Posted on 07/28/2019 10:50:40 AM PDT by Tennessean4Bush
Recorded on June 6, 2019 in Italy.
Based on new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, should Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed or replaced with a theory of intelligent design?
Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books).
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
IMO? A big WOT.
“random mutations “
You have been brainwashed. C8me back when you have the scientific facts.
Why don’t you briefly summarize what you think proves it.
There are lots of scientists who don’t accept it, including a chemist who was nominated for the Nobel prize in chemistry.
You haven’t said one scientific thing. Saying it’s “accepted” (whatever that means exactly) or “proven” (besides being false) is not “talking science”.
Evolution theory doesn’t even qualify as true science since there’s no stated condition which would falsify it. That would be a minimal requirement to qualify as proven (or science).
A negative cannot be proven. Stop making a fool of yourself and demanding such a thing.
Like evolution.
Not really. If it was, you could offer some evidence for that, instead of just making the same old tired, unsupported assertions.
You have added nothing to the conversation.
“It is a proven theory.”
Theories are never “proven”. To say such a thing just reveals your ignorance of science.
A theory can be confirmed to various degrees by observation and experiment, but with the major tenets of evolution, experiment and direct observation on the time scales necessary to achieve confirmation is impossible, so all that is left is indirect observation, looking at the historical remnants of the processes in question. The types of science that rely on that are always going to be only tenuously confirmed, at best, since our ability to determine historical conditions is always going to be incomplete and highly speculative.
Then would it still be a theory?
Classification error.
This isn’t a “lottery” it’s mathematical futility.
Like a “lottery” with 1e50 tickets and the winner gets a Pepsi.
Yeah, one person will “win,” but the “jackpot” is so on-par with the cost of their ticket that it’s a wash, at best.
Characterizing this as a “lottery” is to put it entirely in the wrong class of thing; to transplant it from the realm of the impossibility of “winning” next to nothing into the realm of a measurable statistical possibility of REALLY winning a life-transforming payout.
Bud, YOU have no facts, only spurious assertions. Amazing how Darwinists avoid direct questions. It is always its critics who “simply don’t understand”. *cough*
Right!
The elements. In the beginning there was ____________ and after time plus chance and a competitive advantage there evolved electrons. Wait. What came first? Time.
That answer may satisfy you, but it doesn’t work for me. As Abe Lincoln said, “You can’t fool all the people all of the time.”
In the beginning, BTW, GOD.....!
I simply mean to point that the theory of evolution is typically not applied to the order of matter.
Read about the miracle of hearing. If you can’t observe design in this irreducibly complex organ, there is absolutely no hope for you, Sir.
You sound like the leftists who insisted that Maobama was the brightest star on the horizon.
LOL, criticism of the theory of evolution makes me a leftist. It’s not about me, alstewartfan.
“Theories are never “proven”. To say such a thing just reveals your ignorance of science.”
LOL. All theories are proved. I was being redundant for the sake of the ignorant.
Wrong.
“If you can’t observe design in this irreducibly complex organ,”
hmmm. Isn’t that a term from ID, the philosophy that says God is dead?
“Evolution theory doesn’t even qualify as true science since there’s no stated condition which would falsify it. “
Who brainwashed you with that lie?
No, mathematical theorems are proved. Scientific theories are not.
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.