I noticed that it became more of an Us vs Them type thread pretty quickly. It's disappointing to me because I thought both "sides" had more respect for the other than that, especially on this forum. Like Monte stated, yeah, I tend to believe it's more of a political battle of sorts, rather than an actual effort to prove their stance.

I thought I was the only one on this forum that believes in God. I am happy to be mistaken.

comic gold sir, comic gold..."stay away from places that boast of job placement"

I'll have to keep an eye on that rascal...

The Second Law exists. Isolated systems do not. Paradox? I think not.

Thanks very much!

Always the same offenders it seems.

Hate to admit it, but I remember bell bottoms and the carpenters

Oh you're good.

Yes I appreciate and share those objections. The frustration comes, IMO, from the use of modus ponens arguments within the evolution paradigm as a consequence of it being accepted as science fact. By that I mean they don't require falsification evidence at this point; they've lightened the burden. An example will show why this method frustrates skeptics:

Modus ponens evidence that my pet is a cat:
All cats have paws.
Hypothesis: If it has paws, then it is a cat.
Test result: My pet has paws,
Conclusion: My pet is a cat.

Obviously I supported the possibility that I have a cat but did nothing to eliminate alternatives. What the scientific community is trying to get us to produce is a competing theory; a "dog" which also could have paws. At this point, they only know of the existence of "cats" (evolution).

When we have a competing theory, they will require a more rigid modus tollens falsification of their evidence.

Just curious, if you are a Catholic why don't you believe the Pope?

There are 26 definitions of species. Ultimately to compete with the Biblical concept of "kind" we are looking for the Biological Species Concept (BSC) to be proven possible.

As many trials that exist to demonstrate natural origins of life since 1953, that is how many more modus ponens falsifications which can be stacked into this thread. I am so thrilled that he put this up.

There is much work to do, and so little time.

Thank you, this is a very thoughtful post.

Thank you. Looks very interesting to have a job where practical problem solving is everyday life.

Yes, I would appreciate detailed advice.

rofl

Thank you!

	Originally Posted by acyckowski
	Thanks. I got a smile out of yours, as well.

	Originally Posted by acyckowski
	The thing that makes me want to pound my head against the table is that when I point out the problems with the science of Evolution, everybody is quick to jump to lump me in with the Young Earthers or Creationism, or whatever. Personally, I lean towards Intelligent Design over Evolution, but I'm not satisfied with that from a scientific perspective, either.

This is how I see things:

	Originally Posted by Cat1021
	In me experience, every debate has at least one valid point to concede from either side.

Evolution is a process that makes sense, and probably occurs a lot, and I see a lot, where it clearly happens, particularly in the ways different societies develop, and in the way people develop their views, their choices and their skills. I also see that lots of evolutionists talk about what evolution decided to do, as if evolution was an intelligent designer. So I see merits in both views.

	Originally Posted by acyckowski
	This is supposed to be the home of reason and rationality, right? When did it become unscientific to wait for preponderant evidence and non-contradiction?

It's the internet. People come here to argue, because they'd never get away with saying a lot of the things they say here, without being ridiculed or punched. It's a place where people can try to prove the things that they believe, or want to believe, that get rejected in real life, and they refuse to accept are not reasonable. So a lot of people who are on the internet, do just that, argue the things that they'd get proved wrong IRL.

	Originally Posted by acyckowski
	Thought it had the potential to be an interesting topic, but I'm backing out at this point. No sense in spending all night in a poorly-masked ambush thread.

Yup.

I am pleased to see someone who sees some of the same rationally-based problems with the theory that I do.