There is a counter argument for everything we "believe" we know and understand about evolution.
In other words there is no conclusive evidence, anyone taking that step is then using bias by deciding the counter argument is wrong by assumption, belief because we do not have all the facts.
And this is the underlying fallacy of your various responses.
Even though we don't know *everything,* we can know some things.
Also, as a Christian I'm troubled by the need of some to 'prove' that God exists by attacking established, settled science.
The last time I looked, the essence of Christian belief is *faith.*
Actually that is not the core of my point, theory of everything ONLY becomes relevant when you take a controlled environment model and then try to apply it to the real world and also apply additional real-world associations.
And it is far from being a fallacy because we are talking about using mathematics-models for proof (including science relying upon chance).
And more importantly I am not sure how you come to conclusion my whole point is based on this when it was only my last post that touched on this subject and only because it was Buddha who broke the model argument into the real world when we were talking about Darwinmaths.
And where am I attacking established settled science when it comes to this subject with the factors I highlighted?
That is a fallacy statement right there, or are you ignoring the flaws in Darwinism that even the very last science link I provided politely showed where it breaks down (although for me not entirely)
Seems this is now a finite debate in an infinite loop, or is finite debate on an impossibly complex subject, or both
More seriously though, you should look more deeply at what I am saying instead of concluding I am attacking establish science to help Christians, I think you will find that is far from the truth.
You are looking at my argument with the wrong facts if you feel it is all based on upon your quote as it ignores everthing else I have been saying (McClintock comes to mind??? Just being one of them and of course the very last science link).
satkinsn, to get a better understanding where I am coming from this link is pretty good (although it is still very polite towards Darwinism and still gives leeway on some aspects that are questioned by opposing scientists).
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics: