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 ...
Except these hoaxes were also exposed by “Macroevolutionists.”
Sorry about the double post.
[[Wrong once again. The theory of evolution would proceed just fine]]
Wrong again- The theory of Macroevolution woudl NOT continue ‘just fine’ because it’s biologically, mathematically, naturally, and chemically impossible- the theory of MICROevolution however, yes, does continue ust fine-
The origins of life are irrelevant to the TOE. The TOE only seeks to explain the evolution of existing life. It has nothing to do with life's origins.
You all may want to claim separation but there is always a beginning and old Darwin is the middle of the theory.
So, your attack on the TOE comes down to the fact that it can't explain something that is not relevant to the theory and that the theory never seeks to explain in the first place?
LOL!
Not as pathetic as you lying in Jesus name, I'm sure he's real proud of you.
But sorry but if we go by your logic, if a hand full of hoaxes decades ago prove Darwin wrong, then the too numerous to even attempt count Christian hoaxes that go on to this day must also prove Jesus wrong. Can't have it both ways
That's like saying the existence of fake Renoir paintings undermines that artist's actual works of art.
but the hoaxes simply go to point out how desperate macroevolution adherents were to keep their hypothesis alive
AFAIK, none of the hoaxes were perpetrated by scientists trying to buttress the TOE. Archaeraptor, for example, was created by Chinses fossil merchants trying to make a buck.
Obviously this was caused by devolution (cf. Woodmorappe and Lubenow).
They proposed that all such Homo species, all the way back to Homo ergaster resulted since the Babel incident.
That would require evolution to proceed several hundred times faster than scientists propose--and in reverse. But none of their supporters bat an eye at that.
Then every apartment building is a religion - Who knew?
[[I challenge you to name five frauds]]
And GGG challenged you to read the article and refute it, but typically, all you can do is start rabbit trails and avoid hte article- per usual. Yawn!
[[Except these hoaxes were also exposed by “Macroevolutionists.”]]
Soem ohaxes were exposed by creationists- so what’s your point? That because macroevolutionsits exposed soem hoaxes that the TOE is therefore alright and trouble free? That hte points brought up in the article GGG posted aren’t valid?
lie about fossils
lie about rock strata
keep changing dating methods, hence,
keep changing dates
switch from uniformitarianism to some other scam(s) when forced to do so
apply circular reasoning to the embarrassment of true scientists everywhere
Having trouble getting it up, are we?
I guess you are serious. Now where did existing life originate?
So, your attack on the TOE comes down to the fact that it can't explain something that is not relevant to the theory and that the theory never seeks to explain in the first place?
Attach on TOE? Read those words, your words. What is TOE a sacred cow now? There is NO theory to develop if there is no HOT steamy pot of primordial pond scum. Why do you people hide from your own dogma?
No. But clearly, “macroevolutionists” aren’t as desperate as you claim they are if they are willing to out their own forgeries.
As for the article, I’m working on it. It’s kind of long.
[[That’s like saying the existence of fake Renoir paintings undermines that artist’s actual works of art.]]
You apparently don’t understand the severity of hte situation because you appeal to an analogy that has no relevence to TOE- a fake renoir would NOT falsify real reniors because paintings by artists aren’t biologically, mathematically, naturally and chemically impossible
[[AFAIK, none of the hoaxes were perpetrated by scientists trying to buttress the TOE. Archaeraptor, for example, was created by Chinses fossil merchants trying to make a buck.]]
mmm yes, I’m sure that was their motives- all of hteir motives- greed- not to bolster- Golly, perhaps I can challenge any anticreation claims by assigning some other motives to those creationists who might have misrepresented info then? Perhaps they weren’t tryign to bolster their beliefs, but rather waged a bet with someone for profit, and hterefore it was ok that they did so because they weren’t tryign to bolster weak arguments?
Again, on hteir own, hte fakes don’t falsify soemthing but DO show hte lengths soem will go to to try to bolster soemthign htey know is in trouble-
How should I categorize those of my scientist acquaintances, respected academics and researchers in the biological disciplines, who do not accept the faith-driven Genesis account and also do not accept the faith-driven claims of evolutionists?
Other than the hoaxes you mentioned (which were debunked by scientists, BTW), what hoaxes are you talking about?
lie about rock strata
What lies would those be? Be specific.
keep changing dating methods, hence,
Discovering new dating methods is now a bad thing? What other types of scientific progess do you oppose?
keep changing dates
So, being able to more accutately date fossils is also a bad thing?
switch from uniformitarianism to some other scam(s) when forced to do so
As science advances, new facts force us to change our theories. That's how science works. Is quantum physics evil because it changed our old view of the atom? Is the Periodic Table a lie because new elements have been added to it?
That's real sweet of you.
Perhaps you can find just five hoaxes and frauds in human evolution? If we're all liars it should be easy.
“So what came before?”
I don’t know. But I do know that life existed in the past. And that the populations of life that existed in the past are different from those that exist now.
Explain to me again why a “hot primordial soup” is necessary to explain that change.
I know of no "faith-driven" claims of "evolutionists." The claims are based on evidence, not faith.
Perhaps you can specify some of the "faith-driven" claims?
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.