stevebee92653 wrote:The stuff you have so innocently relayed to me is stuff that someone told you, not observed/tested science.
Nope, wrong. In my last reply to you I dealt with the distinction between knowledge and dogma, where knowledge is information that is secured and supported by evidences and where dogma is made up shit by self-serving, self-appoint authorities. You obviously didn't understand what I was saying because the upshot of my formulation of scepticism means that I don't have to accept what other people tell me
just because they tell me I have to.stevebee92653 wrote:It has been relayed on this thread alone dozens of times. New healthy useful tissues have never been observed forming by any human being in any organism.
And as has been pointed out to you many times in this thread, basing your arguments -- such as they are -- on both factual and semantic misapprehensions of the observed facts does not lend weight to your incredulity.
If you review what I have said in the last two replies to you you'll notice that I have qualified knowledge as information that is secured and supported by observable evidences and that resists all relevant sceptical challenges. This is important, in as much as your sceptical challenges are irrelevant to the matter at hand precisely because they proceed from a misapprehension of the facts.
You seem to think that science, or the member's who have engaged with you in this thread, have some intellectual obligation to your ideas, declarations and beliefs. I would suggest that the only obligation of honest discourse is to the truth, and in that regard miss-characterising your antagonists' arguments while failing to account honestly for their positions and ideas, simply to seemingly bolster a pre-existing belief held wholly aside from the facts, just bankrupts the discussion from the off.
stevebee92653 wrote: Which makes your stuff made up dogma, not science.
LOL
Nope. You clearly haven't even been reading what I've written in reply to you.
What I have been saying is that science has the ability to furnish us with knowledge, and I have outlined the conditions we place upon that category of information, and by which we may certify that we are, at least sometimes, entitled to
know.
Do you wish to dispute this?
Do you wish to dispute either i) that we are, at least sometimes, entitled to claim to know something-or-other about something-or-other, and/or ii) that science has the ability to furnish us with factual knowledge, and/or iii) that the conditions placed upon knowledge (which are; that it be secured and supported by evidences and resists all relevant sceptical challenges) are lacking or ill-formed in some regard?
stevebee92653 wrote:But if millions of organisms displayed the partial formation of new tissues, organs, and bio-systems, as should be the case to help prove your stuff, that still would not prove that RM and NS was the source.
Your condition/s for verifying evolution are spurious and irrelevant and follow from a fundamental, and I suspect deliberate, misreading of evolutionary theory. I further suspect that you employ such dubious discursive tactics because the demonstrable facts of evolutionary theory contradict your personal belief in a less parsimonious, and wholly unsupported, supernatural explanation. In other words, your reasoning -- as far as it can be called reasoning -- fallaciously proceeds from and towards a pre-determined conclusion. Such are the pointless parlour games of the errant dogmatist.
stevebee92653 wrote:Why those tissues were present would still be a mystery. Which should give you an idea of how far away man is from proving evolution.I hope I have gone some way to clearing up your misunderstandings about the necessary difference between knowledge and dogma. [/color]
No, you have merely confirmed the depths of your intellectual dishonesty.
by 
And there you go again, off on some stupid personal attack rant because it's easier than addressing any topic I bring up. Surprise, surprise. 
I think too critically to be swayed by people who usually have no idea what they're talking about.
