To: Jaguarbhzrd; Dimensio; Religion Moderator; PatrickHenry
My responses have been to show how Evolution is just what it is: too lacking in testability, testing, and test results, to be called scientific theory. Also, to point out how human beings (and animals) have abilities that are simply not addressable by the vain materialist philosophy at the heart of Darwinism.
Prove that, and you could be the next nobel prize winner. The problem is that the whole statement is nonsense, and you would be laughed out of any scientific conference.
Once again, the "burden of proof" is with those who would propound the "theory," not with those who point out the standards which are not being met. Once again, I leave dealings with documentation that is not science but is presented as science (i.e., pseudo-science) to "you" (i.e., the Darwinist). And as I leave, I bid you newfound intellectual peace.
489 posted on
09/19/2006 9:55:30 PM PDT by
unspun
(What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
To: unspun
My responses have been to show how Evolution is just what it is: too lacking in testability, testing, and test results, to be called scientific theory.
You have been provided with examples of tests for the theory of evolution. That you refuse to accept that they are actually a part of the theory does not negate their existence.
492 posted on
09/19/2006 10:01:05 PM PDT by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: unspun
You're incorrect. Evolutionary theory is currently the dominant model. As it is the status quo, the burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.
493 posted on
09/19/2006 10:01:52 PM PDT by
Liberal Classic
(No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson