[GretchenM]

Pls see my post at #207.

The trouble with the Darwin's theory of evolution is there is a lot of actual physical evidence to refute it. That cannot be said in the reverse re proving D's theory.

[Dimensio]

The trouble with the Darwin's theory of evolution is there is a lot of actual physical evidence to refute it.

Please list some of the actual physical evidence that refutes Darwin's theory.

That cannot be said in the reverse re proving D's theory.

No theory in science has ever been or will ever be proven. Theories are never proven.

[narby]

The trouble with the Darwin's theory of evolution is there is a lot of actual physical evidence to refute it. That cannot be said in the reverse re proving D's theory.

One of the most important parts of a scientific theory is that it must be falsifiable. Evolution is falsifiable by many different methods, such as finding species that the theory predicts are "new" intermingled with species the theory predicts are "old". Claims of such finds have never been sufficiently solid to cause evolution a problem, in comparison to the overwelming volume of finds in the "proper" sequence.

The Intelligent Design hypothesis, on the other hand, cannot be falsified. The "intelligence" could do anything, on any whim, in any sequence, and thus it makes no predictions about what we should find. ID cannot be falsified by studying any evidence, because anything we find can be explained as being created by the "intelligence".

[Right Wing Professor]

The trouble with the Darwin's theory of evolution is there is a lot of actual physical evidence to refute it.

Sure there is. The unicorn genome, dragon fossils, and the radioactive decay patterns of dilthium crystals, to name but three examples.