Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

Whoa! Pardon me, Mr. Science. I'll stand aside and let you take over. You and Jumbuli deserve each other.

 

Oakiefreak,
Please don't add to post after they've already been posted. It' dishonest.
Just make another post.

 

And geckopelli aka Tall Tales, what have you presented so far to prove your claim (basless assertions notwithstanding) ?

 

Look man, I'm 50 years old. I've been a science nerd since I was a kid.
If that offends you-- I guess you're still young enough to know everything!
But if you were half as smart as you think you are, you'd engage in a pertenient dialogue with other posters and learn a little something. Maybe, just maybe, teach something, too.

Same to you jumbuli55--

So far, I have not seen you dispaly a grasp of anything but your own ego. First, you warned me about oakiefreak with absolutely no provocation, and then started throwing temper tantrums.

You can't learn if you already know everything, guys.
And before for you say "back at ya"--
would that you could teach me something new. But so far I see little indication of that possibility.

 

You mean the "claim" the the theory of Evolution is indeed a valid Scientific theory?
Definition, of course. Science accepts it. The idiotic title of this thread is obtuse.

 

There seems to be a debate about what constitutes proof going on here, the teasing apart of knowledge and belief or observation and perception. Proof is a process of inspection. Language is the technology we have developed to convey meaning or knowledge, a screw driver for a screw. Name calling, has a function, to express the emotional infidelity of the speaker.

 

Idiotic is the logic whereby one asserts that the theory is scientificaly vald just because "science accepts" it.

If you mean that the body of scientists in general and evolutionary biologists in particular accept it as scientifically valid theory then I won't dispute it.

But to claim that it is in fact scientifically valid [regardless of who accepts it to be so] requires relevant evidence and plasible argument or proof before you can convince it's a scientifically valid theory.

Now will you proceed with arguing your case?
If yes, then go ahead.
If not then you have no claim to begin with, step aside and let us discuss it with those who still maintain to have.

 

Use your own nickname, Okiefreak. Stop trolling

 

I'm your huckleberry, you have yet to debase one proof I have offered, ever.

 

The user name is appropriate. You should be able to notice that my voice does not carry the same tenor as okiefreak. This is not a private conversation, we all have peers here.

 

As Okiefreak you have offered some links and quotes.
Those require some detailed look and responce.
Where you claim that the critic of Darwinism [as quoted by me] distorts sources, well , in such instance we both need to find original source and compare what is allegedly distorted to what is actually wrtten there.
There is no other way to find out who distorts what.
And finally, when you attack and dismiss the crtics merely because they hold some unferifiable beliefs of their own, well that's called ad hominem argument and doesn'tgive much credence to your own argument.

 

Have you also stayed at a Holiday Inn? We're waiting for you to show your stuff. The proof is in the pudding.

 

Many of the posts in this thread have had ad hominem arguments...

 

Come on now- I guess your opinion decides what is scientifically valid. WOW!

You really don't have an inkling, do you?
It is the nature of the Universe to Evolve. Why does that scare you?

Do you deny that reality is dynamic in nature? Do you even understand the question?

I can respect the hell out of anyone who has the courage to stand up and say "I don't know"-- but you hide from questions, from Knowledge.

What is the definition of a scientific theory? A hypothesis supported by observation.

Now, say something -- in your own words-- that shows intelligence.

Or cry and call me a liar.

 

I agree.

 

What is it you wanted to know, grasshopper?

 

It's against the rules to post under two names in the same thread.
So grow up.
All you're doing is discrediting yourself and asking to get banned.

 

I have offered no links and all quotes have been my own or of participants in this discussion. I do not attack critics for unverifiable beliefs, I challenge statements, sometimes self contradictory or sometimes outright false.

 

You, sir- who called me a liar several times - are a hyporcrit.

 

Now how did I offend you?