Hey thug, why don't you refute what was said. It is not mindless. It is a list of examples that show evolution to be complete garbage. Insulting the poster does not refute what was said.
Hey thug, why don't you refute what was said.
Gladly. I'm not going to waste my time with all of that insulting, dishonestly distorted pap, but I'll dismantle one of them to show you just how disingenuous it is. If you'd like to see any other *one* "definition" taken off at the knees, let me know which one (I'm not going to waste my time on all of them, so be sure to take your "best shot", son).
From that pack of creationist lies:
EVOLUTIONFirst lie: No one claims that the theory of evolution (or any *other* scientific theory) is "perfect". Scientific theories are always open to correction and refinement as needed.A truly perfect scientific theory which explaims in detail how everything in the universe came into being -- slowly. The theory of evolutions is so perfect and flexible in its ability to explain virtually all observable phemomena or opinions that it would be impossible to even conceive of an experiment capable of disproving it. (see Law).
Second lie: The passage "so perfect and flexible in its ability to explain virtually all observable phemomena or opinions" is obviously a facetious way to imply that it's defined in a weasely way so that anything whatsoever could be claimed to fit. This is wildly false, as anyone who has passed Biology 101 would recognize. It's also a wildly disingenuous way to try to explain away the fact that evolution *does* "explain virtually all" biological observations which it pertains to. "Oh," says the creationist, "yeah, evolution really does fit the biological record really well, but that's only because, um, it's so loose it'd fit anything, yeah, that's the ticket, just ask my wife, Morgan Fairchild."
Third lie: "it would be impossible to even conceive of an experiment capable of disproving it". Utter and complete bilge. Not only are there obvious ways to falsify evolution (if indeed it were false), and constant discussions in the science community about what would or would not constitute potential falsification of evolution, THERE ARE A LIST OF SEVERAL DOZEN SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF SUCH ON A WEBSITE THAT I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN REFERRED TO COUNTLESS TIMES NOW. Here's just one sample from that site, WHICH YOU ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH:
Potential Falsification:Lie much?It would make no sense, macroevolutionarily, if certain other mammals (e.g. dogs, cows, platypi, etc.), had these same retrogenes in the exact same chromosomal locations. For instance, it would be incredibly unlikely for dogs to also carry the three HERV-K insertions that are unique to humans, as shown in the upper right of Figure 4.4.1, since none of the other primates have these retroviral sequences.
That whine is just sour grapes from the creationists, who have tried and *failed* to falsify evolution countless times now. "Gosh," they say, "it can't be that our attacks are flawed, it *must* be that evolution just refuses to be falsified, yeah, I feel better already, right Morgan?"
It is not mindless.
Well, that was the kind assumption. The alternative is that it is knowingly dishonest and intentionally bears false witness.
It is a list of examples that show evolution to be complete garbage.
No, it is a list of false accusations which show the author -- and those who willingly promulgate it -- to be bearers of false witness.
Insulting the poster does not refute what was said.
No, but the description of the list was entirely accurate.