Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

Define "involved" and "by itself".Are you happy with, for example, the proposition that rain falls by itself? Would you say that God was involved or not involved in the process?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No. Mainly because you apparently have no idea what "assumption" means.

So far as I know, there is one and only one assumption of science --- that we can find out about the world by looking at it.The things that Peg lists as assumptions are certainly not assumptions.

Scientists think you're wrong.This is because they know about science, and (as the immense ignorance displayed throughout your post reveals) you don't.

If you would care to argue for your absurd fantasy, then I shall point out the flaws in your argument. If, on the other hand, you just want us to take your word for it, then there is nothing to be said except that on the subject of biology it would obviously be idiotic to take your word for anything.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The flaw is that it's not an argument. It's an assertion --- and an assertion made by someone who is clearly singularly unqualified to make assertions about science.

No. Any forum member is qualified to point out that you are in breach of rule 4. You provided neither logic nor reasoning, but a fantasy unsupported by either. Unable to beat it? I'm unable to find it. You are, of course, not telling the truth. And since you are being untruthful about what I have written on this very thread, I hardly know whom you can hope to deceive. I live in the USA, the constitution of which guarantees my right to point out that unsupported assertions are unsupported assertions. It's called "freedom of speech", you may have heard of it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It's funny that you should have "heard" that, since it was not remotely like anything I said.Still, given how grotesquely you've managed to misunderstand Darwin, I suppose it's not that surprising.