Re: Ray, please define "scientific evidence"

Ray Martinez wrote:
On Jan 26, 10:03 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip

Rolf: I have been researching and writing a scientific paper, starting
my fouth year real soon.

Ray, it's abundantly that your "paper" is not scientific. It's a
religious apologetic. You've admitted yourself you don't intend to submit
it to any scientific journal, and that you don't expect to influence any
actual scientists. You stated it was for those who already believe in
creationism.

Two years in I announced conversion to fixism
or species immutability.

Which is silly, considering the evidence that shows that species are not
fixed.

This means that I had accepted microevolution
like the vast majority of Creationists. I could find no evidence,
during a two year search, supporting the claim of species
mutability----none.

This claim is false on it's face. You have been given many pieces of
evidence that species are not fixed. You refuse to accept the evidence,
but it exists nevertheless.

Whatever scientific evidence is I could not find
any that supported the claim of mutability. Maybe I don't know what
"scientific evidence" is?

Bingo!

Can you show me any scientific evidence
supporting the claim that species are immutable? I will make it easy
for you: show me ONE solitary piece----just one.

It's your job to present evidence to support your own postion. However if
you want a piece of evidence that supports "mutability", here's one:

In any population individuals' genetic make up varies.

I think it is
evolutionists who do not know what "scientific evidence" is?

Since you admit you don't know what scientific evidence is, why would you
say that?

Evidence
supporting my position: the nine great scientific authorities that
Darwin mentioned on page 310 of the "Origin"----all species
immutabilists and of course, Creationists.

Ray, that's not evidence supporting your position. It's only evidence that
scientists at one time believed in fixity of species. The fact that such a
belief was religiously motovated is a strike against you.


DJT


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Alien Genetic Manipulation of Man
    ... the available supporting evidence (including lack of refuting ... absolute lack of supporting evidence. ... other scientists simply by offering personal anecdotes of emotional ... One thing on which we all agree - the truth never comes from you. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Alien Genetic Manipulation of Man
    ... US evangelical literalist Creationism, claiming humility ... the available supporting evidence (including lack of refuting ... absolute lack of supporting evidence. ... other scientists simply by offering personal anecdotes of emotional ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Alien Genetic Manipulation of Man
    ... the available supporting evidence (including lack of refuting ... absolute lack of supporting evidence. ... other scientists simply by offering personal anecdotes of emotional ... criteria to be the truth. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
    ... > There are a lot of scientists that would disagree with you. ... Red shift is NOT evidence of an expanding universe, ... > for photons of different speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Evolution is not a fact
    ... >>> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about ... historical process of species change we call 'evolution'. ... scientists to the 'evolution model'. ...
    (talk.origins)