What you're not invited here to do is imagine that you can speak from within my head.
None of those answers, by itself, proves evolution happened beyond the shadow of a doubt.
We are agreed on that. Yet, and this is my professed problem all along, evolutionists speak of the theory as if it has been-- as if it is fact.
However, when you take each piece, each independent line of evidence, and put them together, evolution is the only credible explanation that we've yet come up with.
And you have the monopoly on defining what is credible? I suggest that you amend that statement to "the only credible explanation within a priori naturalist's assumptions".
You like to cast doubt, throwing all of the various creationist gems to see what sticks to the wall. When those are shown to be blown out of proportion, or just plain wrong, you generally fall back on, "that's your opinion, and plenty of people hold my contrary opinion."
I find it incredible that you deride me for dismissing scientific interpretation because of philosophical bias when you dismiss anyone who differs from yours. You know... Those "plenty of people" who happen to be scientists.
And, by the way, they have not been shown to be blown out of proportion.
When we get right down to it, you are reluctant to accept evolution because of religious misgivings. That's fine.
That is a gross oversimplification, and I resent the cavalier way that you decide to speak my motives for me.
The problems arise when you try to shroud those misgivings in a pseudoscientific cloak.
I have entered the statements of scientists that differ from your opinion. There is a difference. For someone who has trumpeted the scientific process of arguing theories, you sure seem closed to it actually occurring.
Those of us who ACCEPT the explanation would rather not have to deal with the same questions we've already answered over and over.
Then by all means... Don't! But I'll offer some advice to your side of the discussion. If you don't want to be asked to provide what the theory predicted, don't dress the theory up as scientific fact.
I listed several areas where the evidence is bare. I got explanations as to why the evidence is bare. Fine. You did an exceptional job (repeatedly)! It doesn't change the fact that the evidence is bare. It doesn't change the fact that Darwinism is propped up with hind-sight explanations and just-so assumptions. Period.
The fact that you accept that doesn't mean that everyone will. It doesn't mean that it's religious discomfort. And it absolutely doesn't mean that you can speak for anyone but yourself. No matter how incredulous you may feel doesn't prove your case.
Please let me know when you come up with a credible (NON-religious) explanation that explains the facts as well as evolutionary theory.
Please let me know when you do, since yours is founded on a priori naturalistic assumptions. And for the record, the entire debate is just how well evolution does explain the fact.
I think you've gone over the line now.
What you're not invited here to do is imagine that you can speak from within my head.
None of those answers, by itself, proves evolution happened beyond the shadow of a doubt.
We are agreed on that. Yet, and this is my professed problem all along, evolutionists speak of the theory as if it has been-- as if it is fact.
However, when you take each piece, each independent line of evidence, and put them together, evolution is the only credible explanation that we've yet come up with.
And you have the monopoly on defining what is credible? I suggest that you amend that statement to "the only credible explanation within a priori naturalist's assumptions".
You like to cast doubt, throwing all of the various creationist gems to see what sticks to the wall. When those are shown to be blown out of proportion, or just plain wrong, you generally fall back on, "that's your opinion, and plenty of people hold my contrary opinion."
I find it incredible that you deride me for dismissing scientific interpretation because of philosophical bias when you dismiss anyone who differs from yours. You know... Those "plenty of people" who happen to be scientists.
And, by the way, they have not been shown to be blown out of proportion.
When we get right down to it, you are reluctant to accept evolution because of religious misgivings. That's fine.
That is a gross oversimplification, and I resent the cavalier way that you decide to speak my motives for me.
The problems arise when you try to shroud those misgivings in a pseudoscientific cloak.
I have entered the statements of scientists that differ from your opinion. There is a difference. For someone who has trumpeted the scientific process of arguing theories, you sure seem closed to it actually occurring.
Those of us who ACCEPT the explanation would rather not have to deal with the same questions we've already answered over and over.
Then by all means... Don't! But I'll offer some advice to your side of the discussion. If you don't want to be asked to provide what the theory predicted, don't dress the theory up as scientific fact.
I listed several areas where the evidence is bare. I got explanations as to why the evidence is bare. Fine. You did an exceptional job (repeatedly)! It doesn't change the fact that the evidence is bare. It doesn't change the fact that Darwinism is propped up with hind-sight explanations and just-so assumptions. Period.
The fact that you accept that doesn't mean that everyone will. It doesn't mean that it's religious discomfort. And it absolutely doesn't mean that you can speak for anyone but yourself. No matter how incredulous you may feel doesn't prove your case.
Please let me know when you come up with a credible (NON-religious) explanation that explains the facts as well as evolutionary theory.
Please let me know when you do, since yours is founded on a priori naturalistic assumptions. And for the record, the entire debate is just how well evolution does explain the fact.