- Jan 30, 2014
- 1,856
- 50
- 48
It seems you're not appreciating the significance of your own arguments. You've claimed that "science doesn't prove evolution", which if true, would be perhaps the biggest scientific upheaval in the history of mankind. You're basically saying that there is a genuine scientific case to be made on that point, and it's so obvious that you, a non-scientist, have realized it.This Vale Of Tears said:I'm not sure what to do with these badgering responses stemming from the unfounded premise that I bear the burden of proof.
So I'm asking you to back up this unbelievably bold assertion with some actual discussion and evaluation of the data. Why do you see that as "badgering"?
You made a specific claim that scientists observe adaptations within species and project that over the course of millions of years to "prove" evolution. I've never seen any scientist do such a thing, so I"m asking you to show where they have. Surely your claim is based on actually seeing a scientist do that, right?I don't need to cite specific peer reviewed papers to you to have a discussion on well established conclusions.
Um......????? I'm practically begging you to discuss the data. So let's do that.This is the frustration that everyone here is having with you, that you attempt to browbeat opponents with intellectual bluster instead of discussing the evidence.
In order for your accusation to be accurate, you'll have to show where I said what you're claiming. So where did I do that?Also stymying any discussion with you is your intellectual dishonesty in demanding proof for what you already know are well founded axioms of current science. Your pretense that there doesn't exist within scientific circles a robust controversy over what the fossil record indicates is similar to me claiming the world is round and you responding with adversarial demands for proof and specific studies. So let's cut the crap because I, like many others I've seen on these threads, don't want to play your silly little head games.