Replies

> "Evolutionists" are generally doing science,
> which requires a particular method.

When I went to school, science was defined as what you could observe, measure and categorize with your five senses.

Scientific theories were posited to explain phenomena to which the abovelisted scientific method could not yet be applied.

Some of these theories have been affirmed, others have been falsified and fallen by the wayside.

Evolutionism, in spite of its many false predictions, tautolical methods, and myriad scandalous frauds, has a life of its own. In many places it operates outside of the scientific method, and is become more of a philosophy, a religion, than a science.

Its more vocal adherents augment that perception by their infantile behavior.

For consideration as a valid science, I would place Evolutionism at least a few steps below Cold Fusion, and perhaps one step above its stepchild, Environmentalism.

I don't have the time or inclination to discuss these things in detail.

If you are sincere, and really wish to explore the facts mitigating against Evolutionism, and to entertain them as things to consider by a thinking person with an open mind, then there are much better and more technical sources than yours truly, and you seem perfectly capable of conducting the research and compiling the results without my help.

.

>>Scientific theories were posited to explain phenomena to which the abovelisted scientific method could not yet be applied. <<

That's really more like a hypothesis.

In math you can prove a theory and turn it into a theorum.

But in science a theory is different. Scientific American put it this way:

>>National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.<<

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF

That's an important distinction

>>The success of science depends on an apparatus of democratic adjudication – anonymous peer review, open debate, the fact that a graduate student can criticize a tenured professor.<<

These mechanisms are explicitly designed to counter human self deception.

Evolutionism, in spite of its many false predictions, tautolical methods, and myriad scandalous frauds, has a life of its own. In many places it operates outside of the scientific method, and is become more of a philosophy, a religion, than a science.
Its more vocal adherents augment that perception by their infantile behavior.
For consideration as a valid science, I would place Evolutionism at least a few steps below Cold Fusion, and perhaps one step above its stepchild, Environmentalism.
I don't have the time or inclination to discuss these things in detail.

If you are sincere, and really wish to explore the facts mitigating against Evolutionism, and to entertain them as things to consider by a thinking person with an open mind, then there are much better and more technical sources than yours truly, and you seem perfectly capable of conducting the research and compiling the results without my help.

I did half of my six years of graduate school in evolution and closely related fields.

I know the facts of evolution, and I have conducted the research and compiled the results without your help.

The arguments we see on these threads against evolution are almost always from religion (apologetics), and they generally pervert what evolution actually says, and misrepresent the scientific method.

For example, those who need to find evidence for a young earth, pervert the radiocarbon dating technique by one of several methods, including arbitrarily changing the rate of beta decay, claiming (falsely) that there is no accounting for atmospheric variation in C14, claiming that the method only extends back some 4,000 (or 7,000) years, etc. These claims ignore established science because the proponents have to discredit the method because they cannot abide by the results!

There are still a few scientists left on this website. Until banned, we still can call BS on anti-science nonsense.

You ask for an open mind? I have found far more open minded folks among scientists than creationists. Scientists say, "Show me the evidence." Creationists say, "My mind is made up; I won't believe your evidence no matter what you show me." Now where is the open mind?