Do you often post to people that you're not referring to?
I delved into this thread with the primary goal of delivering rebuke to the first poster I identified posting Ad homimem. Your post, #2, rang bells, but didn't cross the threshold per se (as far as I was concerned). To be frank, when I made my first reply to you I had only reviewed the first 50 posts. Perhaps there's a quite egregious offense in that regard subsequently.
I decided that whether or not your post #2 to this thread was Ad hominem, or could be classified as a "personal attack" was immaterial, in that the article itself cited "personal attack". This is nothing more than logic.
Whether or not the ethos, pathos, and logros of any debate framed within such construct is useful is beyond my abilities. My meager academic instruction has taught me that one should always address the audience in terms that they can understand - if the interest is to pursuade - so that a compelling argument may indeed be convincing.
Browbeating isn't going to earn anybody credibility - I present the myriad of conspiracy evidence cited respecting Oklahoma City bombing, Flt 800 "bombing", WTC "bombings", moon landing "hoax", etc.
I'm not going to stand here and argue science with you; I'm unqualified to do so. But I will state that the assertations and assertions made concerning evolution are rejected by myself. I understand the "scientific" arguments being made in support of the theory. However, it is my conviction that its all a mirage.
The sophisticated predictive abilities of ancient astronomers is quite reknown. HOWEVER, the essential premise that was the crux of the their calculations was that the Earth was the center of the "universe". Its astonishing to me to see, despite how "right" they were, they empirically were wrong. And so it is with evolution.
I completely understand that "spiritual" has no place in the scientific discipline. What part does "supernatural" have to do with science? That notwithstanding, can "science" operate within the purvue of the supernatural?
I dismiss absolutely the premise and conclusions upon which foundation the theory of evolution is based. Are evolutionary models useful in biological sciences? I would have to side on the "yea" sayers. However, and that notwithstanding, I posit that the original premise is flawed. A distinction is drawn between logical validity and truth. Validity merely refers to formal properties of the process of inference. Thus, a conclusion whose value is true may be drawn from an invalid argument, and one whose value is false, from a valid sequence.
John Stuart Mill held that the scientist or experimenter is not interested in moving from the general to the specific case, which characterizes deductive logic, but is concerned with inductive reasoning, moving from the specific to the general. I see this concept with respect to evolution permeating all the sciences. For example, the statement "The sun will rise tomorrow" is not the result of a particular deductive process, but is based on a psychological calculation of general probability based on many specific past experiences; and so it is with evolution.
Are these logical arguments useful to the biological sciences in general? I'd have to say yes. If so, are the premises and conclusions upon which these arguments based "true"?
Some time ago I went round and round with somebody concerning the syllogism for intelligent design. I was shot down at every turn. I never received an answer to the construct of the syllogism for evolution. That's o.k., in that that question was if not immaterial, but irrelevant, to the issue specifically being debated at the time, i.e., intelligent design. I embrace the fallacy of intelligent design, not just in its logical failings, but in that the presupposition that I'm using as a basis for refutation is that of "religious belief". There's no place for that in science. My position is that science can be both "correct" and "incorrect" (as far as currently known), but there is only one Truth.