Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

I assumed he was thinking of the cosmological constant, because my claim is that Einstein shown that light could be influenced, changed, by gravity, that it was not a constant.I have quote the rest of your post which only states ad hominem things against the person, in an attempt to make the claimant look silly, that his claims can be rejected, which is an uneccesary and dishonest course of action.If you are asking how much I know about physics - I can tell you already, very little, because physics has very little to do with my claims. You have to learn to discern as to read between the lines.The Einstein exampls is ONLY an example of a conditional implication. The merit of my claims are questionable ONLY IF you logically show that I am incorrect about the things I said, which do matter - the tollens falsification and the confirmation. You see, as a reasonable thinker of reason, a rational person, I can't say that I value the above ad hominem statement which bares no relevance to my ideas concerning science and logic.If you thought I was trying to show a scientific knowledge of physics, I can only tell the truth, I was not. I was only using my favourite real-time example of an implication.

No offense Percy, but I am not in the least in a fervor. Infact I am just enjoying putting some of my ideas across.You and the others haven't really give me anything to chew on. As far as I am aware, you agree with me about the logical rules in science, that I was correct, and you now somehow think I am touched in the head because I stated that Einstein predicted that the star would shift position at the eclipse.Am I missing something?

Not really. I think it's pretty clear. You would sure like to portray me as an incoherent oddball creationist I am sure, but unforunately I'm too clever to fall for it or listen to it.Admittedly I am not half as good at articulating things as I am thinking but it seems that short of using hand puppets, I cannot relate to you any clearer the meaning of my thoughts.I don't fall for the behaviour of you guys. I am wise to it, after watching it happen to people like Buz. It goes like this;1. The creationist is unitelligible (even if a ten year old could understand him)
2. The creationist is starting to say things I don't like.
3. It is time to get the ad-hominem weaponry out. We shall attack either his lack of credential (of which we have few), and we shall do our best to make the readers understand that this person is slowly losing his rag and his mind.Are these things supposed to convince me to perhaps heed your sayings, or are they meant for me to compound my belief in your religious ideological position?Why you have ever bothered to respond to my messages I don't know. It's like watching a monkey trying to play chess.

Actually I only thought you were confusing what was meant. I don't think the cosmological constant is light.A knowledge of physics wasn't the point of the conditional implication, which was to show how a confirming evidence is represented as the consequent.Do you actually realize that I was talking about logic in relation to science?You do realize that if I use daisy the pig for an analogy, I don't claim to have a great knowledge of farming? It's just an example.My goodness me, you have worked yourself up haven't you. Oh ofcourse. Like everybody else I know far less than I don't know. But then, I don't recall making a claim that I am omniscient.Always I am learning. But I am afraid this doesn't lead me to have an evolutionary ideology.

I think, rather predictably,it's become, now all jump on the Christian thread.I think it's futile to continue at this stage. Why when I give my views it leads to a deluge of evolutionists thinking I have time to answer innumerable requests I'll never know. Did you guys break buzsaw or something? Hasn't he been around this year or something?

A quick response.It's usually a big error that creationists are ignorant, and that this lack of knowledge of evolution, correlates.Th fact is - it's a compositional illusion. That means - I do not "reject" the knowledge and hypothetics of evolution, only the final conclusions, that we stemmed from a common ancestor - even every organism.With the same facts of mutations, NS, and most of the scientific work put into evolution, you can accept an adaptation of organisms.Usually evolutionists will say; "where is the barrier to mutations and selection", but logically it's like saying; Where is the barriers to that completely paralyzed person?That is to say - first you have to prove that a man can jump a hurdle, before I have to prove there is a hurdle.The fact is that the evidence does not show that there should CERTAINLY follow that a phylogenetic tree-of-life existed, and that all organisms down the lineage eventually stemmed from a simpler ancestor.Logically, you can shout at mikey - you can ban him, you can dishonestly try and make a show out of an honest person, with you fantastic relative morality that goes out of the proverbial window, but alas, you will be unable to infer, soundly, that the facts show that macro-evolution happened.They simply and clearly do not.Even a base study of DNA, and how the information is synthesized, processed, etc... does not correlate with a macro-evolution. The designs are there, and were there, even in the cambrian, and the fossils show what should follow given organisms generally stay the same.There. You now know, please no more questions. Sheesh. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

No - I am not.(Now tell me, what did that exchange actually prove? Am - am not - am - am not.)I am sure you believe it my friend, but tire me no more. Go in peace

You request I learn base logic.So I was wrong when I said the following is fallacious?X = Z therefore Z = X.Was I wrong about the modus ponen/tollens? Was I wrong about induction, and the weakness of evidence?(Are you understanding my post thus far, I can use smaller words if you wish. I can only try my best.)

Those were ideas from a creationist. Creation Worldview Ministries.I am not dogmatic about those things, but by all means think what you will of me old bud.Would it mean I was any less mike if I believed in a young earth rather than an old one?nwr, my old friend, am I less simply for such a thing that doesn't really matter?

The problem is your maths.You missed the it about composition. The units can be true without the whole being true.For example, If I add 3 and 3 and 3 it doesn't mean the answer must have a 3 in it.Lots of the work of evolutionists, deals with provable facts I agree with, such as an isolated population leading to change.But I am not convinced that mutations and NS actually change designs. I think they can dramatically alter designs that are already there.Bye guys.