Evolution is a valid scientific theory

Of course it's not your obligation to do anything as long as you don't mind your positive assertion being just as credible as mine here http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=382500&f=85

:cheers2:

 

Evolution is valid scientific fact...

 

Thanks you! Finally someone who's on the evolution side.

 

Finally??????

Where have you been?

 

Please prove it actually is so.

I can say anything is valid scientific fact , including this http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=382500&f=85
It takes more than 50 other posters like geckopelli simply affirming "it is" to prove that it really is a valid scientific theory.

 

Gee,
maybe the SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT get's to make that descion, not some creationist hypocrite.

 

Scientific Establishment doesn't decide how Nature operates.
They can merely come to an agreement as to what they think the mechanism is.
But just because they think so doesn't meant it is so. Especially in light of so many inconsistencies and fallacies as one finds the moment critical analysis is applied to the fundamental premis of the theory and facts at hand.

Scientific Establishment for 2 millenias maintained that the Earth was center of the Universe. But did it force the whole Universe to turn around Earth?

 

Neither is nature determinant of scientific theory.

 

If the theory ,which claims to explain certain natural phenomena, is inconsistent with evidence and lacks plausibe argument to back it up then by definition such theory ceases to be scientifically valid .

 

Theory does not claim to explain, it seeks to explain.

 

Wordplay is a mere digression but I will adjust so you scratch your head a little more to come up with another nonsence comment:

If the theory ,which seeks to explain certain natural phenomena, is inconsistent with evidence and lacks plausibe argument to back it up then by definition such theory ceases to be scientifically valid .

 

Very well?

 

That's an irrelevant and meaningless question.

 

As was then, the statement.

 

If you believe that trolling proves that the darwinism is a scientifically valid theory, then keep on doing it.
But your acting like a troll doesn't convince me you have anything credible to support your claim.

 

Calling me a troll simply makes me question your faculties of observation.

 

Keep questioning my faculties of observation all you want but you miss the point which is: darwinism can not be accepted by any reasonable mind as scientifically valid theory unless it is proven to be so.

 

Proven in this case refers to the mind accepting the information being offered.
Reasonableness is an uncalibrated measure.

 

Darwinism doesn't exist, and that's been proven! The New Synthesis exists, and its been proven to be scientific. Pay attention!

 

Yeah, right, New Synthesis is anything but Darwinism, it's fundamental premises have nothing to do with Darwin

Anyway, what is it you have proven other than repeating your "it's proven because it's proven ergo it's proven" mantra?
Guess what? Just because you say so doesn't make it so!
You have to present relevant evidence and plausible argument to back up your assertion or else your assertion is just as valid as one I posted here http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=382500