- May 24, 2004
- Reaction score
Detective?Kerdy said:They were answered, but incorrectly. If you say 2 plus 2 equals 47, you have to show me. It isn't my fault he math doesn't add up. You talk about preconceived ideas as if you are immune. Evolution is a preconceived idea in every aspect. Like I told you before, I once accepted evolution, until I realized it didn't make sense. I have used evolutionists words in my debate, not mine, which is where you fail. You don't understand, apparently, evolutionists failures and there are a lot of them.minasoliman said:They were already answered for you. You simply just made up your mind.Kerdy said:We understand, we just disagree with how science has been hijacked for this particular hypothesis. It's called disagreement, not ignorance.minasoliman said:Real smooth...just when I thought you wanted no ridicule, you reply with ridicule.Gebre Menfes Kidus said:Kerdy said:Lets see. Does evolution comply with scientific theory? Seeing as we have been unable to experiment and have nature to allow us to observe one species change into another species, no. Since the scientific method is the basis for turning hypothesis into scientific theory and providing proof to support that theory, evolution remains a hypothesis only. This is the basic version, lots more I could put into this.
The problem is that you are speaking of science while the evolutionists speak of philosophy. Whereas you obviously understand the difference, they don't. Or more accurately, the average undiscerning gullible high school and college biology student does not understand the difference. But the leading proponents of evolution understand the difference very well, they just don't want the rest of us to understand it. As long as they can masquerade their philosophy as empirical science, then they can advace their agenda. But if the facade is revealed for what it is, then their agenda will come to a halt. And the agenda is atheism and all of the social implications that ensue. And the leading evolutionists are more than happy to have "theistic evolutionists" as their useful idiots.
I haven't been following along with the last couple of posts simply because I gave up. I'd venture to say people like you, as has been evident in another thread know nothing about how science works, or just don't care.
I asked some VERY basic easy questions, and kept it at that basic level, which still remain unanswered because evolution has no answer to them. Instead, questions were asked of me. It doesn't work that way. Either the evidence is empirical, or it is not and it is not.
Humility dictates that you even agree to disagree, but you take things further and imply "expertise" by debating and knowing how science works. Let's be honest. Is anyone here debating against evolution in a respectable science occupation with research that involves principles of evolution?
Chrevbel is trying to show you how science works by a Socratic method. But you avoid it because of your pre-conceived notions of how science works. And are you a scientist?
The best way to explain science is to compare it to detective work on crimes. Obviously you can't see a direct observation, but you observe the results of whatever happened and work backwards to solve it. The problem is you are asking Chrevbel to prove evolution by going back in time and observing it, whereas Chrevbel is telling you we are forward in time, and are trying to figure what happened in the past. That's the what he's trying to explain to you, but you're too stubborn to see it and blame scientists for being "philosophically oriented" and lead Gebre to believe theistic evolutionists are the "atheist's idiots".
Humor Chrevbel. Answer his question so that he can better explain science to you as he practices it rather than as you understand it, because clearly the "multiple" biology classes you took seem to either not have done a good job explaining science to you or you just rejected everything the teacher said but passed based on what the teacher is looking for. Either way, this whole discussion is useless with you if you're not going to be stubborn-minded to understand how people like me, , Chrevbel and Celticsfan understand science.
His questions were irrelevant and not the topic of discussion. It's a distraction ploy used by several groups when they can't support what they say. The way you understand science is warped from the way it should be understood and even Chrevbel has admitted it's simply a hypothesis which can't be factually supported. But you folks are free to be upset with me. I'm not the problem, it's your take on science and all of those biologists who say you are wrong. Not to mention those who support evolution who say thing contrary to what you may say or things you declare are never said. Evolution is a crap shoot. It proved itself to me to be bogus and continues with every scrap people grab hold to in an effort to prove its real. I'm looking forward to the next partial 3cm piece of bone and 54 feet away a tooth is found so we can create an entirely new ancestor to man, only later to find out it too is false.
I'm still waiting for my first question to be answered. Of anything asked, it should be the easiest.
And your detective example was accurate, but a mistake to use with me. I'll give you one guess what I do for a living.