Posted on 01/26/2009 9:13:21 AM PST by 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at darwinspredictions.com ...
That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t give you a ride in my truck (even if it meant riding in the back).
Martin Luther, founder of Protestant Christianity, said of the Jews, "First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly and I myself was unaware of it will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know."
No.
Duh.
But thanks for sharing.
Same here. IMHO, lots of people here disagree about it, but it's not something to be making enemies over.
Lik these not religious, strictly scientific grounds???
If the cosmos were what scientism affirms it to be, our Catholic faith would be a mockery and our sacred liturgy an empty charade.
You’re too late.
>>More anti-science nonsense from the Dishonesty Institute.
Apparently science is now forbidden to modify its theories when new data come to light.<<
Yeah, like GW.
Lack of evidence? So where did the recent new claim of that the primordial bowl of soup was heated for that single cell to get hot and bothered to reproduce itself? Religion is not limited to creation stories. Science is just as much a religion as it is based upon stories as old as time itself. There is nothing new about the notion that God did not do what He said He did.
Again, the TOE does not deal with the origins of life.
You are attempting to split hairs. There is no TOE if there is no origin. And the world renowned promoters of all things TOE always introduce TOE as coming out of a recently determined 'hot' steaming pot of primordial pond scum. All things have a beginning or there is no origin and the not dealing with is because you all cannot reproduce anything that produces the origin from which all things TOE flow.
Dad this time? Or you?
==Thanks, I forgot to mention, that while piling info on top of info, by adding changed info on top of changed info, you might, just might accidently create a simplistic complexity
If Dr. Pitman is correct, even relatively simple increases in functional complexity (via random mutations) would take trillions upon trillions of years. Take a look at the following:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Calculation
Pfffttt..... What's a few hoaxes in evolution? Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.
Those hoaxes weren't perpetrated by creationists, that's for sure.
Just gotta love how evos downplay fraud in their own field.
>>If you knew more about science it perhaps would be useful discussing this with you. Instead you get the short version.
Science is not in the business of proof (see the definitions on my FR home page). Science deals with evidence.
Science makes no attempt to disprove gods. Science deals with the natural world.<<
Is this some sort of joke post? It makes no compelling arguments whatsoever and then talks about disproving gods, completely outside the scope of the comments in the post to which you are responding.
Just wow...
If it was cold enough I might even let you use my tarp! p.s., I don’t have a camper anymore so dress warm.
So true as too often these threads become eye gouging contests.
Then why do scientists take it on themselves to tell creationists they are wrong?
Wrong based on what?
“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”
Professor Louis Bounoure
Why move the goal posts and make it just five frauds in human evolution?
The ToE is not just limited to human evolution, so there’s no need to demand five for JUST human evolution.
So just because someone cannot produce five for only human evolution, does it nullify the fraud of four? Or does it mean we can disregard the fraud in non-human evolution?
There’s not much way of weaseling out of it. Evolution is rife with fraud and attempted fraud and it’s egg on the face of evolutionists. No matter how you cut it, it makes them look bad and trying to weasel out of it doesn’t help any.
The only reason that evolutionists won’t discuss abiogenesis in connection with evolution is because it’s the very thing that they’ve been demanding- the scientific evidence that disproves the ToE. So they have to make an arbitrary distinction between whatever preceded the first cell; that thing that the first cell evolved from, and the first cell itself.
It’s intellectually dishonest to exclude part of the process from the process itself to try to *prove* that the process works. It only *works* if you ignore how it started.
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.