Posted on 11/05/2009 6:15:26 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
In August 2009, retired University of Liverpool marine biologist Donald Williamson officially challenged the standard Darwinian interpretation of caterpillar origins. His paper was fast-tracked to publication by a “high-placed advocate,”[1] but shortly afterward his ideas were rebutted in the very same journal. While this back-and-forth exchange has sparked intense criticism over the submission and review processes that were used, the situation also reveals core problems with broad-scale evolution...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Ping!
Well, that does it for TToE.
How is Batboy by the way?
You never cease to live up to your screenname, FreeDumb.
In before the “but...but...that really proves the Earth is 6,000 old!”
I spoke to soon...
And you never cease to convince the world that conservatives are a bunch of Luddite idiots who don’t understand the first thing about science.
You are an embarrassment that some of us need to constantly clean up after, like a 5 YO child who learned to cuss.
>>I spoke to soon...<<
LOL! Never underestimate the speed of ignorance. With no thinking necessary, there is no clutch...
Simply rebutted using a scientific maxim ...
Beliefs belong in church.
Simply rebutted using a scientific maxim ...
Beliefs belong in church.
LOL!...it is the Temple of Darwin who are the modern day Luddites. After all, it is your fellow anti-science Temple of Darwin co-religionists who have teamed up with the communist ACLU to prevent students from hearing about the origins debate. It is your evo-fanatical, anti-science, Luddite co-religionists who destroy the careers of scientists who dare to look for design in nature. It is your cowardly, anti-science, Luddite evo-coreligionists who put their tales between their legs every time they are challenged by Creationists or IDers to debate in public or in print. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Get real, FreeDumb!!!
Both sides are basing their worldview on faith. But only one side admits it.
Stop the presses; a hypothesis was refuted via the peer-review process.
Well that proves it that man and dinosaurs co-existed 6,000 years ago.
Seriously GGG this is how real science works.
==Trying to use science to disprove science. LOL
Actually, Creationists and IDers are using science to disprove darwood’s unscientific, rapidly crumbling, evo-religious creation myth.
Really. So you are saying that the scientific method is not based on beliefs or assumptions?
>>LOL!...it is the Temple of Darwin who are the modern day Luddites. <<
Your ignorance does not make others who understand science Luddites.
>>After all, it is your fellow anti-science Temple of Darwin co-religionists who have teamed up with the communist ACLU to prevent students from hearing about the origins debate. <<
If you have a scientific alternative to TToE, bring it. To date, there is none. Sophomoric philosophical musings such as ID do not meet even the low standard.
>>It is your evo-fanatical, anti-science, Luddite co-religionists who destroy the careers of scientists who dare to look for design in nature. It is your cowardly, anti-science, Luddite evo-coreligionists who put their tales between their legs every time they are challenged by Creationists or IDers to debate in public or in print. <<
Repeating a word like “Luddite” without understanding it is, as I said, like a 5 YO who has learned to cuss. If you have an alternative to TToE that explains the billions of datapoints, post it. Your cute little “oh look here, there is a slight variation” (followed, as always, by a complete and purposeful misanalysis of the posited phenomenon) do not cut it.
>>Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Get real, FreeDumb!!!<<
You really need to learn terms before you accuse people of misusing them. As always, your ignorance does not create knowledge.
>>So you are saying that the scientific method is not based on beliefs or assumptions?<<
It is based on a methodology that ensures that information and conclusions are based on reality.
>>Both sides are basing their worldview on faith. But only one side admits it.<<
Philosophy is always the last refuge of the sophomoric. If I were to tell you that The Theory of Gravity is less understood than TToE, I am willing to bet you would say otherwise because you see things fall.
I assume (heh — get it?) that you don’t use medications because they are based on “faith.” Right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.