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]

[[Because about the only folks who are contesting the theory of evolution nowadays are fundamentalists of one religion or another.]]

LIE! Christians are NOT the only ones and you know it!

[[. They are convinced that the theory is inaccurate based on religious belief,]]

LIE number 2 (and it’s only your second claim examined- can’t wait to see how ‘intellectually honest’ you further claims are) Scientists do no such thing- the evidence is enough to convince htem- plain and simple.

[[and use faux science in an effort to support that belief. ]]

LIE number 3: There is nothign fake about the evidence! no matter how many times you state that LIE- the science speaks for itself.

[[Many, if not most, are also young earthers, while a few are geocentrists, showing how much they pay attention to scientific evidence.]]

Broad claim with NO evidence to back it up- Apparently folks, Coyoteman has asked every scientist if they are Christian or not. Must have taken him a long time to ask them all- let’s all give him a round of applause for his hard work trackign down every sceintist who doubts Darwin and askign htem.

[[How about common descent? Even Behe admits that is accurate.]]

Appealing to OPINIONS OUTSIDE THE ACTUAL SCIENCE- apparently Coyoteman doesn’t realize numbers don’t mean truth- Behe is free to bleeive anyhtign he likes- he can believe little green grogs created life by farting if he lieks- the ONLY thing that has any validity is the evidence, and hte evidence is showing quite reasonably, that nature is incapable of life as we know it- this isn’t opinion, this is established reasonability based on biological, mathematical, chemical and natural laws, all of hwich Macroevolution SERIOUSL:Y violates.

Contrary to your claim, common descent has NOT been proved true- the only hting that has been proved true is that Macroevolutionists have wild imaginations that IGNORE impossibilites. The fossil evidence shows discontinuity, not continuity- the ONLY way to claim continuity is to ignore impossibilites, AND to make broad unsupportable assumption driven claims abotu events we can’t witness, reproduce, examine, or test. The evidence for common descent is missing- Behe beleives it happened? Whoopity doo- good for him- He’s welcome to beleive myths if he likes.

[js1138]

Why don't you elaborate upon this for us unlearned? Why was 85% of history of life erased?

Fossils are mineralized bones. There are no bones before the Cambrian.

DNA degrades rapidly. There's not much DNA more than a few tens of thousand years old.

Everything organic gets eaten by something else. The genetic record is gone.

[count-your-change]

Any biography that attempted to account for the life of the person without acknowledging or denying their birth would be strange indeed and incomplete.
And no, birth is the better term since the claim is made here that abiogenesis and evolution (not life) are separate things.

[js1138]

Any biography that attempted to account for the life of the person without acknowledging or denying their birth would be strange indeed and incomplete.

I suggest you try reading a few biographies and count the pages devoted to conception.

[Citizen Blade]

except, of course, the "scientists" who get grants to "find" missing links.

So, still can't come up with any hoaxes perpetrated by scientists, I see.

[Citizen Blade]

There is NO need to design or create theories with regards to how flesh man is here upon this earth.

Scientifically, there is not enough evidence to determine how life originated. Religious creation stories don't qualify as science.

There is nothing snide about my comment when everything you promoters of TOE on FR hide themselves from, the most common thing about Darwin, planted everywhere else has to do with a hot steamy pot of primordial soup.

Again, the TOE does not deal with the origins of life.

[Cedric]

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.”

Dr. Wolfgang Smith
physicist and mathematician

[Citizen Blade]

Really? What an incredible statement- Fact eh?

Yes. Evolution of species is a fact. The TOE is the scientific theory that explains that fact.

Practically every claim such as those of hte peppered moth

What's wrong with the peppered moth?

‘feathered dino’

Creationists hate Archaeopteryx because it is a great example of one of those transitionals they insist does not exist.

‘evolution’ practically every aspect is a hoax meant ot bolster macroevolution claims

You keep using the word "hoax" as if it means "conclusion CottShop disagrees with." I think that's your problem- you don't agree with the TOE, so the only way for you to dismiss the mountains of evidence to the contrary is to claim it is all a hoax.

Sorry, you don't get to change definitions of words.

[Citizen Blade]

But you really suck at trying to dismiss the plethora of ghastly Religion Of Evolution evidential hoaxes.

Seeing as you haven't actually provided any evidence of hoaxes (other than a handful that were debunked like scientists), there're nothing for me to dismiss.

[Cedric]

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.”

Dr. Newton Tahmisian
Atomic Energy Commission

[count-your-change]

I suggest you try to find a biography that says,
“He/she was conceived” on such and such a date. I really do think biographers concern themselves more with birth dates than conception dates.

[Citizen Blade]

Still waiting for some examples of hoaxes. Just quoting someone who works at the Atomic Energy Commission doesn’t qualify as evidence of a hoax.

[Cedric]

It did for Dr. Tahmisian.

[count-your-change]

Nothing new that I’ve heard, Orce is now playing the part of The Invisible Man or maybe The Man That Never Was. Only the smell of Bone Puffery lingers.

[ToGodBeTheGlory]

The evo -atheists are just running scared even when presented with detailed evidence of the enormous amounts of hoaxes and frauds that have littered the *science* of evolution from the very start. Nothing you provide will ever be good enough for those who reject God in their hearts. People reading this thread will see who was the one panicking and refusing to accept the plain facts.

[js1138]

I really do think biographers concern themselves more with birth dates than conception dates.

Without conception there would be no birth. don't you think biographers are obligated to deal with origins?

[tacticalogic]

And no, birth is the better term since the claim is made here that abiogenesis and evolution (not life) are separate things.

Then we disagree about how well the analogy works.

[count-your-change]

If you have a bone sticking in your throat, either choke it down or spit up so I can see what the point is! Cause right I can’t.

[Cedric]

One of the “great” Evolutionists of the 20th Century, Sir Arthur Keith said, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”

[js1138]

Do you think it’s necessary to describe the complete history of the invention of every part of a computer or automobile or any other gadget before describing how it works?