Evolutionary science is a metaphysical research programme

Hi bigtown, I am sorry that you were disappointed about my last round, I promise I will try to do better in this final round. I thank you for not forfeiting this debate early. I personally do not think that my reasoning is circular, but without any support for that claim, I am afraid I will not be able to rebut it. And have no fear, I have no intention of using ad hominems; I only use them when my opponent uses them, but you have been respectful so I have no need for them."No, I'm not going to define evolution for you" I know full well the definition of EVOLUTION, what I was asking for is the definition of MACRO evolution, which has no scientific definitions. Some creationists define it as "change from one kind to another", but KIND does not have a scientific definition either."I heard a reference to Darwin being made. It was a school teacher telling children that they learned about Darwin when they learned that they all came from dinosaurs and monkeys." Do you have a problem with teachers teaching their student about science? And we did not evolve FROM monkeys; we ARE monkeys. Humans are a subset of monkeys which in turn is a subset of apes."Kinds - I think you have a generally conceived idea in your mind otherwise you would not have dismissed it in your mind already. So that definition you dismissed in your mind is probably the one we both generally agree on, and it"s irrelevant for this debate." The problem is, I actually do NOT know what the definition of kind is and that is precisely why it MATTERS to this debate; as I said earlier, some creationists define macro evolution as a change from one kind to another, but their failure to provide a definition for that word is a problem. If a kind is defined as a SPECIES, then macro evolution has been observed countless times (including by me). If kind is define as a higher rank of biological classification (such as genus or family) then "one kind to another" is not evolution."Your point on Newton. Ok, I think you understand where I'm coming from this, it's just circular reasoning and you have unfortunately again proven it to me." Obviously we are going to disagree on that, but without any justification, I can only leave at that."WHY would science challenge my belief in God?" I honestly don't know because a lot of people believe in both science AND God."I was inferring that in totality the science has proven possibly only a very small amount of total human evolution" Actually the evolution of man is very well documented (I direct to my past debates for the sources)."Which in my opinion is the biggest part if you want to get me to believe in the theory." I understand that the question "how could we evolve a mind?" is a big issue for you and I perfectly understand that. It is indeed a big issue. Unfortunately, I personally do not know the answer, but a gap in a theory should not be used as a pretext to reject it; "we do not know yet" is not evidence against evolution."Your mind is dependent upon your brain, so therefore you are saying the source is material" The source of the mind? Yes most likely."So are you saying mentally impaired people, because of their physical brain damage, do not have a mind or conscience?" Not at all. I am saying that an alteration of the brain (through damage) will almost always result in an alteration of the mind (1). If I hit someone on the head, do they not lose consciousness?I am not very familiar with the Chinese Room argument, but I know enough to know that it is basically a semantic debate around the definition of the word "understanding" and whether or not machines can actual "understand". How is that relevant? Machines are not biological entity. I would also point out that John Searle (the guy that came up with this) believes that "brains cause minds".I do not and have never denied the existence of minds."If (mind is) material in source then how can you possibly (change my mind)?" By debating. Computers are material entity and spoken words are vibration of molecules."Get to know (the absolutes)" The law of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle. I am fully aware of their existence and I do use them in my debates.There is literally nothing for me to address in the two following paragraphs. You started by criticizing my method of rebuttal and then went on to invalidate scientists that right books "slapping God in the face", which is a non-sequitur. And no one actually believes in the FSM. Moreover, atheists are being ridiculed just as much (sometimes more) then Christians.It was great debate indeed. Thanks for allowing me to participate.(1) http://www.nasponline.org...