You accepted without evidence what "somebody" said that you could barely remember anything about before you attempted to use the example to support your evolution-premised position. In fact, you even later said that you didn't need any evidence. That's not thinking like a scientist. What you are is evidence of someone far too inclined to place his faith in his premise at the expense of doing any amount of critical thinking of his own.
The lizard example was studied in depth in an academic environment quite some time ago and was critiqued.
Critiqued by whom? The peer review process? The same process that lends its "credence" to such things as the roundly debunked AGW pablum? That kind of peer review process? What evidence do you have to say that any one who did critique the work was competent to do so -- assuming that any one even did? You place way too much faith in the kind of things which actually require evidence.
It is not ‘heresay[sic.].’
If you didn't study it yourself or make the necessary effort to vet the qualifications of the researchers, and the quality of the work, you indeed just placed your faith in nothing more than hearsay.
If you believe the conclusion of the study to be invalid, that is your presumption based on faith, because I have not provided the primary source for you to analyze.
I don't know what the study concluded. Given as little as you remember about it I don't know that you know either. All you seem to know is what you wanted it to conclude and all I know is what you said about it. I would have to place my faith in your understanding of the science, but as I have become more familiar what your scientific thinking ability is at this point all I can say for certain is that you rely too much on hearsay to form valid core scientific opinions.
Since you do not know me personally, I find it unsettling that you can use a couple of blog posts to declare what my world view is. There is a logical fallacy in there somewhere.
You have revealed more about yourself in two blog posts than you are even aware. Go back and read our dialog. Perhaps some of the things I have seen will become more obvious to you. I don't know Obama personally, but I do know his world view. it's not that hard to figure out. If you are unsettled, you're possibly a bit too thin skinned.
Since you work in the field, I suppose you are aware of the scientific studies on the relationship between climate change and human evolution.
I am familiar with the thinking of those who have attempted without much success to make that connection, but their models are flawed. When "scientists" write "is" when all they can truthfully say is "appears to be," I just see someone trying to over-sell their point. That's not science. That's propaganda. I gave you an opportunity to comment about what you have studied and what your study design looks like, but so far you haven't.
I do not take evolution on faith.
Where and how have you observed Darwinian evolution? If you haven't observed it yourself you are merely taking it on faith that somebody else who has a conjecture about it hopes they will see it someday.
You are again incorrectly assuming what my world view is.
Actually, the more we converse the more it is you who are actually making the world view that you hold more obvious.
I stated that there is a great deal of evidence for evolution in other areas of biology because I have either studied the evidence or had discussions about the evidence with knowledgeable people.
OK, so what evidence of Darwinian evolution have you studied and how did you study it? What biases did you encounter in the presentation of the data you studied and how did you filter bias out of the equation? Did you even bother to try? Objectivity in science demands it. Why don't you share your experimental design with your readers, and we’ll judge whether or not your assumptions and evidence to support them are scientifically valid?
You state that “no one has any evidence that which credibly and scientifically supports the Darwinian evolutionary premise.” Since you have worked in the field for many years, I find it surprising that you have not come across one piece of data, fossil, computational study, genetic analysis, etc, that you find at least somewhat valid.
Data is data. You and I have the same data. You and I have the same fossils to study, computational studies based on a false premises give us valueless extrapolations along the lines of the fraudulent AGW "science." Materialist Evolutionists have no idea where all the sophisticated information compacted into the volume of the cell came from. An evolutionist can't cause to happen in a controlled laboratory environment what he alleges happened by chance in an uncontrolled environment. It just takes far too much faith to believe the evolutionary premise.
Evolutionists can produce no evidence for new cellular information arising on its own, and certainly not in direct response to an environmental event. Your premise dies on that alone. Statistical impossibility closes down most of the rest of the evolutionist's arguments to the point of rendering them irrelevant to any thinking person. We’ll someday look in retrospect and wonder how those calling themselves scientists could have possibly adhered to such a specious premise.
Also, to make such a blanket declaration of certainty, you would have to examine and reject every single relevant piece of research ever published on the subject. That is one giant leap of faith.
I didn't say that I didn't take some things on faith. You said, "I never accept anything without evidence," and I showed that in fact you do. When a premise such as yours is based in impossibility common sense allows spirited dismissal of such philosophy.
My position in support for evolution can change at any time in the face of credible studies/evidence that cast doubt on the theory.
Study science with a spirit in search of truth and that change is likely to happen. Question academic orthodoxy. Learn to critique sagaciously.
I wrote: “That said, he has absolutely no idea how he did it, or why he did it, he can’t recreate the formula, and he has no knowledge of the conditions under which it all supposedly happened in order to make it happen again. But yet by faith the evolutionist only sees himself as proof that it occurred.”
You replied: That sounds like the same tired old creationist declaration rather than a reasonable argument from a scientist. There are plenty of ‘ideas’ on how evolution takes place, you just don’t like any of them.
That's not a creationist declaration. That's just a quick off-the-top-of-the head listing of the kind of questions evolutionists have simply have no answers for, but must be able to answer to lend an ounce of validity to a Darwinian materialist's evolutionary premise.
FReegards!
