Evolutionist's.....care to discuss?

[.blank cd]

I didnt say the man was 100% guilty, i said he is on trial. Yes it would be biased and unfair.

You can't be less than 100% guilty. You're guilty or you're not guilty. If the man wasn't guilty then there would be reason to believe the jury was biased.

Yes an experiment that was based on a theory of what the atmosphere could have been....thats not empiricle evidence and is there for invalid.

Miller used environment X, performed the test and it was conclusive. Someone else said it could have been environment Y, they tested it, it was inconclusive. Others said it could have been environment Z, A, B, C, whatever. No scientists have ever ruled out the first environment X.


Once again you present evolution as some "universal" fact.[/quote]Where did I say evolution was a universal fact? I just looked through the whole thread and no where did I say that. I just said evolution only explained ONE thing. You are trying to argue that it IS universal.

True. But you and other "evolutionists" pass on a theory as fact that does not even explain where it originated.

Thats because Abiogenisis and evolution are two different theories of how and why

Once again like every other proponent of evolution you pick and choose which issues to dismiss and which to continue discussing. I see this tactic all the time, its called politics. Science is supposed to present itself as fallible, yet every single evolutionist, seeks only to prove themselves right.

You mean search for correct answers

In my mind that is biased and disqualifies the theory and men behind it due to the fact that they contradict the very purpose of science and the scientific method.

No. No it doesn't