Joined: May 2006
|Quote (GCT @ Feb. 18 2007,07:59)|
| Ah, I see. You've concluded that the conclusions are flimsy, and no matter how much confirmatory evidence is found, you will continue to contend that the conclusions are still flimsy. So, it doesn't matter how many times the theory turns out to be right. You've already decided that it isn't right, so all those confirmations of the theory are therefore "theory-laden" and therefore wrong. Nice one.|
Yup. Your observation, GCT, is remarkably similar to my observation and objection that I had noted earlier in the thread:
|Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2007,06:30)|
|Mr. Hunter, you have a very nice circular scheme going on here to sell your snake oil, congratulations.|
Let's examine it:
1. You arrive and say
|How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental wolves?|
2. You steadfastly refuse to state what SPECIFIC characters you are referring to and wish to compare to pentadactyly. (I challenge you to cite where you have mentioned any specific characters in thylacines/wolves).
Instead, you point to cartoon images and say "see?"
3. When you are offered paleontological, genetic and comparative anatomy data, you reject it, claiming that it is "theory-laden" and somehow this negates the data itself.
4. Having effectively denied the existence of evidence supporting common inheritance of structural ( pentadactyl) characters, you then;
5. Repeat #1.
Very cute, sir!
Interesting how many unsupported premises Mr. hunter uses...and how he consistently avoids dealing with his circular approaches.
And how he consistently avoids describing his claimed theory that is "ignored" by evolutionists in accounting for what we observe.
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism