Quote:
Originally Posted by noodle
This sentence here just proves you don't have a scientific approach to either of these issues at hand... Most scientific minds that have anything convincing or concrete to say about evolution don't look at it being Evolution vs Creationism! I'm afraid you're the one with the "pseudo-science"  |
What you said isn't a "scientific approach" in itself, either. It's just irrelevant. I never said that evolution vs creationism defined evolution. You pulled it out of thin air. I said the debate of scientific importance between evolution and creationism was settled; evolution in that context. The point was that the details of evolution can be debated, but not how relevant a challenge is the total refutation of it in the form of creationism. Similar to empirical process of greenhouse effect related to emissions vs "no, blogs say otherwise" aka, sun, mist, volcanoes did it, aka my tin foil cap will protect me from algore propaganda, etc etc etc. Creationists try the exact same basic tactic to attack evolution by citing biased pseudoscientists, incomplete data (such as the 10 year climate graph), or just plain lies.
So, you, sir/madam can begin the "scientific approach" here whenever you desire. Because I'm afraid a few dismissive lines doesn't cut it.