Pelafina

Asking for logic and evidence means that you failed to provide logic and evidence because you are religious. Calling me an ignorant troll means you are using ad hominem attacks, which is not an argument. Epic fail.

Keep your faith. I'll take reason and evidence.

Incorrect. In order to attack a theory, all I need to do is to ask you for logic and evidence. I do not need to present any alternative whatsoever. You are the one putting forth your belief in a theory. Now you either prove it, or else it is known to all that you believe in the unproven religion of evolution.

How can one thing be two different things simultaneously? Isn't the rule of philosophy, that concepts have to be logical as well as the evidence be empirical. This fails the logical test. Why is no one here catching this?

Yes I do accept that faith is an unreliable epistemology. I don't think there are gods. I don't think there are no gods. There is no proof of either. Believing in no gods is a religion because there is no proof that gods do not exist. They may exist because science does not understand physics fully. They may exist in a different dimension. They may exist in a way which our limited 5 senses cannot perceive.

Your claim that X is impossible is purely based on faith, as you offer no proof, nor logical argument, that it is impossible. If there is no proof that A is true, it does not follow that NOT A is true.

There is no proof that spiritual beings don't exist, so reason and evidence would indicate that it is very acceptable for you to practice spiritual and religious practices. Anyone who tells you otherwise is using their clouded mind to put a judgment onto you because they want you to believe as they do -- they want you to hold the same faith that they hold. Don't listen to them.

Whoever makes an assertion that something is true, has the burden of proof. You have supplied no proof. A theory is not proof. If I made an assertion that god exists, you would ignore me if I didn't present logic, reason & evidence.

Whoever makes an assertion that something is true, has the burden of proof. You have supplied no proof. If I made an assertion that god exists, you would ignore me if I didn't present logic, reason & evidence.

Of course not. I've presented logic and reason to discredit your faith-based assertions for which no empirical evidence exists.

Calling my argument incredulous is not an argument.

To adapt you need random mutations. Why was the random mutation exactly what the bird needed? Calculate the probability of that coincidence.

How come it looks like the sun goes around the earth? I guess it must be because the sun goes around the earth.

A model doesn't explain the why, it is only a reiteration of what is being observed.

Ad hominem attacks are not an argument. It is true that the theory of evolution has not been proven – if, by that term, one means established beyond any further possibility of doubt or refutation. On the other hand, neither has atomic theory, the theory of relativity, quantum theory, or indeed any other theory in science. The reason for this is that science does not deal in absolute proof, only in the balance of the evidence. To see why this is and must be true, imagine that we are scientists seeking to explain some feature of the natural world. Based on the evidence available to us, we can construct a hypothesis – an educated guess – which we offer as that explanation. If more evidence turns up that supports our hypothesis, if our hypothesis is testable and falsifiable, and if our hypothesis can be used to make predictions which turn out to be correct – if all these things are true, then our hypothesis graduates to the status of a theory and, in time, becomes accepted scientific wisdom. But how do we really know the original hypothesis is true? What if it completely misses the mark, but gives the right answers just by coincidence? Or what if it is just an approximation, giving generally correct answers while failing to capture the true reality of what is going on? How can we ever be sure that these things are not the case? The answer is, of course, that we cannot know this. This is why no scientific theory, including evolution, is ever considered to be proven. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/has-evolution-been-proven/#sthash.L49Q3wIi.dpuf

It is true that the theory of evolution has not been proven – if, by that term, one means established beyond any further possibility of doubt or refutation. On the other hand, neither has atomic theory, the theory of relativity, quantum theory, or indeed any other theory in science. The reason for this is that science does not deal in absolute proof, only in the balance of the evidence. To see why this is and must be true, imagine that we are scientists seeking to explain some feature of the natural world. Based on the evidence available to us, we can construct a hypothesis – an educated guess – which we offer as that explanation. If more evidence turns up that supports our hypothesis, if our hypothesis is testable and falsifiable, and if our hypothesis can be used to make predictions which turn out to be correct – if all these things are true, then our hypothesis graduates to the status of a theory and, in time, becomes accepted scientific wisdom. But how do we really know the original hypothesis is true? What if it completely misses the mark, but gives the right answers just by coincidence? Or what if it is just an approximation, giving generally correct answers while failing to capture the true reality of what is going on? How can we ever be sure that these things are not the case? The answer is, of course, that we cannot know this. This is why no scientific theory, including evolution, is ever considered to be proven. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/has-evolution-been-proven

Sophistry. "Gravity" is just a word that people like you use when they lack an explanation. In the past when people asked "what is thunder", the answer was "Thor", because they were ignorant. And similarly, when you're asked why things fall to the earth when dropped, your answer is "gravity" because you're ignorant. Gravity is not a theory. It's just a word used by people who think they are providing a scientific answer, but in reality they know nothing. There is a video on youtube where professor and Nobel laureate, Richard Feynman is asked "how do magnets work?", and his answer is "we (scientists) don't know". You're ignorant of the fact that you're ignorant. It's called unconscious incompetence, and it makes you pompous.

I don't believe in things which are not proven. To do this requires using reason, logic and evidence. You are free to shun reason, logic and evidence if you so choose. Evolution requires faith because it is not proven. Merrian-Webster's definition of "faith" - firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

Using "theory" and "law" in a sentence does not prove anything. Why do you think what Wikipedia says is correct? Is it because it coincides with your faith?

Your copy and paste from wikipedia - not an argument, nor proof. Admit that your belief in evolution is based on faith. It's healthier. I don't believe in creationism, nor evolution, because there is no proof for neither.

You can't defend your faith. It's okay, I understand why.

No logic nor evidence, not an argument

So then why call it the "theory of evolution" instead of the proven "law of evolution"?