Whew....lemme see if I can respond to these...
If I don't know what evolution is,then you are prone to argue with
people for no good reason.
Yes, we are beginning to feel that way..
Why not tell us why your so called science has to borrow from so
many other fields like medicine,ect.....
Why can't it carry any weight on it's own?
After reading that a few times, I have no idea what you are talking about. All sciences are interelated to an extend. The fundamentals behind them are the scientific method, mathematics, and the rules of chemistry and physics.
If evolution was not so dependent on the same fundamentals that medicine was, I would agree with you that it is weak. However, quite to the contrary evolution depends very much on the same fundamentals as medicine.
What was your point?
The odd thing is,is that you keep changing what you mean by
evolution so much,and thats a very old trick,and I'm very much
aware of it.
I have done nothing of the sort. I actually gave the the opportunity to define it for me, so there wouldn't be any questions. If you would like me to articulate exactly what I believe, please ask and I will do so, so there will be no confusion.
Repeatedly you always go back to insulting my writing and my
English,yet this is not what the debate is about.
While it does make me cringe sometimes, I have done no such thing. When I asked to you articulate in your own words I simply meant that I would like to see you state my position.
Yes it is. And in a debate you MUST be able to state your oppositions position.
If you do not understand my beliefs, nor try to understand them, then you have violated a primary rule of honest debate.
I showed you I understand what you believe, but you have yet to demonstrate that you can do the same.
So now you are against Creationist Scientists?
What difference would it make if science doesn't change?
None. Secular scientists are more prone to having their
own biased opinions and agenda's.
Your like a flea on a hot plate the way you move around....
I am not against creationist scientists per se, but I question many of the scientific conclusions they reach.
The reason why I asked goes back to my primary question on that post. Do you believe those creationists scientists you post because of the soundness of their science, or because the conclusion they reach agrees with your theology.
Unless you can discuss their methods and assumptions SCIENTIFICALLY, then you should not proport to use their information.