Evolution is a valid scientific theory

You are right, it's far from complete. There is no direct analogy.
It would be a lot more reasonable to expect Toyota LE to evolve into SE on it's own, by random chance and natural selection, than to expect homo sapience to evolve out of primitive single cell through same mechanics.

Why such a rush? Explanations are in order instead.

Right, but we still think the premise is correct, don't we?

How about HUbble telescope pictures doctored to fit perception that entire Universe rotates around Earth , would be so much fun, like Darwinism is

Darwinists = Evolutionists. There is no fundamental difference.

Yes! May Darwinists read and think about it !

"Ardi" is some name that entered the mind of whoever named it.
What they discovered is certain specie of ape family.
That's all they really discovered.
The rest is speculation.

I can "discover" a gas stove tomorrow and write lots of amusing stories about it's relation to vehicles. Only it won't have any scientific value to it.

Yeah, tons of it. No, wait,MOUNTAINS of it ! LOL
Why don't you show some at least?

Who isn't ?
Just because I can't fly out of Milky Way doesn't mean I am not curious about what's going on out there in other Galaxies.

Do you have the evidence for the opposite?

Very well! Why don't you prove it then? Why not show all that hard core evidence and make plausible argument to settle this once and for all?

:cheers2:

 

I see these posts and I have lots of ideas.

 

Perhaps like your founding fraudster Darwin did

 

I thought the jury was still out on origins.

 

Anyone still wants to argue in favor of Darwinism?

 

Ok, I will go now

But remember, even if I quit arguing this subject (since it doesn't pay my bills ) it won't mean Darwinists got it right.

 

I didn't work much yesterday.

 

I don't believe it. Is it really over? Will the pain really stop now? I'm game for discussing some of the points geckopelli raised a little more, as long as we can get off the moronic proving the New Synthesis from scratch, who's the real troll, could aliens tell if automobiles evolved from gas stoves kick which is now on its third iteration.

 

----

 

I think you're being deliberately distant-- but , yes.

 

-----

 

Your dreams are Unique.

Did you know that Robert Goodyear learned how to Vulcanize rubber in a Dream?

Maybe you're right-- but we'll never know, since you're ashamed to tell us what you Dream of.

So we'll have to stick with theory. Evolution it is-- for lack of insight into another possibility. It takes a Newton or Eienstein or Heinsberg to make a break thru.

We'll just have to muddle along, waiting for the next Emergent Genius.

 

I have a documentary to prove that Munchausen rode a cannonball !
Watch the trailer here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuqBKiKycbA

 

It was Charles, not Robert Goodyear. And he didn't learn it in dream but worked relentlessly, experimenting with rubber for years before he achieved his goal.

I am a Great Genius on my own merit, but that's irrelevant here.

I have never set out to invent an alternative theory to explain mechanism for evolutionary processes.
Unlike hoax perpetrators I honestly admit not to know how macroevolutionary speciation occurs.


It is Darwinists who claim to know the process and call it a "scientifically valid" explanation.
Now why don't they leave all that useless digression aside and prove the claim if they insist to have one?
Either that or they have no claim to begin with.

Simple as that.

 

You lack understanding.

Period.

 

One of the main reasons they don't is that there are no Darwinists. Darwinism is a figment of Creationist and ID minds. Another reasons is that believers in the scientific New Sythesis have proven their case already, to the satisfaction of the scientific community. The proof lies in thousands of volumes of peer reviewed articles in scientific journals, or in highly acclaimed books by reputable publishers. No further proof is necessary. Since the New Synthesis proponents have made a prima facie case, the burden now shifts to the disbelievers in evolution to prove by at least a preponderance of the evidence, that it isn't valid.

 

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise.

An inverse ad hominem argument praises a source in order to add support for that source's argument or claim.
~From Wikipedia


============================================================

"Darwinism is a term used for various movements or concepts related to ideas of transmutation of species or evolution.....In modern usage, particularly in the United States, Darwinism is often used by creationists..."

It's true that Creationists and ID advocates call Darwinists what they are - Darwinists.
Ironically (or may be not), it's Darwinists themselves who call themselves anythigng but who they are.

Now, am I to stop calling Darwinist a Darwinist, simply because Creationists , ID people and whoever else call them that as well?

I certainly will not.

What do you yourself have but belief that it is proven already?

Your individual faith in it is not a proof of it's scientific validity. You are free to exercisie freedom of religious expression but it has nothing to do with science and scientific validity of the claim.

That the theory satisfies "scientific community" tells me nothing about it's actual scientific validity when I find too many inconsitencies and fallacies in it to be so.

Ptolemaic astronomy satisfied scientific communities of it's time for nearly two millenias, even after it was obvious to be in error.
Satisfaction of Scientific community didn't make it correct though.

Didn't we hear it hundreds of times in this and some other threads already?

"It is proven because it's proven and since there is a mountain of evidence that has already proven it to be so there is no way I am going to present any evidence or plausible argument to prove my own assertion that it's a scientifically valid theory"..

Guess what? It is not so just because you or anybody says so.

Why even bother to repeat the same "it's proven because it's proven ergo it's proven" mantra, as if it was something new?

Don't spin.

You made Positive Assertion. I Doubted it.

If I Doubt your Positive Assertion it is not my obligation to prove anything.
It is YOUR obligation to prove that you have valid Positive Assertion.

And speaking of a "prima facie" what case did you make so far, except repeating the same mantra we heard thousand times already which only proves that you have nothing to back up the Positive Assertion you made in the first place?

 

It's true that Creationists and ID advocates call believers in the New Synthesis what they're not--"Darwinists". We've explained it to you often enough why that term is inappropriate. Only a troll would remain unconvinced.

No, Jumbuli, you miss (intentionally or mistakenly) the point once again. The point is not that Creationists call evolutionists Darwinists, so you shouldn't for that reason. The point is that it's a propaganda ploy, you're been told about it, and you continue to do it. Why? For the same reason Creationists do it. To distort the argument.

Why do you repeat your mantra "Darwinism, Darwinism, Darwinism, Muchausen over and over as if it was something new? Try the Hail Mary or the Hare Krishna. Give us some relief.

I did. We all did. We laid it all out for you. Go back and read it. If you can't understand it, there's nothing that can be done for you, except possibly a lobotomy. We won. You lost. NannyNannyNanny. Your non-geniushood is laid bare for all to see.

 

Darwinist is a Darwinist no matter who calls Darwinist a Darwinist. This is undisputable.

But, it's not essential here. I don't want to give you a conventional excuse to shift the point of the argument towards what the followers of religious theory of evolution must be called.

Call it what you want, just prove it's scientifically valid theory (as you are obliged to).

See above.

See above

This is a tremendous lie, unless you copy-paste or put a link to the post where you or anyone has done what you claim has already been done (proving the claim that whatever you call the Tall Tale story you believe in is a scientifically valid theory).

This may qualify you for advanced placement in kindergarten but it does nothing to prove your point