Darwin’s Predictions (falsified)

Darwin's Predictions ^ | Cornelius G. Hunter, Ph.D

[GodGunsGuts]

Failed expectations are not necessarily a problem for a theory. [1] But what if fundamental predictions are consistently falsified? As we shall see this is the case with Darwin’s theory of evolution...

[CottShop]

[[One can fault current scientific theories; just bring scientific evidence.]]

We do- you simply ignore it and run from it and call it ‘religion’.

[[But it is dishonest to criticize science for modifying its theories when new data come along.]]

Noone is doing that- We’re criticising science for ignoring the laws and continuing to hold onto soemthign that doesn’t work- big difference here i nwhat you claim and hte actual facts-

[Cedric]

Either come up with (evidence) or stop repeating the claim.

This from an evolutionist - ROFLMAO!

[count-your-change]

Near the end of the article this statement appeared. it is one sense the most important conclusion to be drawn from the article:

“It is now common for otherwise sophisticated evolutionary thinkers to simultaneously claim that strictly naturalistic evolution (of one form or another) is a fact, and that anything else is ruled out a priori. Evolutionists say that evolution is a fact and that non-natural theories do not qualify as science and cannot even be evaluated. [4]”

“a priori” here used means simply, “you agree with me that evolution is a fact, a fact that makes any other conflicting explanation false, then we have a discussion”.

[Just mythoughts]

Noöne was there at NASA because the claimed incident never occurred. Not only is there no actual person claiming to have witnessed it (it's Friend of a Friend stuff) but it couldn't have occurred because computers just don't work that way.

Says who? Was there not an article in a newspaper making the claim. I did not recall the claim having to do anything with the computer abilities or lack thereof. Wasn't this about finding the window for launching?

[GodGunsGuts]

Why do they have to be hoaxes/frauds? Why can’t the list include all the “missing links” that have been produced by the irrational exuberance of Evos who are paid/pressured to find them?

[Oztrich Boy]

Says who? Was there not an article in a newspaper making the claim

You appear to be Dan Rather defending the Killian memos.

Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the negative. Cite this newpaper article for examination.

[Cedric]

Why does the evidence for new missing links always accompany the requests for additional grant money?

[Cedric]

Burden of proof is on the person making the claim

"Earth to evolutionists....hello?"

[Just mythoughts]

You appear to be Dan Rather defending the Killian memos. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the negative. Cite this newpaper article for examination

L O L ..... Me Dan Rather I only responded to your claim and now you in your Alinsky means and methods think you can ridicule me into providing proof which obviously you have NONE..

You googlering TOER's are so transparent.

[Oztrich Boy]

You wanted to know about “NASA finding the missing day of Joshua”. Short answer is it’s a hoax, urban myth, pious fraud - choose one.

[Just mythoughts]

You wanted to know about “NASA finding the missing day of Joshua”. Short answer is it’s a hoax, urban myth, pious fraud - choose one.

Oh indeed I did ask for proof of hoax, and all I got was googlllle.... And then some Alinsky rule of ridicule using Dan Rather.... so anything you claim has what value of credibility? YOU were not even there.

[Boxen]

"But of course life existed in the past. Any serious Bible student can demonstrate that is the literal WORD. Different of course, different 'age' than this present one, Peter says himself there are three different heaven/earth ages."

I'm sorry, but I can't see how this has anything to do with the ToE.

"I cannot read anything or watch any so called science show without the preface always being about a single cell getting hot and bothered and reproducing itself into wallla us today.

But none on FR who push their scientific methodology will admit any connection as though they are ashamed to the well published claims."

There is a connection, but it isn't as important as you might think. A "hot primordial soup"--as you refer to it--is not NECESSARY to the Theory of Evolution. Read that word again: "Necessary." Life began. The scientific consensus regarding this beginning is tenuous right now. Life CHANGED. The Theory of Evolution explains that change. The invalidation of a "hot primordial soup" would not invalidate the ToE.

As you are convinced of its necessity, explain to me, through logical proof or argument, how the invalidation of a "hot primordial soup" means the invalidation of the ToE. Convince me of its indispensability.

[CottShop]

[[This early complexity is also implied by genome data of the lower organisms. As one researcher observed, the genomes of many seemingly simple organisms sequenced in recent years show a surprising degree of complexity. [5,6] In fact, what we consistently find in the fossil record and genomic data are examples of high complexity in lineages where evolution expected simplicity.]]

Gosh- what a surprise- unnexpected complexity at a level that can’t be explained by naturalism

[[It is commonly believed that complex organisms arose from simple ones. Yet analyses of genomes and of their transcribed genes in various organisms reveal that, as far as protein-coding genes are concerned, the repertoire of a sea anemone—a rather simple, evolutionarily basal animal—is almost as complex as that of a human.]]

Woops- expect a major restucturing of naturalism

[[This is by no means an isolated example. Histones are a class of eukaryote proteins that help organize and pack DNA and the gene that codes for histone IV is highly conserved across species.]]

Hmmm- must have arose accidently in all species, orm ost that we know of, and not in the ‘first simplest organisms’ as once claimed- Aint nature wonderful how forward looking and omnipotent it must be? Supposedly directing mutations in order to create Histones across all apecies through accidental mistakes in each species exactly alike?

Can’t waitto read the rest to discover how omnipotent nature must have been in directing mistakes and including somehow al lthe metainfo necessary for each species to direct, control, utilize and assemble all the non species specific info being introduced- it will be wonderful to discover how nature provided hte means for species to receive new non species specific info without mucking up the whole species specificly complex works

[CottShop]

[[Life CHANGED. The Theory of Evolution explains that change.]]

It sure did- life changes today, and you are correct, we do have evidnece of this microevolutionary change, however, what we do not have evidence for is macroevolutionary change- all we have are assumptions and ‘assurances’ that ‘it happened’, despite hte mounting scientific evidnece showing it couldn’t have

[Oztrich Boy]

YOU were not even there.

Again, you are assuming the event occurred, although there is no evidence supporting that.

To reason (sic) like you, you cannot prove I wasn't there, without evidence from someone who was there.

[Red Reign]

Another beautiful argument which says absolutely nothing. To make it fair, substitute the word 'prove' with 'evidence', and try again. Give me evidence that evolution is true, and it will still not provide evidence that God does not exist. YOU are the one who brought religion in to this discussion, so don't dismiss it by saying "Science makes no attempt to disprove gods." If that's so, why do you people always bring religion in to the discussion?

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for that one thing about evolution that has been proved true. Cat got your tongue?

[ontap]

You might as well reside yourself to the fact that they are only going to deal with half a theory since the other half is pretty kookie.

[itsahoot]

Apparently science is now forbidden to modify its theories when new data come to light.

Most disciplines call these mistakes, but you guys just get to modify your theory. Cool.

[GodGunsGuts]

Yep, that pretty much sums it up. For some reason the Evos just can’t face the fact that neo-Darwinian evolution is collapsing like a house of cards, whereas the arguments for Creation/ID keep getting stronger and stronger. This behavior also strengthens the argument that they are clinging to the NDToE out of religious conviction, not science.

[DaGman]

We’re having a colder than normal winter. There are more pirates around the world sailing the oceans these days. Global warming has also decreased accordingly.