Search results

Why include unnecessary rubbish hypotheses? The concept of the evolution of species is not required by any observation ever made by science.

First you state a "rational basis" should underlie debates, then you declare creationism "a belief system based on fantasy, myth and mis-information, with a political undercurrent" without establishing a rational basis for the assertion. That hardly seems "anti-dogma" to me.

Okay, you beat me.

Are you really that backward? A case is closed AFTER proof is provided, not before. (The rest of your post is just long-winded bigotry.)

That's a purely faith-based statement which you cannot prove. Very funny. Go back and try to read it again.

That would be shocking. I suppose he would have his own cameraman in place, if such were the case.

It's hard to tell whether this guy was continuing to not cooperate as a form of civil disobedience or because he was incapacitated by the first shocks.

The word "assumption" is a faith component, especially since a different subjective inclination could take the exact same formula and proceed in a religious direction. Nice one, "scientist."

Indeed, ape-based education included.

The somewhat redundant phrase "finite proof" is for the sake of clarity. There are no infinite proofs. Complete rigor is not humanly possible, because arbitrary assumptions proliferate at ever step in the process of any (apparent) proof. Science, like logic, must therefore be incomplete...

Well, for any finite proof, there are parts included without explicitly conforming to rigor of any sort. They're just assumed, yet the scientific method requires a logical sequence of evidence where every link in the chain is experimentally justified: a practical impossibility.

Perhaps you can furnish a few examples of specific species related through the process to which you refer, to make more precise commentary possible. Thanks.

Science must rest on unscientific premises. To say it's alright or unavoidable for this to happen does not remove the inconsistency.