Re: What goes around comes around

Cornelius Hunter wrote:

> Pim:
>
>
>> your still avoiding that the 'epicycles' are not ad hoc applied but
>> are in fact tested for. After all, why should a few minor puzzles
>> lead one to reject the science of evolution, which stands quite
>> strongly by itself?
>
>
> Actually, most epicycles for evolution are not tested for.
>
Another unsupported assertion.

> The fact of evolution has not been established from science. Yet this
> is the claim.

For good reasons since contrary to your claim, evolution has been for
all practical purposes been estasblished as a fact

> When evolutionists explain why they think this is true, they use
> religious arguments.

More unsupported and irrelevant assertions. Sigh

> Much like the ones that Darwin used. And much like ones that were used
> before Darwin. What we need are scientific arguments and evidences
> that pass the test of science.

Indeed, do you need some references? I somehow was under the impression
that you were familiar with evolutionary science and its arguments and
evidences that have made it a very well supported science?
Received on Fri Oct 7 23:35:59 2005