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 ...
Care to elaborate??? After all this is about the evidence.
Try researching it. Google. Type in: NASA missing day of joshua
For the more advanced student to find the old wineskins this hoax was put in, Type: Totten Joshua long day
There's not enough evidence to come to a conclusion on that. There are some theories, but none that have reached a scientific consensus.
There is NO theory to develop if there is no HOT steamy pot of primordial pond scum.
I'll say again- the TOE does not deal with the origins of life. Your snide comment about primordial pond scum doesn't change that fact. You're creating a straw man that I have no desire to defend.
Apparently science is now forbidden to modify its theories when new data come to light.
More arrogant blasts of bilious bluster from the Lie-oteman.
Apparently one can only fault scientific theories in the past tense.
You're assuming what you need to prove- namely, that the TOE is somehow biologically, mathematically, naturally and chemically impossible. And yet, all of the available evidence shows that evolution of species is a fact.
mmm yes, I’m sure that was their motives- all of hteir motives- greed- not to bolster
You're the one claiming that scientists have created hoaxes to bolster the TOE- provide some evidence of that, if you can.
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-
Again, you are assuming what you need to prove- that hoaxes were perpetrated by scientists trying to bolster the TOE.
I found thios quote, regarding the ever denfended "randome mutation" process very telling:
There is clear evidence from organisms as diverse as humans and bacteria that genomes do indeed contain information that can focus mutations in certain areas and direct it away from others. Yet students are still taught that evolution works through completely random genetic variation acted upon by natural selection, leading to the survival of those organisms with genes best suited to their environment. Surely it is time to rethink the idea that evolution is purely a game of chance: to accept that genomes could have evolved information that allows them to influence genetic change and affect their own chances of survival?
L. H. Caporale, “Genomes don’t play dice,” New Scientist, March 6, 2004.
Which then is summarized and restated here:
Not only has life evolved, but life has evolved to evolve. … The rates at which the various events within the hierarchy of evolutionary moves occur are not random or arbitrary but are selected by Darwinian evolution.
D. J. Earl, M. W. Deem, “Evolvability is a selectable trait,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101 (2004): 11531-11536.
With these realizations, and some of the evidence cited from "K. Johnson, “Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island,” National Geographic News April 21, 2008."
“Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows.”
The plausibility of the rich diversity of species we witness today coming from a pair off the ark a mere 4500 years ago (or so) has increased substantialy to the honest truth-seeker.
BTW, a brilliant article, thanks for the pointer!
As for origins? Science is working on it but there is no good theory developed yet.
At least scientists are honest enought to say such a thing which is a breath of fresh air compared to theocrats here who’ve already pronounced that they’ve got all the answers....
One can fault current scientific theories; just bring scientific evidence.
But it is dishonest to criticize science for modifying its theories when new data come along. That is part of the scientific method.
...except, of course, the "scientists" who get grants to "find" missing links.
Must...use...SPELLcheck...Ughhhhh
Yes, you are a liar.
"Nog say.......Warning! This is a Meta-article that contains no site-specific scientifc data or research whatsoever and is produced by a member of an obscure, unrecognized, non-scientific internet group attempting to pass off his agenda as scholarly. Buyer Beware!"
Actually, Nog is extinct. So Nog says ....nothing.
Please. LIFE is here, man in the flesh as it is now can be fairly well dated. Earth, however, was here and had been here long before flesh man was formed. There is NO need to design or create theories with regards to how flesh man is here upon this earth. Note I did not say there was no desire because it has since the beginning to design something anything to disregard the Heavenly Father to be who He was from the beginning, the Origin. There is nothing new under the sun, nothing modern about it.
There is NO theory to develop if there is no HOT steamy pot of primordial pond scum.
I'll say again- the TOE does not deal with the origins of life. Your snide comment about primordial pond scum doesn't change that fact. You're creating a straw man that I have no desire to defend.
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.
You've been challenged--come up with just five hoaxes/frauds in fossil man/human evolution. And I even gave you the first--Piltdown Man, a true hoax.
Either come up with four more frauds/hoaxes or stop repeating the claim.
Oh so you were there at NASA? YOu know first person? Or are you one of the googlers I mean advance students?
[[And yet, all of the available evidence shows that evolution of species is a fact.]]
Really? What an incredible statement- Fact eh? And what are you basing this claim on? No credible scientist would make htis claim, but you have, so what are you basing your claim on? Assumptions? Because that’s all the evidence that supposedly support evolution. Assumptions! Fact? No- Relgious beleif that defies science? YES!
[[You’re the one claiming that scientists have created hoaxes to bolster the TOE- provide some evidence of that, if you can.]]
Practically every claim such as those of hte peppered moth, the ‘feathered dino’ (that didn’t have feathers, but MODIFIED SCALES that in NO way represented feathers, or even proto feathers as was CLAIMED), Eukorote ‘evolution’ practically every aspect is a hoax meant ot bolster macroevolution claims- When examined, it is exposed as nothign but an unsupported claim that defies the actual science- Fish to tetrapod claims is ALSO another fraud with NO evidence to support such claims- it’s a claim meant to bolster macroevolutionary claims and it has NO sscientific support- Cynodonts being related to later creatures- again NO evidence to support htis- just claims made trying to bolster the evolutionary ‘bush’ hypothesis- Embryos- another deliberate hoax- taught as fact for many many years- it was NOT fact- it was a hoax! Symibiotic relationships which Macroevolutionists tried passing off as ‘Evolution in action’- Deliberate hoaxes meant ot deceive hte public and bolster macoervolution- On and on it goes-
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.
The recently discovered 'hot' primordial soup' is NOT my claim, but 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.
But you really suck at trying to dismiss the plethora of ghastly Religion Of Evolution evidential hoaxes.
[[There is clear evidence from organisms as diverse as humans and bacteria that genomes do indeed contain information that can focus mutations in certain areas and direct it away from others.]]
Metainfo (something that can NOT arise naturally- ESPECIALLY from simlistic chemical infromation) MUST exist beforehand in order for even MICROevolution to happen- Metainfo is a marvelous system that anticipates change, has the informaiton laready present to deal with microevolution, directs, controls, and regulates change in such a way as to preserve the species in it’s own kind, and to try to help prevent species deterioration within parameters specific to that species- MACROEvolution on the other hand NEEDS to have a metainfo system inplace which anticipates non species specific infromation being introduced which is foreign to that species, however, it has been shown through numerous lab experiments that metainfo is psecies specific and very specified and custom created for each species.
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.
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.