I earlier linked for you exactly the article I just quoted to Rightwing. You rapidly dismissed it, all 29 lines of evidence for macroevolution, as evidence for a theory and nothing more. You insist that any mere preponderance of evidence, no matter how large, for facts some people don't want to face should not prevent such facts from being publicly branded as somehow conjectural. You are doing exactly what I just told Rightwing you are doing. You've spent dozens of posts just to me chanting your "just a theory" mantra, defending this creationist wedge-strategy disclaimer as fact and who would have a problem with fact yada yada yada? So who's lying?
Note that the skull progression is not evidence for any particular mechanism of how some population of apes became increasingly human over the millions of years. It is not evidence for Gould's theory versus Darwin's, or whatever. The "how"s can still be argued, and are. This series is merely once piece in an enormous pile of evidence that evolution from one form to another has been a continuously operating feature of the history of life on earth. We are far past the point where the whether of evolution can realistically be called conjectural.
Per your other irresponsible charge, you've now made an extensive public performance on this thread. Do not expect to be pinged whenever anyone refers to your performance. It is assumed that you are reading the thread and you're a public figure now, a famous comedian.
I said that you lied about me when you said I "intend to deny" the inductive evidence used to arrive at common descent (or that inductive reasoning applied to the evidence makes common descent plausible, whichever). I "denied" nor "intended to deny" no such thing, and you can't name a single post to the contrary.
That's what I said. How many times shall I repeat this?
You rapidly dismissed it, all 29 lines of evidence for macroevolution, as evidence for a theory and nothing more.
I didn't "dismiss" all those 29 lines of evidence as evidence for a theory. I said that it is evidence for a theory. Which it is.
When you show me evidence for a theory and I say, "Yup, that sure is evidence for the theory", how the heck is that "dismissing" it? What did you want me to do, applaud?
And why do you think that to call a theory a theory is to "dismiss" it? (Let alone to "deny" it.) You really don't seem to understand what "theory" means. When I say that evolution is a theory, you seem to hear "evolution is false". I am not saying that evolution is "false". I am not "denying" it. I'm saying it's a theory. Which it is.
You really ought not to be so defensive and thin-skinned about the fact that evolution is a theory. What's your huge stake in the whole bizarre self-contradictory Never-Call-the-Theory-of-Evolution-a-Theory campaign, anyway?
You insist that any mere preponderance of evidence, no matter how large, for facts some people don't want to face should not prevent such facts from being publicly branded as somehow conjectural.
What is this "publicly branded" jazz? Do you think that calling something a "theory" is to brand it with a scarlet.... well, "T"? Listen, there are stronger theories than "evolution" which have been labeled theories with no ill effect.
It seems like you're deathly afraid that if evolution is admitted to be (oh sorry "publicly branded" as) a theory, then it will collapse. If that is really so, then perhaps evolution is not so strong a theory after all. You can't have it both ways; if there's such a preponderance of evidence in favor of evolution then what's the harm of telling the TRUTH about it and calling it a theory?
You are doing exactly what I just told Rightwing you are doing.
No, you told him that I "intend to deny" "[c]onnecting the dots [which] is inductive logic". I do not "deny" inductive logic (whatever "denying inductive logic" would mean), let alone "intend to" deny it. And the fact that inductive logic applied to the evidence from biological history leads to common descent as a hypothesis is NOT something I "deny" or "intend to deny" either. So, I am doing nothing of the sort that you told Rightwing I am doing. You are a liar. As I said.
I don't know how else to explain it. If you still have a problem understanding this it can only be because you do not understand the English words you and/or I am using very well. (For example, you seem to think that Calling It A Theory and Denying It are one and the same. You think the word "theory" means "false". This is incorrect; look in any dictionary.)
You've spent dozens of posts just to me chanting your "just a theory" mantra, defending this creationist wedge-strategy disclaimer as fact
Evolution IS a theory, and the disclaimer does state a FACT. Ask ANY scientist. You could even ask any of the (presumed) scientists or mathematicians posting on this thread (Physicist, longshadow, donh...), although you'd probably have to catch them in one of their more honest/sincere/less nit-picky moments when they're not spending all the time dissecting how I'm using words like "true"....
So who's lying?
You are, liar.