Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: gore3000
He went around making thousands of predictions and when one or two were proven correct he called his theory proven?

The man was actually worried that if those specific things were not found, it would render his ideas useless. They were found. Of course, in that was him admitting the possibility that he was wrong.

And as was mentioned, the theory today is far more than Darwin could have imagined, the science has progressed way beyond him.

A few posts back I showed how many things Darwin was incorrect about. Important things at the heart of his theory and his "predictions".

Scientists are wrong about a lot of things. The difference between science and religion is that we discard those things that are wrong, such as those ideas of his you mentioned. If science discarded those ideas of his so easily, why hasn't science discarded the whole theory? You've already shown it has no problems contradicting Darwin, why not contradict the whole thing? Maybe because they have enough evidence completely aside from anything Darwin ever said?

The above was a lucky guess and part of the chutzpah of the charlatan that he was. He also predicted that the fossil record would prove evolution and it has not done so after 150 years and 100 times more fossils.

Not proven to the few religious who reject it on religious grounds. As soon as you started writing about the barbarity and immorality of evolution, you admitted your objections are not actually scientific, but religious.

411 posted on 03/28/2002 11:28:32 PM PST by Quila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies ]


To: Quila
The difference between science and religion is that we discard those things that are wrong

There was a time when the majority of scientists rejected the idea of creation -- specifically the idea that the universe could have been formed at a specific, measurable moment in time.

Perhaps we are getting back to that view with string theory, but for the last 70 years, astrophysists have been following the evidence rather than preconceptions.

430 posted on 03/29/2002 6:15:00 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies ]

To: Quila
The man was actually worried that if those specific things were not found,

Nope. Darwin was just bluffing - just like he was bluffing about the eye, about the fossils, and about all the objections to his theory. He did not prove anything, all he did was try to put the burden of proof where it did not belong - on his opponents. When one proposes a theory, the burder of proof is on the proponent.

You also ignore the incorrect predictions by Darwin which are central to the theory of evolution. The man was no scientist. He was, as I have said - a charlatan.

523 posted on 03/30/2002 10:42:22 AM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson