So why do you protest so much then ?
Cummins: I have a number of fundamental challenges to Evolutionists. If Evolution is
to be considered scientific, these challenges must be met. So far, they haven't
come close.
Illogical. You have yet to show that this challenge is fundamental to evolution.
Cummins: One of those challenges is for them to describe a viable animal that cannot
be explained by Evolution.
The appearance of a dinosaurus among the early protocells would do it.
Cummins: Maybe Kevin O'Brian will again show us his measure of intelligence by again totally twisting plain and simple challenge as if he needs a remedial course in the English language.
Well at least you are showing your level of intelligence here through your abuse of ad hominem.
Cummins: Even outside of that challenge, Evolutionists come up with a fat nothing
when it comes to explaining how Evolution could be falsified.
Wrong again.
CumminsL Darwin came up with some ways, and holding to Darwin's word, Evolution has been shown false (e.g. there aren't "innumerable" transitional forms in the fossil record.)
Only by misrepresenting both his statement and the evidence.
Cummins: But, because Evolution is a nonscience, any time a prediction (no matter how fundamental
to the theory of Evolution) is found to be false, they just create a new theory to
get around the problem (the lack of transitionals is because of Punctuated
Equilibrium -- a solution that is as blatantly false as the false theory it
seeks to save Evolution from).
How lovely is the lack of supporting evidence. Cummins arguments are based on a foundation which does not exists. He makes claims that evolution is a non-science but refuses to address evidence that it is such. He does not understand punctuated equilibrium and has provided no evidence that it is blatantly false.
What more evidence is needed?