Replies

"One can deny this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one's understanding of science and of the method of science," Dini states on the Web site.

Sounds reasonable to me.

What sounds reasonable to you? Treating an unfalsifiable hypothesis as a scientific law? To what supposed "method of science" is Dini referring? A house of cards built upon a foundation of untestable primary assumptions?

What sounds reasonable to you? Treating an unfalsifiable hypothesis as a scientific law? To what supposed "method of science" is Dini referring? A house of cards built upon a foundation of untestable primary assumptions?

You know, with that incredible display of ignorance, I don't think you would get a recommendation from the good doctor.

Treating an unfalsifiable hypothesis as a scientific law?

Evolution is falsifiable. All you need to find is older fossils that are more evolved on the same branch. Creationists are reduced to arguing with physics as the only way they can do this is by disputing aging methods.

It also has a good predictive record. It predicts fossils of intermediate age are going to be intermediatly developed. This has been found in the fossil record repeatedly for many creatures (throughout the fossil record, including primative creatures but notably in my incomplete knowledge in horses and the homo-simian line). Of course the creationists just claim that the intermediate form is now a new form and there are 'no transitional forms', which is pure BS (and the smart creationists know it e.g. you had creature 1 and 2 now you find creature 1.5 creationist 'demand' you find 1.25 and 1.75, repeat forever).

Tell me how to falsify biblical creation? Otherwise it is not a scientific theory.