>1. Yes we know they're scrambling for evidence.
Oh yes, why not ignore the fact that they HAVE evidence while at the same time implying that they're "scrambling". Very good debate tactic. Unfortunately it means nothing.
>2. Please tell us other areas of science that are taught as fact, but have
>no evidence behind them.
Excellent implying that evolution has no evidence. Nice try.
In fact, I know of no "areas" of science that are taught "as fact" at all. Concepts and theories are taught, supported BY facts.
Facts = observances of the natural world
Theories = sets of abstract rules that explain the facts that are seen
>1. You are confused again. The lack of evidence is what supports my
>conclusion so my conclusion is true.
Wow. "You're confused". Great rebuttal.
I'm sorry, but the "lack of evidence" you speak of is simply not true. The evidence is there, you simply choose to ignore it or discard it so you can believe in a Biblical precept.
If you're simply going to say "it's not there, it's not there", then debating with you is pointless.
>2. Why don't you share with us the evidence of mutations building a
>novel and more complex trait. Be specific and we'll go through it with you.
I personally am not qualified to share the details of mutations. What I can do is point you to research that has been done, but I'm imagining you've looked at most of it and made your own alternate conclusion. I've seen the long threads on ambulocetus and others. Even those are over my head in terms of the details. That's a pointless challenge, I'm not going to waste my time, because it's been demonstrated to you time and time again.
>1. How silly of us to ask you for the details of how mutations build novel and
>more complex traits. Are we to assume that, if you claim they do, they just
>do and that's it?
Asking the question is no problem at all, in fact it's an excellent question. The field of "evolutionary development" is the field that will answer this question for you.
Simply because I CLAIM that they do doesn't mean they do. My conclusions are based on the ToE, and I fully expect the questions you pose to be answered in sufficient detail by the ToE. They will NEVER be answered in sufficient detail by "goddidit". Sorry.
>2. Since you believe evolutionists understand how evolution works, then why
>are you guys having an impossible time at articulating it?
You are actively ignoring everything except this particular example you have given. Your example is not the only example of how evolution works. There are many examples that show how it works and works well - you simply choose to ignore them. "Willfully ignorant", one might say?.
>1. When you guys figure it out, why don't you then teach it as fact. Until then,
>it's your religion and should not be confused as fact.
When the details of the evolution of the auditory system become clear, then it will be taught as part of the theory. I know of no textbook that is currently answering the details of the question you pose. What it IS teaching is the theory explaining the concept of *how it happened*. The details will be forthcoming from the evo-devo field. It's simple.
Simply because it can't be explained in the detail you expect does by NO means throw the whole ToE out the window.
>2. The "lack of particular knowledge about that process" means that you don't >know how or IF it works the way you assume it to work (evolution), thus a
>generality cannot be assertained.
You're moving the goalposts. You asked for details about which genes changed. That is not known. The METHOD by which the auditory system evolved IS known.
The "generality" you speak of has been "ascertained" by other examples. One doesn't need to be so specific to understand the process.
>"How interesting that you or John always bring it back there, when the answer >could STILL be purely naturalistic:
>1. Let us know if that time comes.
I'm sure that you'll find out as soon as we do, and you'll either ignore it or attempt to refute it so you can keep believing the "goddidit" theory so you can be comfortable in your existence.
>2. Until then, we will keep praying that God will open your eyes.
Oh, he already has, my dear. He already has.
>1. Again, the burden of proof is on evolutionists as they are the ones that
>claim it and teach it as fact.
Stop twisting terms. Facts are taught as facts. Theories are taught as theories. Certainly the burden of proof is on working scientists, and I'm telling you, they're working on these very things you speak of. When they discover the details you seek, I'll bet dollar-for-dollar you'll have to ignore it.
>2. If evolutionists don't know how it occurs, why did they devise a process
>and teach it as legitimate science?
Because the process explains how things can develop and change over time. It's a fantastically elegant process. Not knowing all the specific details about the evolution of every biological system does not mean that that's not how it happened.
Here's the ting: theories are not made based on the gathering of every iota of evidence possible. Theories make PREDICTIONS, that is their power. What was seen in nature prompted Darwin to come up with the concept that explained what he saw. Darwin was not required to know every detail about every system in order to publish his theory. What was found was that his theory PREDICTED many of the things seen in nature since then, especially in genetics, that he COULDN'T have known. It's funny that the changes seen in genetics are explained very well by the theory.
Teaching the THEORY is the power. Teaching the details is like, well, like the old proverb: "give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. teach him how to fish and he'll eat forever." Facts are the details. The THEORY is where the power is to see the facts for what they are and what they MEAN, which is the important thing.
>2. His famous flies are still flies. Why do you suppose that is?
Because the ToE doesn't predict that an animal would change an ORDER. They will change SPECIES.
Nobody expects an animal of order Diptera to change to another order. That's silly.
Let me guess, a fly would be a Biblical "kind", too?
>1. Wonderful! Why don't you contact everyone and have all curriculum
>reclassify evolution to 'a hypothesis, at best.'
Because evolution can and has been tested over the past 150 years, it has lots of evidence that supports it, and requires no "supernatural" explanation. That's why.
>2. You conveniently forgot the rest of my comment:
Because it was silly. But to humor you, here you go:
>Because sonoluminescence cannot be explained, the logic in the above would
>dictate that you MUST come up with a "practical" explanation. Think one up
>and then we'll teach it as fact.
That's why the research program exists, silly! They're there to figure it out! It looks like a fascinatingly cool field.
Again, you misunderstand the terms.
The FACT is that sound can change to light in the right circumstances. There currently is no THEORY to explain it. That's what they're working on. Demonstrate the fact, sure - because it happens in nature. The research is there to discover the *explanation* - the *theory* - behind why it happens. It's pretty simple.
>This is the very philosophy behind the theory of evolution.
No it's not.
The ToE exists. It explains what is seen in nature.
There is no "theory of sonoluminescence".