GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 17th, 2010 at 3:37pm:Here again is the question that any sane person would require before accepting any system of "science".
Where is your absolute evidence for evolution? I must be physical, irrefutable, have no other plausibilities, and no opinions are considered to be evidence.
If you can't answer this question, then you are not sane if you believe in evolution.
This question is called a real scientific question. It contains no bovine feculence, it cannot be refuted as THE question any sane person needs to form any acceptance of anything.
It is a truth only seeking question. Sigh, when you cant prove something wrong, you have no reason to believe it. If you can prove something wrong, then THIS is your reason for not believing it.
Here, let me give you a practical example that you can't prove wrong, no matter how much you try!
"My dog ate all of her food." Now, you don't have to beleive me, it is your choice, but you could believe me. You have no reason not to.
"My dog jumped to the moon." NOW, I hope you don't want to believe me, it is your choice, but certainly you would not believe me because of the lack of proof of dogs jumping to the moon. No dogs have ever been seen, tested, found, analyzed to jump to the moon; therefore my claim is illogical and not easily believed until more proof is provided.
See how 1 of these is believable without any further evidence, while the other is totally unbelievable until more evidence is provided.
"Humans evolved from primates". Now, you don't have to believe me, it is your choice, but you should be able to believe me............unless you have a reason not to? I wonder what that reason is? Fear or stupidity?
"Humans evolved from dinosaurs." NOw, I hope you don't want to believe me, it is your choice, but certainly you would not believe me because of the lack of proof of humans evolving from dinosaurs. There is no evidence that humans did; therefore my claim is illogical until more proof is provided.
See how 1 of these is believable since life adapts to the environment and we have evidence of primate to human evolution, via fossils and DNA...............................while the other is totally unbelievable until more evidence is provided to support the claim?
Or will you just avoid these questions to continue on your rant? Will you ever have some sort of meaningful dialogue, or will that cause you to learn you are wrong?