Didn’t you understand that "voting for a politician" was an example? Didn’t I tell you that you never entirely agree with someone whether its politics, science, philosophy or anything? Don’t you agree? Didn’t I explain that Gould himself acknowledged that his adapted view of evolution is not...
First, don’t move the goal posts. You claimed that I was previously advocating for the EES and I explained to you that I never did. Let's move on.
Second, you moved the argument to a new goal that the EES being based on evolutionary principles has nothing to do with the central assumptions of...
Top scientists did. See #781
The real question is, why people deny the obvious?
Simply people choose to hold a specific position vs. another on the basis of its alignment with what they want to accept as true. People make their own relative reality. It’s a relative perception...
Again, it's not the EES that resulted the rejection of all the core assumptions of the Modern Synthesis and the rejection is not my claim, it’s the assertion of top scientists and it’s mainly driven by the contemporary evidence of Molecular Biology. See # 781
And I wonder how come you didn’t...
Exactly, the modern synthesis is going to be abandoned. It’s simply because as scientists gained more knowledge, they became cognizant of the fact that the MS contradicts contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of false assumptions. IOW, the theory is false.
If the modern synthesis is...
Again, I’m not advocating for the extended evolutionary synthesis, the EES is not a widespread view. The widespread view is the fact that the ToE (modern synthesis) has failed and should be replaced. See #781 and #911.
Both the modern synthesis and the EES emerged on the basis of an assumed...
I never claimed it’s a complete breakdown of science. It’s a breakdown of the modern synthesis.
And an argument against the ToE is not an attack on science, after all, the ToE really belongs to the “Geisteswissenschaften” as stated by the Darwin of the 20th century Ernst Walter Mayr, see # 331...
False, it’s merely your wish or blind belief in an obsolete theory. The latest 21st century science disproved all the central assumptions of the modern synthesis (neo-darwinism). No exception. See # 753 & 781.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 40 | Religious Forums
Denis Noble said,” All these...
How many times should I repeat that my religious views have nothing to do with disproving the central assumptions of the modern synthesis? Why is that so difficult to understand? See # 781.
And again NO, disproving the MS doesn’t render my religious view a winner by default. I said that...
The religion of Islam acknowledged this very principle that “science is the best means we have to explain the Work of God” and it was the driving force that gave rise to the Islamic golden age and the emergence of modern science.
Below is a copy of my post # 1452
Islam was the driving force...
Absolutely, science is the best means we have to explain the Work of God.
The core argument is about whether life and the entire universe are manifestations of purpose/design or mere products of randomness. It’s really amazing that you concluded your long post # 2174 with this truthful...
You never surprise me; I don't really expect anything else. You can never rationally address an argument and can do nothing but fallacious claims as a typical escape tactic. My religious view has nothing to do with the fact that all central assumptions of the modern synthesis are false. It’s not...
this question was intended to clarify the general idea that if a living organism is not equipped with what it needs to survive from day one, it will simply not survive till day two. It will not have a million year to somehow get what it needs to survive. If it doesn’t survive, it definitely...
didn’t we discuss the difference between data and evidence before in #331? I thought we were done with this discussion long time ago but here we are back to square one. You’re still very confused.
Here it is. Step by step. Please read slowly and make an effort to understand what you read.
Data...
You don’t rely on mere denial like others and try to address the details of the argument, I appreciate that, but you are confused. Your strong bias is clouding your vision. I’ll explain again, but in case you do get clear on my point, please don’t continue to argue for the sake of argument or...
Nonsense, Let’s assume you elected a president or a politician, do you necessarily have to agree with everything he does? If you disagree with some of his actions for good reasons, is that cherry picking?
You never entirely agree with someone, whether it’s science, politics, philosophy, or...
It’s ironic that the person who can write that long fallacious claims cannot write a single word to address the specific argument addressed to him. The question about "the transitional forms from tiktaalik to homo sapiens?" was addressed to you in my post #2132. My other question in #2137...