Why do people deny evolution?

I am a little smarter than that James. I don't need you to have mentioned those things to know that they are the basis of your position.

It's fascinating that most evolosers can't come up with better arguments than that sort of stupid ad-hominem...

What exactly is the "concept of science or the scientific community"?

And you might miss out the PR because we know all that backwards.

But if you assert "Evolution is not the reason for where we are now"...you most assuredly would bear a burden of proof.

Quote:

But if you assert "Evolution is not the reason for where we are now"...you most assuredly would bear a burden of proof.

You are wrong. I guess that's why you aren't a scientist.

Its so silly that I fully xpect him to come along one day and tell us that hes really a geneticist who teaches at Wisconsin and hes just been dickin with us by presenting the most ludicrous of "data"

I am not a scientist...and I am not wrong in what I said.

I can't see how it supports speciation.

Elaborate

Quote:

I am not a scientist...and I am not wrong in what I said.

Find me a scientific journal attempting to disprove the existence of god.

So yes, you are wrong.

In science we don't try to "disprove" things that already have no evidence in support of them. Science ignores god completely just as it ignores the toothfairy, santa claus, and others.

And why would I do that?

Quote:

And why would I do that?

Because you just said that burden of proof falls on someone whom says evolution does not happen, which is not the case.

You are very ignorant for someone of your seasoned years.

I should find you "a scientific journal attempting to disprove the existence of god" because the burden of proof falls on someone who says evolution does not happen???

Who is saying that?

Quote:

I should find you "a scientific journal attempting to disprove the existence of god" because the burden of proof falls on someone who says evolution does not happen???

Who is saying that?

You (foolishly) told Neo that burden of proof would fall on him to disprove evolution if he said "evolution doesn't exist" in an argument.

I'm telling you no it would not.

The burden of proof would fall upon me (and others here) to prove to him that it DOES happen, which we have provided evidence of.

I don't think that was exactly what happened...but I will say this: If Neo asserted that evolution doesn't exist...the burden of proof of that statement WOULD fall on him.

If he makes an assertion...the burden of proof for the assertion falls on him...and on no one else. If you, or anyone else, wants to show him he is wrong...you can do so. But the onus for the proof falls on him.

Quote:

I don't think that was exactly what happened...but I will say this: If Neo asserted that evolution doesn't exist...the burden of proof of that statement WOULD fall on him.

No, it does not.

Quote:

If he makes an assertion...the burden of proof for the assertion falls on him...and on no one else. If you, or anyone else, wants to show him he is wrong...you can do so. But the onus for the proof falls on him.

You are incorrect. You clearly don't know what you're talking about (you've stated before you don't know much about science and are not a scientist).

Sorry Frank but Jimmy is right.

Take science out of it, and use your "law of debates." The thread started with what has to be considered an assertion that evolution is a fact, and therefore it is his assertion to prove.

Let's say you start a thread with an assertion that all conservatives are a plague upon the earth and I then assert you are not only wrong but full of crap. Am I, by your "Law of Debate" required to prove both assertions?