Is It Correct to Say There is “No” Evidence For the Supernatural Part 2

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Jim

And the questions I’m raising deal with philosophical issues in science, not the science itself.

No, Jim, it’s clear to many of us that you are mounting an attack on the science itself.

@dga471

If you understand neither the science nor the philosophy, then what is the point?

The bottom line is denying evolution. It’s obvious from this conversation:

@Jim

Mercer: And by the way, evolution only happens to populations and “kind” is meaningless in the context you’ve used it.

I’m using kind to mean an animal type. So from one kind to another would be e.g., an ape evolving into a human, or a water dwelling fish evolving into a land dwelling animal.

So what do you mean by populations?

@Jim

Mercer: Looking deeply would help you to understand evolutionary biology.

As I understand it, with evolutionary biology there are admittedly problems generally acknowledge by scientists in regards to certain evidences. So at least to some degree or another I don’t think it would qualify as having all the evidence in its favor.