Replies

...I've presented you with a problem: 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...

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.

Someone posted earlier that anything that cannot be disproved is by defintion not science. You cannot prove or disprove the constancy of lightspeed using the scientific method given limiations of the human lifespan. In fact, the only hard data available seems to indicate it is decreasing slightly though we are certainly free to question the methodologies used for the various tests over the centuries.. Regardless: Its constancy is assumed a priori and then used as the basis for "millions of years", "billions of years", etc. THEREFORE... in that sense, evolutionary belief is faith-based and quasireligious in nature.

Furthermore much the data you've mentioned is therefore suspect. I am hoping, given your personal background, that you do not take any of this discussion personally given its implications. You've been a very good sport, and I appreciate you humoring me with this debate.

Evolutionary theory must make certain assumptions. I've offered a few examples. Without these assumptions the data could not be interpreted to indicate x, y, or z.

Creationism also makes certain assumptions. Only Creationism, however, gives a rational basis for them. In evolutionary theory the assumptions must stand on their own.