Replies

Yes, as you said, you do digress.

One of my many failings. Mrs. Gumlegs maintains an exhaustive list.

You asked for ONE scientist who has more scientific education that[sic] we do, which I provided.

No, that’s not what I asked. Here’s what I asked (more than once): “”I’d like to see the name of just one who would accept your position, which I quoted before, " that if the pro-ID people got THEIR own dictionary, would that make it correct, or does this separate dictionary only apply for the evo THEORY?"

You do understand the distinction, do you not?

I asked a couple of tough, but valid questions, and rather than address them, you called them silly.

You’re not paying attention – I called them silly and addressed them. There’s a difference. I’ll post your questions and my answers again so you can see what I’m talking about. This time, I’ll omit the part with the characterization that seems to have blotted out the rest of the post:

Here's[sic] my criteria, using my own common sense as a free thinker:
A) There is no proof that an ape can become a human.
B) Darwin convinced scientists to believe his theory based on antiquated information, at that time, like we only have one cell, when we really have trillions, and when there are new discoveries, evo scientists just change the theories.
The human body is made up trillions of cells.

Here’s how I replied, (again, omitting the bits that threw you off):

Your criteria have nothing whatever to do with science. How would “A,” for instance, address gravitational theory? Please note that the criteria I posted (again, I didn’t make them up), apply to every scientific theory. “There’s no proof that an ape can become human” is again merely an attempted attack on the Theory of Evolution, and is in no way support for any other theory. Incidentally, if it could be shown that an ape became a human, it would be considered disproof of the Theory of Evolution.
In my last post to you, I stated,
If, on the other hand, you start complaining about what you believe other theories do or don’t do, or pretend not to understand what “falsifiable” means in a scientific sense, then all you’ve done is demonstrate that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
All you’ve done is complain about the Theory of Evolution. You’ve just supplied an example of not knowing what you’re talking about.

Regarding B: “Darwin convinced scientists to believe his theory based on antiquated information.” I’m not sure what you mean by this, but Darwin’s theory was new when he proposed it. What “antiquated” information was he using? I don’t know where the “one cell” notion you’ve stated comes from but I’d like to see a citation – one from Darwin, and not Jack Chick. In any case, the Theory of Evolution doesn’t stand or fall on the number of cells in the human body – or any other body, for that matter.

Your objection to the Theory of Evolution being modified to account for new discoveries is more support for my contention that you don’t know anything about science. In fact, this objection is an objection not to the Theory of Evolution, but to science itself!

Get back to me when you can answer them.

Done. Before you posted your request for answers. But here they are again, anyway.

Thanks.

You’re welcome. Care to take a whack at answering the questions I’ve asked you?