[Texas Songwriter]

.You may want to review “question begging”. It applies to the circular logic you seem so delighted to share, along with your painfully windy rhetoric and superior tone. Throughout this discussion you have focused on the semantic qualities of statements rather than their specific content - do you actually have any comment to make on the quality of science that has developed the Theory of Evolution, or do you only wish to confound through rhetorical slight of hand?

You did exactly what I expected you to do. I am aware of question begging and circular reasoning. I used a short "loose definition" to see if you would "major on the minors", and of course, you did. You refused to address my questions (which were not begging any question), you built a straw man, as you do now declaring a focus on semantic qualities, declare I addressed only semantic content, and now define the parameters of the discussion...you will take a question on the quality of science that has developed the Theory of Evolution?....that is what you define as the acceptible parameters of the discussion which you will allow.

Now, answer the question I first put to you...Do you know it is true that evolution accounts for life on earth? It is a yes/no answer. Then if you wish to address the epistemology and ontology of your answer, if it is yes. You have evaded my little question once with a nonresponsive answer. It has everything to do with the validity of TOE, which is consistent with the parameters you laid down. I asked you if the cognitive function of the brain was required to have developed and function normatively to trust the beliefs and convictions....for example does your noetic apparatus need to function normatively to develope for you to believe in the theory of evolution? You have yet to address that question which is intimately related to your demand of the parameters of discussion only of the theory of evolution.

I will be glad to discuss, at length, you devotion to the scientific method (so called). Do I have any comment to make on the quality of science that has developed the Theory of Evolution, or....

Please quote my question begging .... please use my exact words....then explain how my comments begged the question.

If you wish to discuss the laws of logic I am happy to discuss that with you. These tools have meaning and are used by everyone...just not properly. Logic is the tool of scientist. He even declares himself the keeper of those tools. He simply cannot account for them in a materialists worldview. So, just to cut through the fog which you declare, I admit to being all things bad and ignorant and deficient.....so NOW, please answer my first questions. Your honest answer is fine. I stipulate I am all of those bad things you ascribe to me so we can go on to answer the question. Perhaps you do not think logic is the tool of the scientist? If that is the case that is fine. In fact it would be consistent with the materialists , darwinists worldview. If yes, I am simply asking how logic developed in a darwinists world. It is a simple question, it has to do with the theory of evolution, and does not beg any question...all paramenters which you require to move the discussion.

[stormer]

I've already answered your question, perhaps you missed it. I know that the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth is found in evolutionary theory. This says nothing of abiogenesis, it says nothing of theology, it says nothing of future developments or information that may require the theory to be modified or rejected. But with all the information available that ranges across a number of disciplines consisting of countless research hours and withering peer review, the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth is found in evolutionary theory. Period. I know you're an intelligent fellow, do you honestly believe that the ToE is some kind of conspiracy to foil religion, that the overwhelming scientific consensus is a sham that behind closed doors is acknowledged with a wink and a nod? Can you tell me that the advances in medicine and genetics that are a direct result of the application of evolutionary principles are fraudulent? Can you say that new paleontological discoveries that add to the understanding of the development of modern species are mistakes or frauds?