[I’m not making any assumptions in that regard you haven’t made yourself. You’re asserting that buried somewhere in the collected works of these three major symposiums is the proof that Darwin’s theory is disproven.]
WRONG!!! Once again you’ve either intentionally deceitfully misintrpetted what I’ve said, or you simply misunderstand what was said. NOWHERE did I state those major scientific symposiums DISPROVED evolution- not one hting I’ve said even hinted at that- As I said- go play your games elsewhere-
[You seem impressed with the idea that an since attempt to prove his theory mathematically failed, we should assume that theory to be disproven.]
Bzzzzt- WRONG again!!!!! Arguing with you is like a trip through fantasy land where red is green and blue is chartrues If I say red you claim I said green. Do you intentionally have trouble following a line of argument? I’m not being degrading here- I’m honestly asking because this is seems to be a pattern with you. Stultis said he didn’t know of one qualified scientist who didn’t think the model of evolution was through common descent- I showed that there are indeed qualified scientists who have problems with evolution through mutation + natural selection.
You and Coyoteman seem content to make issue out of botrh non issues and issues that I never assigned any importance to or even suggested importance should be attached to. Coyoteman is content dismissing all the major symposiums simply based on the fact that one person in attendance did beleive in the mechanism of evolution and seems to think it a major victory in defeating the whole notion that scientists met at major scientific meetings to weigh in on their differing opinions about evolution. NOWHERE did I state that every single person in attendance disbeleived the model of evolution- yet Coyoteman apparently thinks I did and that because he showed that one person apparently does beleive it that non of the evidence presented can therefore be trusted.
rying out loud- I’m not even for or against the idea of evolution here- ALL I’m simply doing is showing that there are indeed qualified scientists who have problems with the model of evolution through common descent. I provided with you and everyone else with ample evidence and quotes from noted scientists and statements of ‘faith’ if you will from more than 700 major scientsits and educators who signed an agreementr that they have problems with the model of evolution as proposed by Darwin.
When you have a legitimate argument to present- come on back and we’ll talk- however, as I told you- if you’re insistent on playing your games- I’m done with you because it’s apparent that you can’t argue honestly and continue to drive down lanes that I never even hinted that we should drive down.
I am challenging the quality of your evidence.
You do a post with a series of quotes, so I check one and find that the real quote does not say what you claim it does. It has been altered to change its meaning.
tacticalogic checks another quote and finds the same thing.
Why should we trust the material you are posting if we check the original quotes and consistently find they either have been altered or quote mined to change the original meanings?
And when we present you with the evidence, you just shrug it off and claim, "Well, the other quotes are accurate!"
You can only get away with that kind of "research" in apologetics. A scientist would be drummed out of the profession for such behavior.
Your allegorical “house” is imaginary. My fence rows and brush piles are real. If you’re going to be mad because I’m not inclined to stop and pursue pages of links for your benefit, then you’re just going to have to be mad.