Boy Arnold, you went all out on the $2 words here, didn't you? It's typical for a moron like you. Big words make you feel as though you are intimidating to others, they won't dare take you on when you use such big words! The thing is, when you cut through all the grand phraseology, you aren't saying much.
Don't be intimidated Dixie. If you don't understand what any of the words mean, all you have to do is ask. If you don't understand a complex concept, just ask. If you want, I could even provide links to explain the concepts so you can do further study.
As I said, rhetoric such as the above pathos-laden rant have no effect on me. I understand that these are difficult concepts to understand, but getting upset won't help you comprehend. 
I don't know about 'digressing subjectiveness' but I do know the sun will rise in the east and set in the west, that is an absolute knowledge I have because I paid attention in science class. There are any number of things that we know to be absolutes, like you being an anti-God heathen, for example. I know this, it is absolute, therefore it is absolute knowledge.
You know that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west, simply because it has always done so in the past. This is called a posteriori knowledge, knowledge gained by experience, as opposed to a priori, knowledge gained by reason alone. Are you keeping up so far?
We only know that the sun will rise because it has done so before, and because it has done so on a regular frequency. But until the sun rises in the morning, the 'knowledge' that the sun will rise is merely a prediction, based on previous experience. Same with gravity. You could drop a ball a thousand times, and mass be attracted to mass. But you won't know what happens on the 1001st time..
Thus absolute knowledge is impossible.
If you have any questions, or don't understand anything, please raise your hand.
Hurling abuse is the sign that you are really struggling. If you feel you're the big man, play the ball, not the man....
I'm not sure what "syllogism" is, but, this is not a valid argument because the premise you begin with is invalid, therefore, all that follows is also invalid.
A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός — "conclusion", "inference"), usually the categorical syllogism, is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises) of a certain form. In his Prior Analytics, Aristotle defines syllogism as: "a discourse in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so." (24b18–20) Despite this very general definition, however, he limits himself first to categorical syllogisms (and later to modal syllogisms). The syllogism is at the core of Deductive reasoning, where facts are determined by combining existing statements, in contrast to Inductive reasoning where facts are determined by experimenting on the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
Once again. You are confusing an 'unsound' argument, with an 'invalid' or 'illogical' argument.
An invalid argument is an argument where the conclusion cannot be reached from the premises. An unsound argument is one in which the conclusion might be reached by the premises but the conclusion is 'unsound' due to the dodgy nature of one or more of the premises.
Your premise that cows are green defies common sense.
Common sense? What has the mythical entity 'common sense' got to do with anything. We are talking about logic here, not the accumulation of assumptions acquired.... lol
Then logic would dictate it's impossible to claim we evolved from apes. Simple as that!
And there have been a number of pieces of evidence which contradicted the past pinhead theories of evolution, and the pinheads simply adjust their theory to account for the contradictions and continue on. So, I don't think this is accurate, or we would have discarded your theory of evolution long ago.
Provide these pieces of evidence that contradict evolutionary theory.... lol
HAhaha! You're kidding, right? ...Now, explain again how a conclusion can be made if knowledge is never absolute? I'm starting to get confused!
The non-existence of absolute knowledge is irrelevant to an argument being valid if the conclusion is reached by the premise. In a deductive syllogism, to establish validity, the premises are assumed true, and providing that the conclusion is reached from them, it is valid. To decipher whether or not the syllogism is sound, you then investigate the premises.
I understand this can be confusing, but it is pretty basic stuff. Maybe you should campaign for philosophy to be taught in Alabama's schools?
Ah... but knowledge is never absolute, remember? And it doesn't matter about the weight of evidence or refuting evidence, because it is irrelevant whether the premises are true, an argument is logical if the conclusion is drawn from the premises, and that is all that matters, right?
An argument is valid if the conclusion is reached by the premises, but it might not be sound. see my above.
Understanding what 'valid' and 'sound' is in relation to logical arguments is day 1 philosophy Dixie. Let me know if you understand the difference. If you don't I will expand on this....
No, I don't have to actually see it with my own eyes, I would come closer to believing it if I saw some clear evidence of it and had absolute knowledge, but as you said, this is impossible, so I don't. You, on the other hand, fully believe that man did evolve from apes, you can't prove it, you don't have absolute knowledge of it, but you believe it anyway.... I guess it's that 'logic doesn't have to conform to common sense' thing, it just needs a premise? Do you have a $2 word for utter stupidity?
Dixie, if absolute knowledge is impossible, how do we then judge the quality of knowledge? We judge it on the basis of the quality and quantity of the a posteriori evidence.
The fact that the sun rising is seen as absolute knowledge by those that think along lines of 'common sense' is because of the weight of evidence supporting it. A posterior evidence shows the sun rising on a daily basis. Now imagine if the sun didn't rise.
The same can be said for speciation through evolution. It is impossible to have absolute knowledge, you cann't 'prove' it, but as we discussed above, absolute knowledge is an illusion. It is impossible.
So we compare the predictions made by ET to the evidence, if the evidence supports the hypothesis, then the theory can be said to stand. If evidence contradicts the predictions, it falls.
As it is, the predictions made by ET have stood the test of evidence for over two hundred years.
***************************
Here's my argument in a nutshell... Much of what you say is correct about science and the scientific method, and I agree. This is why I don't just accept that man came from the apes, or that we evolved from a single cell. Regardless of how tempted I might be by the evidence we've discovered, I realize there is a whole bunch we haven't discovered, and simply don't know. Therefore, it would be 'unscientific' for me to assume this 'theory' to be absolute. Now, if I don't assume the theory absolute, it means I have to observe and consider other possibilities, like ID. It doesn't mean I believe those theories to be absolute either, but I just don't discount and dismiss them as you have. That would not be very 'scientific' of me, and it would completely violate your precious principles of scientific theory to do so.
Dixie, Neither do I just accept the idea of speciation through evolutionary processes. If evidence contradicts the predictions then I will doubt the theory as much as the next man.
But the evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory, and no evidence has arisen to undermine it. No-one has found a rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian era.....
I also considered ID. I found it woefully lacking of epistemological soundness, and based not on a posteriori evidence but on fallacy. Let me explain...
ID notions are based on the simple inductive argument that 'because complex things created by humans are designed, all complex things are designed.' This is being reductionist, stating that what is correct for one in a group is same for all.
Evidence doesn't support the notion of ID. Looking for what appears to be patterns is just as poor logically. To assume that apparent pattern equates to design is making a huge assumption. It also relies on gaps in evidence of ET for its credibility and as such is simply good, old fashioned attribution, god of the gaps scenerio. It states that because there are things we don't fully understand, it must therefore be the work of a deity.
It isn't that I dismissed ID without considering it. I considered it, and found it to be a simple rehashing of Paley's watchmaker analogy, a fallacy revealed long ago. We should consider all notions, but when a notion is revealed to be so woefully lacking, we don't need to pursue it or consider it an equal to substantial concepts.
Would you teach phrenology, just because it is an alternative idea?
I don't claim to have the answer, you do! We hear you use all your big words and explain this or that, but the bottom line is, you don't know any more than I do when it comes to how we originated here. You have a theory, I have a theory, other people have other theories, no one has proven this and according to you, no one ever can. So, listen to you own $2 words, apply them to your own perceived beliefs, and ask yourself if you are being open-minded and objective regarding ALL possibilities.
Simply because there are alternative ideas doesn't make those ideas equally valid. I have considered ID, and found it lacking, as I have explained above, including why it is lacking. See my above...
Einstein certainly understood the possibility, he essentially endorsed the theory of creation when he said, "God doesn't roll the dice." Sir Iaasac Newton, the man responsible for what we know as the Scientific Method, spent many years interpreting the Gospels for Protestants... (bet you weren't aware of that one.) So, to completely dismiss creationism or ID, or God, is just a complete contradiction of the very methods and principles you hold so dearly.
Again, Dixie, I haven't simply dismissed ID, I have addressed it, and found it woeful. Simply stating that because certain dead people believed in the possibility doesn't make an idea worthy.
Address the points I have brought up concerning the woefulness of ID notions, and if there is anything you don't understand, ask... 
