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

To: DannyTN
Both the Tree and DNA studies are equally applicable to Common Design as to Common Descent.

I certainly never said otherwise. The notion of Common Design merely attributes the existence of everything to a deity. Everything is what it is regardless.

All evolutionists have is an assumption.

Umm.. No, they have a tremendous framework of supporting evidence. But, you already have been informed of that multiple times.

Evolutionionists have made numerous predictions that have not been true and new observations are routinely incorporated as "predictions" after the fact.

That's the way all sciences work and you can say that about any science. That's what science is. It's a bit sad that you don't comprehend that.

Vestigial organs and junk DNA are just some of the bad predictions.

You claim so, and no one, including myself, appears to think it worthwhile to waste time on a futile endeavor to educate you otherwise.

You throw out enough predictions and eventually something matches the data.

What matches the data becomes scientific theory. That happens to be evolution. Creationism has thrown out plenty of theories as well. They consistently haven't matched the data. That's why you are left with untestable supernatural conjecture and nothing more.

You observe from the fossil record what you think is a pattern of progression and then you incorporate that as a prediction.

The prediction actually preceded the observation. By contrast, the long-standing prediction of creationism was contrary to what has since been observed, and so has been tossed out and replaced by unverifiable, unfalsifiable ID.

If it doesn't match your predictions you coin fancy terms and adjust your positions such as "punctuated equilibrium" and "convergent evolution".

That's how science works. It adjusts to match the factual evidence as best it can. By contrast, creationism doesn't care about facts.

And then those things become "predictions" as though you had thought of them all along.

Umm.. no. Those things do then become "predictions" as if they were valid all along - that's what reality is, and science is about describing reality - but they are not presented as though they had been thought of all along. The development of evolutionary theory is well-known and hardly kept a secret from anyone.

246 posted on 03/09/2005 9:41:05 AM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies ]


To: AntiGuv
Creationism has thrown out plenty of theories as well. They consistently haven't matched the data. That's why you are left with untestable supernatural conjecture and nothing more.

I've posted this a few times before, but it seems to fit in again right here:

Here are the few creationist predictions. Because -- according to creationism -- all species were specially created at virtually the same time, and did not gradually evolve from earlier forms:

1. There should be no transitional species.

2. There are most certainly no pre-human (but still humanoid) species.

3. There should be no evidence, whether in fossils or DNA, showing the chronological evolution of life.

4. There must surely be at least one species, and probably several, having no genetic similarities with any other life on earth. This isn't a direct prediction, but it's inferred by the concept of special creation. There is no reason at all for each to be so similar to the others in their molecular structure. For example, there's no creationist reason why a lion can eat animals from all over the globe.

5. The fossil record must show all kinds of species (such as dinosaurs and humans) living together at the same time.

I call these The Five Failed Predictions of Creationism.

In fairness to the creationists, although the first three have already been disproved (for example: #1 -- Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, #2 -- Human Ancestors, more #2 -- Comparison of all skulls, #3 - - Tree of Life Project ), the last two (#4 and #5) can't yet be considered to be totally failed predictions. All we can do is point out that the predicted evidence has not yet been discovered. Given the lack of actual research being conducted by creationists, it is unlikely to be discovered.

249 posted on 03/09/2005 9:53:00 AM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

To: AntiGuv
"That's the way all sciences work and you can say that about any science. That's what science is. It's a bit sad that you don't comprehend that. " - AntiGuv

"All the data fits, as predicted. "- Patrick Henry

It's not the modification of the theory that I object to. I understand that's the way science works.

It's the presentation of it as "everything fits as predicted". Implying it's all a nice neat little bundle exactly as it was predicted that we should mindlessly accept because authority has blessed it.

When obviously it's not. Everything doesn't fit.


277 posted on 03/09/2005 10:28:49 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | 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