urea, the Miller-Urey was able to synthesize a merely organic material. However, it is a common misconception that "organic" means "living" when it simply means that there is a presence of carbon.

    Quote:

    For a scientific argument to be worthwhile, you must consider the weapons of your enemies.



    I have covered each and every single one of the points listed within that wikipedia article ranging from the hypothetical nature of the fossil record, to the horse family, to the growth and shape of limbs.

    Quote:

    The problem with posting equations is that they're akin to statistics: they can be used to prove whatever the author wants to prove. Words like "suspected" and "circumstances" leave room for interpretation, and that debate would only lead back to the beginning of the argument.



    Definitely not in this case. The equation I negotiated was based on my highly critical analysis of the evolutionist tone, which says freak accident mutations make the transitition. Trying to measure the probability of freak mutation is impossible since mutation is completely and totally random. Therefore, any assumed date they choose will be wildly inaccurate if based purely on the, supposedly, transitional fossil. This, of course, was coupled with the noted implausability that their theory of random mutation wouldn't have nearly enough time to take fruition, but not primarily.

    Quote:

    When trying to convince readers that an intelligent being is responsible for life on Earth, you should avoid using the phrase "circular reasoning". Any attempt to empirically prove the existence of God/intelligent being relies on circular reasoning, unless you're able to prove otherwise. Otherwise, a person is merely choosing what type of circular reasoning they'd prefer to believe, with no real results obtained.



    This would only be the case if I was asking people to believe in a creator--And I'm not. I'm simply demonstating how evolution has just as much speaking for it as intelligent design does in terms of evidence and faith. And the fact that evolutionists say otherwise is what I'm grilling here.

    Quote:

    Your central thesis, that " [e]volutionists have made intensely desperate efforts to see that the theory, or what still remains of it, survives" makes what was a relatively balanced paper another faceless proclomation of "I'm right, you're wrong".



    Again, I haven't been trying to convince people that there is a God with that post.

    Quote:

    Your point about science being the domain of all is true--but your slippery slope is here for all to see. To say " that religion itself can indeed use science to prove its points as well" is to say that science becomes a didactic tool for selective use; science isn't a book where you can Sharpie over the lines that don't suit you.



    I honestly do not know how you come to such a conclusion. I said that science has proved certain religious accounts correct in some instances. That does not mean that religion uses science to prove every single assertion it makes whatever it may be.

    Quote:

    If you believe science is valid, then you believe in the answers it provides regardless of your personal orientations.



    Of course, but it always depends on how that science was used. It's like your same convictions towards creationists in that they misuse science. I'm saying that evolutionists are victim of the same prideful and bias folly--Even moreso than creationists. If, however, your leading to the idea that science disproves God with this statement: That's not something science has proved wrong (because it can't).

    Quote:

    But to say that science should be used only to prove the points you want to prove is silly, limited and unconvincing.



    I have never said anything of the sort.

    Quote:

    I will now ask the question: why should anyone doubt/not believe in evolution while believing in intelligent design?



    I'm not saying anyone should believe in Intelligent Design. I am, however, saying that there's is ample reason not to believe in Evolution.