What is the evolutionary argument?

We don’t know!

I know of the theory of evolution. I know what it seeks to explain and the evidence to support it. So when a person writes

An argument should be based on evidence, and evolution has not absolute objective evidence to support it so evolution is only a theory.

and elsewhere write a post in which they declare that the theory is unsupported by evidence, then I can as well say this is an argument from ignorance.

She begins by shooting herself in the foot by claiming

It is based on the premise that evidence proves evolution and yet the so called “evidence” that is presented by evolutionists is in fact not proven but rather dubious, uncertain , and vague

Am not sure she has been to a science class or in any class why people set hypothesis. The evidence that we have so far supports evolution. It is not dubious, uncertain or vague. I can only infer here that she is ignorant of what theory is.

She then shoots herself in the hip. She tells us

When one does research looking to “prove” an argument as a fact, the very starting point is biased

Anyone who has spent an hour reading any book on evolution knows this is not the case. In fact this is true for god believers who look at the universe  and take what they see as evidence. If science was done this way, it wouldn’t have advanced this far.

You and me know that

In evolutionary science the research begins on a bias

is not a true representation of what happens in evolutionary science study or any other study for that matter unless if you are a theologian or an apologetic. Well, there is no difference between the theologian and the religious apologetic.

It is assumed that life evolved and so based on an hypothesis all evidences are predisposed to fit into their argument. This is not objective research but rather is tainted from the beginning!

First, it is important to note here that the conclusion for evolution is made after comparing disparate sets of evidence. It did not start with the assumption. Here she wants to subtly convince us the creation story as recorded in the bible is true. I am hoping she has evidence in support of this [sic] theory.

I don’t think she sees the irony in

Secondly, if evidence is interpreted to fit into a certain mindset then come hell or high water they will find a way to fudge it into their argument presenting the evidence not as an hypothesis but as fact

for this is what the theists have been doing for a long time now. They have insisted their particular god is responsible despite the evidence to the contrary.

She has moved higher than the hip. She asserts

For example, when some evidence is found that supposedly supports an expected evolutionary pattern such as the fossil record, which has a predisposed idea of a particular pattern change, then the evolutionists says…”see the evidence supports evolution.” However what is really the fact is that the evidence does not support the evolutionary idea because while many fossils fall into their expected pattern, many others do not. They don’t tell you this though. Rather the evolutionists instead will make outlandish claims such as….”beyond a doubt, absolutely, positively, we know for sure”, ect.

All conclusions science makes are provisional and subject to change with new evidence. I ask her to present any evidence that discredits evolution so that we consider it. And she claims a conspiracy to hide evidence that contradicts evolution. I am interested in knowing who are these biologists responsible, we would like to shame them. We will write about them weekly till at the end they will release this data they have been sleeping on, until she can do this, I have a single piece of advice. Please read on what theory is, how one is developed and tested then from there to read on what has been written on evolutionary science, the discoveries, the conclusions and even the controversies if there are there. Maybe then she will be ready to write on science.

She concludes

What does this prove? That the evolutionary argument is unsound and in fact a fallacy because when one takes evidence which may in part support the theory and completely ignores or even denies that which does not support the theory, the theory is unproven, and not a fact as the evolutionists will tell you.

We call bunk. She hasn’t told us what the evolutionary argument is, where it is unsound and what fallacy is expressed in it. We hope she will list the evidence that doesn’t support the theory, maybe then we shall have a conversation.

The evolutionary argument is illogical