[microgood]

Anyway, your response to that post remains a classic of hypocrisy. Criticize for lack of imagination, then argue from incredulity!

Total BS. I do not have to accept your terms of the argument. I can say parts of evolutionary theory are wrong and not argue it from a scientific point of view, but rather a practical point of view.

What is BS is saying to question whether evolution is true or not has to be done on your terms. The arrogance is assuming science = truth and that arrogance is totally on your side.

There is no hypocrisy in saying scientists have this wrong. There are some things science(or should I say scientists) are no good at and the telling us how we got to be here is one of them.

Nobel prize winning physicist Max Planck has said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

[microgood]

Anyway, your response to that post remains a classic of hypocrisy. Criticize for lack of imagination, then argue from incredulity!

Just as an addendum, I am not even arguing from incredulity as there is no scientific evidence of random mutation in the fossil record anyway, only evidence of natural selection. It is not incredulity(which is a bs concept made up by sceptics and evos anyway) when there is not evidence to support the concept you are criticizing to begin with.

[VadeRetro]

Nobel prize winning physicist Max Planck has said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Another irony meter in smoldering ruins. Your objections to evolution originate in your adherance to the long-outdated hope that somehow Genesis is also a science book.

[Coyoteman]

I can say parts of evolutionary theory are wrong and not argue it from a scientific point of view, but rather a practical point of view.

Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. It is constructed using the scientific method. To argue for or against it requires you argue using the methods of science. You can't just say you don't like it, or don't believe in it. If I trip and fall perhaps I don't like gravity, but that does not constitute evidence.

Nobel prize winning physicist Max Planck has said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

This statement is embodied in Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Makes for fascinating reading. Nice, but it has no direct relevance to what we're talking about. There has not been a scientific revolution; rather, there is a religious attack on the science of evolution. Different things entirely.

[microgood]

Anyway, your response to that post remains a classic of hypocrisy. Criticize for lack of imagination, then argue from incredulity!

Just as an addendum, I am not even arguing from incredulity as there is no scientific evidence of random mutation in the fossil record anyway, only evidence of natural selection. It is not incredulity(which is a bs concept made up by sceptics and evos anyway) when there is not evidence to support the concept you are criticizing to begin with.

And finally, I was attacking their imagination because of their arrogance. Arrogance is the nastiest of all human traits.

[js1138]

Nobel prize winning physicist Max Planck has said...

But you will search in vain for a physical scientist of that caliber who doubts evolution.

[ml1954]

I can say parts of evolutionary theory are wrong and not argue it from a scientific point of view, but rather a practical point of view.

Are you aware of how stupid your statement is?