[tacticalogic]

Why is that evolutionists can't agree on something basic like, oh, HOW EVOLUTION WORKS, and when that's pointed out they try to pass it off as something inconsequential.

Because if scientists have to agree on every detail of how something works before they can start working on what it does we'd still be stuck arguing about exactly how things like molecular bonds work and there wouldn't be any such thing as the study of chemistry. It's a good way to do things if you're objective is to bring research to a screeching halt.

[GLDNGUN]

In other words, an evolutionist has 3 pieces of a 5 billion-piece jigsaw puzzle laid out on the table and wants us to take him seriously when he emphatically states what the puzzle will look like if all the pieces were there, even though there's no agreement that he even has the 3 pieces in the right spot or is correctly seeing them.

Got it.

[tpanther]

GLDNGUN:

Why is that evolutionists can’t agree on something basic like, oh, HOW EVOLUTION WORKS, and when that’s pointed out they try to pass it off as something inconsequential.

tacticalogic:

Because if scientists have to agree on every detail of how something works before they can start working on what it does we’d still be stuck arguing about exactly how things like molecular bonds work and there wouldn’t be any such thing as the study of chemistry. It’s a good way to do things if you’re objective is to bring research to a screeching halt.

---

GLDNGUN didn’t say anything about “every detail”, he asked about the very essence of the establishment of parameters of evolution study itself.

And of course when it comes to chemistry, we have to include only those so-called “objective” chemists that agree with the ideology and worldview of the scientific establishment, meaning science has next to nothing to do with it, rendering tacticalogic’s argument completely impotent.

per usual.