Posted on 09/26/2005 1:53:21 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Yeah, months ago. Not convinced - sorry.
Ask a fatuous question and expect a contemptuous answer.
Do tell then, explain why you find the arguments unconvincing.
They aren't logical. Why would one kind of animal turn into a different kind of animal? How and why would an ape turn into a human? Just isn't logical. And do you really believe "evolution" could account for the myriad flora and fauna? I don't.
Actually, scientists are constantly at each others throats. Its very competitive, and actual errors of reasoning can result in endless humiliation. Factual errors are not rare, which is why major new ideas have to be confirmed by independent observations and multiple lines of evidence. It's a rather dense fabric, and you are not going to unravel any theory that's 150 years old. At best you will add some new threads.
Or, as with Newtonian laws, add a new border, enlarging the picture.
That isn't a response to the evidence. It's just the opinions that you had before you looked at the evidence. (if you ever did look)
That it will occur.
Yeah, this type of prediction seems to prove that the theory of evolution is practically useless for any truly predictive purposes.
I thought "classical scientific method" had something to do with making a "pre" diction (not a "retrodiction") and then devising some experimental process to verify or falsify the prediction.
You can refute the data provided in those links????
A Nobel is in your future!
I don't have to accept evidence I don't believe. Just like a jury doesn't have to accept evidence they don't believe.
How does your head fit through the door???
Most of those links were cosmology and geology. Hmmm... Guess you really didn't look, did you.
Get over yourself. The world will go on long after you are gone.
And this has what to do with the links provided?
Just attempting to actually teach you something. However, I am beginning to realize that is a futile endeavor.
Read my previous link more carefully - there are many predictions that can be made with it.
I thought "classical scientific method" had something to do with making a "pre" diction (not a "retrodiction") and then devising some experimental process to verify or falsify the prediction
Not necessarily. Direct experimentation is only one method of data collection (otherwise there would be very little astronomy, meteorology, etc.). Data is also collected in the field. Evolutionary biology predicts certain data will be found, and has been successfully tested in this manner. Also, many direct genetic experiments confirm predictions made by the theory; a good example is in the article in this concurrent FR thread. Plainly speaking, the theory works and has not been falsified.
You should have realized that long ago. My mind is closed to evolution - just as yours is to creation.
I'm on their side in this case. Superstition has no place in a science class.
I didn't realize you had a vote in the litigation. Are you the judge?
I am glad that you admit to being closed-minded; but I'll speak for RadioAstronomer and myself in declaring that you need merely show us ample physical evidence in support of your position that evolution is false to persuade us.
Is your position that no physical evidence could persuade you of the truth of evolution?
If there were a conservative institution that had the guts to take on these creationist lunatics, then I would happily support them. Since there isn't, I side with whoever is on my side of the argument, regardless of my other political differences.
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.