Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

It's nothing but empty word, baseless assertion unless you prove through clear and convincing argument that it is indeed so (NOTE:I am not asking anyone to take video camera, jump into the time-machine, travel 600 million years back and film all processes onward in slow motion and then do video presentation. If you thought that this is what I asked for then you have serious comprehension problems and I am afraid it is not something I can fix ).

Of course it is, see above.

Science has seen nothing but tiny bits of evidence which it then arbitrarily interprets to fit the original and already outdated theory of Darwin. Where is the logic and clear cut argument in support of inferences made? Where is the data that would support such inferences and possibility of suggested outcomes in the grand scale?
At least admit that you have no clue about the theory and suspend your judgement , if not then you will be ridiculed mercilessly, I can guarantee you that.

:cheers2:

 

Let us grant the supposition that proof may be obtained by clear and convincing argument. To be self satisfied and convicted to ones own conclusions and point to that as proof is not sufficient. Proof requires independently substantiated testing or common voice.

 

What did one theologian say to another?

You believe me right?

 

That's right. be it Darwinists or Christians, both are theologians.
At least Christians admit it to be so while Darwinists have audacity to claim that their assumptions are based on Science.

 

If they are not based on science what are they based on?

 

In your case I would say it's definitely Religious Faith, and so is the case with many others who keep arguing with me here and on other threads without producing any shred of evidence and plausible argument required to justify an assertion that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is indeed a Scientifically Valid theory.

 

Can you define what you believe the definition of theory is?

 

Shall we say the same then of your claim to be a genius?

 

I will not answer your question here because it's irrelevant to subject matter of discussion.

I may open a new thread in future titled "I am a Great Genius and Here is Why" where i will assert that I am a great genius, clearly explain why I think so and give people an opportunity to challenge me, attempt to prove that I am not who I claim to be and ask me all relevant questions, but we will leave it until then.

 

I only have one inquiry about this thread. Why is it under the atheist/agnostic sub-forum? Evolution has nothing to do with atheism or agnosticism.

 

Greatness and genius rarely need to announce themselves, just a thought.

 

I am truly on the edge of my seat.

 

Greatness and genius constantly and inevitably manifest itself, wherever they are.

But let's not change the subject of this thread (unless your sole goal is digression).

Back to the topic:

Who is next to assert that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a Scientifically Valid theory? Anyone ?

 

It does seem a bit frayed doesn't it. The question though is about relative intelligence.

 

For all concerned:

This is not "Do you think less of theists intelligence" thread.

This is "Evolution is not a valid scientific theory" thread.

 

I did already address this and did so repeatedly, including on the second page of this very same thread,
Why don't you people read what I write but instead repeat the same question every other page of the thread ?


All it takes to convince me that the theory is scientifically valid is some relevant evidence and plausible argument to support it.

Take Probability Theory, for instance.
That theory is a pure abstraction, calculated and represented by numbers.
However, there is a strong evidence for it (if you roll dice all day long and take a note of all combinations, the actual sequence of those random events will correspond well with statistical patterns that you can calculate using the mathematical formula).

Little more ambiguous is the Big Bang theory, and frankly I am somewhat sceptical of it , however it does work in terms of math (which ,if not directly representative of manifestations of matter still corresponds well with an actual knowledge about the behavior of same) and accounts for events up to the Plank epoch, beyond which all formulas collapse and stop producing meaningful numbers.
Despite it's shortcomings I consider Big Bang theory to be scientifically valid theory (it is far fetched theory but not entirely improbable or impossible, therefore I consider it to be scientifically valid theory).

It is not so with Darwin's theory about origins of species. The fallacy of it becomes evident the very first instant you examine it with critical mind. I have yet to see anyone who would venture to methodically prove it's scientific validity while addressing all the reasonable critisism aimed against it's fundamental premises.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=381132&page=2

Post # 14

 

I'd like to see this evidence that you speak of.

 

In the context of who wins the argument. Functionally it is a contest of mental agility. Note the challenge, "who's next". So strict adherence to subject tends to suffer from time to time.

 

Yes, indeed, that's why I try to bring it back to the topic.

 

Me too, only it doesn't seem to be forthcoming