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 ...
Sorry, you are wrong once again.
Those three data points have been disproved by science. They play no role in scientific theories.
Lucy, on the other hand, is perfectly adequate data and has not been falsified. It does play a role in theory.
You listed, what, 4 hoaxes? All of which were quickly debunked (by scientists, not creationists, BTW).
distortions and lies
What distortions and lies are you talking about?
And you never answered my question.
We’ve fixed these false predictions
Ad hominem
The brush off
Falsificationism is flawed
If there are so many problems evolution would have been toppled
Those quoted believe in evolution
These falsifications will be remedied in the future
There is no better alternative
No one believes these predictions anymore
Sounds like 99% of hte ‘scientific counter-arguments’ presented here on FR everytime a scientific article brings to light the impossibilities of Macroevolution- Recall the mathematical statistics articles? “Mathematics doesn’t apply because it’s ‘linear’ and evolution isn’t linear’ (This ‘counter-argument’ was shown to be silly- but it still persists for some reason) “Thermodynamics doesn’t apply because the second law only applies to closed systems” (DESPITE the fact that the second law is even WORSE for open systems- this ‘coutner-argument’ still persists for some reason) “ID is a religion” “ID is psuedoscience” “Creationists are ignorant of ‘real’ science” ID’ers have to sign statmeents of faith- thus proving it’s religion” (Apparently implying that all ID’ers must sign statmeents of faith- somethign that is simply contrary to the FACTS, and despite hte FACT that those statements that a FEW MIGHT sign, is totally irrelevent to the scientific evidneces which EXPOSE the problems with naturalism)
It’s sad what represents counter-arguments to ID issues these days- yet soem insist on doing practically every one of htose bullet points above- apparently thinking it somehow constitutes sound counter-arguments.
“darwin[sic] species claims stems out of some illusion ‘hot’ steamy pot of primordial pond scum.”
Really? Can you show me evidence to that effect?
One of the requirements of a religion is that it have self-professed followers. There is not, AFAIK, anyone out there who considers himself a worshipper of the TOE.
That’s ‘cause your stupid question didn’t warrant an answer.
Wrong once again. The theory of evolution would proceed just fine whether the origin of life was natural, the action of some deity, or was the result of aliens. The reason is that evolution deals with change in life forms, not origins.
As for origins? Science is working on it but there is no good theory developed yet.
Before you can intelligently discuss this issue, you should understand that the TOE and abiogenesis are two separate things.
Thanks for the ping!
Are you for real? What exactly in your scientific methodology constitutes as evidence? Got to know that standard before I can provide evidence.
Where and when did alll this supposed species evolving begin? There is always a beginning, and there is no one going to say Darwin is the beginning. So what came before?
How does a thousand times a thousand hoaxes, distortions and lies make a "scientific" theory?
I challenge you to name five frauds or hoaxes in the field of human evolution/fossil man. And I'll spot you the first one--Piltdown Man.
If there are "a thousand times a thousand hoaxes" you should be able to come up with just four more.
How does a thousand times a thousand hoaxes, distortions and lies make a "scientific" theory?
I challenge you to name five frauds or hoaxes in the field of human evolution/fossil man. And I'll spot you the first one--Piltdown Man.
If there are "a thousand times a thousand hoaxes" you should be able to come up with just four more.
You claimed thousands of hoaxes, but could only list four. And you can't seem to explain why a handful of hoaxes serve as a rebuttal of the TOE.
Do you refuse to use US Dollars because there are some counterfeit bills out there?
How does a quickly-debunked fake fossil rebut the TOE?
bump
That's your dumbest comment, yet.
Keep 'em coming!
Please save your 'ridicule' for some else. Darwin is squat if there is no hot and steamy pot of primordial pond scum. You all may want to claim separation but there is always a beginning and old Darwin is the middle of the theory.
[[How does the existence of a handful of hoaxes rebut the TOE?]]
On their own, they don’t- however, they just help strengthen the idea that hypothesis is not as sound as we were falsely lead to bleeive it was- those, coupled with biological, mathematical, natural and chemical impossibilities, makes hte hypothesis a failed one.Metainfo being perhaps the biggest and final nail in the coffin- We had a very indepth and lengthy thread on Metainfo- and I noted that everyone ran from it (after first launching themselves into myriad ad hominem attacks, and myriad generalized claism which they were then unwilling to back up with any scientificalyl valid explanations)
No- on their own, the hoaxes don’t falsify Macroevolution- The actual scientific facts and evidneces do that sufficiently- but the hoaxes simply go to point out how desperate macroevolution adherents were to keep their hypothesis alive. The biological science does the talking just fine on it’s own for undermining the hypothesis
That's your dumbest comment, yet.
Fine- name a self-professed worshipper of the TOE, then.
I AGREE, these creationist have yet to explain the GEICO Cavemen!
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.