[scripter]

Are you saying you agree with the poster that said "evolutionism makes positive statements about unobserved, unrecorded history?"

[bigdakine]

Scripter writes "Are you saying you agree with the poster that said "evolutionism makes positive statements about unobserved, unrecorded history?"

Nope. Cause our genes and the fossil record the history of our evolution, in the same way that the Earth's rock record records the history of our planet and the light from distant galaxies records the history of our Universe..


All that is well and good. However, I recognized what the intent of the original poster's statement was. It was predicated on the false logic, that if nobody observed an event, then we can't draw firm conclusions about it.

Its laughable as well, that you fell for it, thinking it was a good point. WHich is why I asked you, "Should felons convicted solely on the basis of forensic evidence be realeased from prison?"

If you agree with the faulty logic that firm conclusions can't be obtained regarding events in the past unless they occurred under direct human observation, then in order to be logically consistent, you must also agree that convictions solely based on forensic evidence are intrinsically suspect and should be voided.

I trust you now understand why the original statement is foolish. It is foolish because direct human observation isn't necessary and there is a record of the change in life through geologic time, both in rocks and in our genes.



I guess thats why you didn't answer my question.