Contrary to the various ad hominem's on this thread, I'm an independent thinker, not a follower. No I'm not the first to ask these questions. Rather, they are new to you because they are not dealt with in own circles.
I have to think that you are arguing from a religious belief, rather than a scientific background. I am sorry to have to break this to you, but religious belief does not constitute a scientific argument.
Evolutionists also argue from a religious belief, i.e. a specific worldview, though the fallacy of pretended neutrality is quite common. Obviously the questions I've asked are philosophical in nature but I don't think you can simply shrug them off by "begging the question" by attempting to undermine my credibility based on my refusal to accept the very subject matter whose entire basis I'm challenging.
aw, crap... yet another who takes Platonic Formalism seriously.
abandon ship, coyoteman!
"How does the evolutionist account for the laws of logic, for transcendental reality, which are crucial to the pursuit of science? He obviously needs them..."
Again, that's a philosophical assertion with no evidence. Also, as aforementioned, no branch of science holds itself to an absolute truth.
"Contrary to the various ad hominem's on this thread, I'm an independent thinker, not a follower. No I'm not the first to ask these questions. Rather, they are new to you because they are not dealt with in own circles."
It's a great thing to be skeptical and critical. But, actually, these claims aren't new - it's a variation of the contingency argument.
"Evolutionists also argue from a religious belief, i.e. a specific worldview, though the fallacy of pretended neutrality is quite common. Obviously the questions I've asked are philosophical in nature but I don't think you can simply shrug them off by 'begging the question' by attempting to undermine my credibility based on my refusal to accept the very subject matter whose entire basis I'm challenging."
Biologists argue using scientific evidence, not philosophical propositions.
Contrary to the various ad hominem's on this thread, I'm an independent thinker, not a follower. No I'm not the first to ask these questions. Rather, they are new to you because they are not dealt with in own circles.
None of these disproves evolution. There is no magic creationist or metaphysical bullet to disprove evolution. You have to get in there and argue using the methods and rules of science. If it were otherwise, don't you think it would have been done 100-200 years ago?
I have to think that you are arguing from a religious belief, rather than a scientific background. I am sorry to have to break this to you, but religious belief does not constitute a scientific argument.
Evolutionists also argue from a religious belief, i.e. a specific worldview, though the fallacy of pretended neutrality is quite common. Obviously the questions I've asked are philosophical in nature but I don't think you can simply shrug them off by "begging the question" by attempting to undermine my credibility based on my refusal to accept the very subject matter whose entire basis I'm challenging.
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion or a philosophy. No amount of pretending will make it otherwise.
Likewise, no amount of hand waving will make the data all go away. Don't you realize there are tens of thousands of hominid fossils alone? Where did these all come from? They can't all be deformities, frauds, and hoaxes, though one would not realize that to hear some creationists carry on.
I have actually studied the data; I have studied casts of most of the important fossil discoveries, and done several years in the field in grad school. It takes more than a single metaphysical- or religiously-based sentence to overturn all my study, and the efforts of the thousands of more accomplished and better educated scientists who are carrying on research the many fields which make up the science of evolution.
Again, religious belief is not scientific data.