Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: freedumb2003; betty boop

Darwin already provided criteria by which his theory could be falsified, as he should have according to evos, and that criteria has been met from all I’ve seen on these threads, and the evo crowd (in general) has not accepted that, but instead rambles on about tweaking and adjusting the theory as new data comes in.

Which is exactly the position I hold, that the evos will not allow anything to falsify the ToE.


72 posted on 06/04/2009 2:25:34 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]


To: metmom
Darwin already provided criteria by which his theory could be falsified, as he should have according to evos, and that criteria has been met from all I’ve seen on these threads, and the evo crowd (in general) has not accepted that, but instead rambles on about tweaking and adjusting the theory as new data comes in.

I am sorry, mm, maybe I missed both the criteria and the answer. I am pretty sure my criteria are the proper ones but if you have something to add, please do so now.

Which is exactly the position I hold, that the evos will not allow anything to falsify the ToE.

Since such falsification has not happened yet, so you continue to indulge in conjecture.

76 posted on 06/04/2009 2:50:37 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

To: metmom

“....rambles on about tweaking and adjusting the theory as new data comes in.

Which is exactly the position I hold, that the evos will not allow anything to falsify the ToE.”

You need to find a different line of reasoning.

Theories - all of them - adjust to new data. It is a rare theory that is not revised based on new observation and research. The question you really need to ask yourself is why hasn’t “creation science” actually come up with a reasonable refutation of Darwin? Darwin observed, documented, reported, revised, and extended - and was widely published. These are things that every competent scientist does. These are things that are either all, or significantly missing in “creation science”.

Science is not at work to shoot down your religious faith, but if you absolutely feel that science should have a role in your faith, then hold those that claim science validates Genesis to the same scientific standards.

Nobody is conspiring against religion to keep some imagined scientific “house of cards” from coming down - that your fellow creationists have you believing should also give you pause.

Believe in creation as you wish, but don’t castigate those who actually understand science for understanding it.

That is ignorance through malice - and that gets you ridiculed, but unfortunately, only reinforces the conspiracy delusion that is the most powerful tool of “creation science”.

Take wishful thinking out of your faith - and forget about “creation science” There are no answers there to anything about faith or science. In fact, creation science has no redeeming virtue whatsoever, unless, of course it follows the path that all discoveries must follow.

Creation “scientists” follow zealot psychology that refuses to let them follow “rules” set by people they think are going to hell. Don’t fall for it any longer, and live in your faith for what it is - not what you think it can be proven to be through false research by unqualified posers.


104 posted on 06/05/2009 4:17:00 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson