It is a remarkable fact that you can not observe our evolution occur hence it lacks the testability and falsifiability and observation aspect of the scientific method, however, this did not stop evolutionists from simply making up evidence for the theory. 1- Piltdown Man. 2- Nebraska man. 3- Peking Man. 4- Neanderthals, and 5- Archaetopryx.
Why should we continue to rely on the "evidence" brought forth by evolutionists, how do we know that the future evidence proposed or the current "evidence" will not be discovered to be hoax as well 20 years from now
11 comments
Yes, there have been hoaxes. Those hoaxes have been exposed by other scientists, not creationists.
The Bible accounts, which disagree with each other, also lack the testability and falsifiability and observation aspect of the scientific method. There is no non-Biblical evidence to support either account in Genesis. Why should we pay any more attention to the Biblical creation than we do to the creation stories of Egypt, Greek, Rome, Norse, Aztecs, etc.? They all have exactly the same amount of evidence to support them.
Why should we continue to relie on the "evidence" brought forth by the likes of Michael Behe, how do we know that the past evidence submitted or the subsequent "evidence" will not be dismissed as lies as well as ten years ago?
Because Conservative Christian Judge John E. Jones III didn't in Kitzmiller vs. Dover then.
Does anyone have a reference to that wonderful video of bacteria evolving into gels with different levels of antibacterial stuff? It happened in right-in-front-of-your-eyes time. But if you're going to drag in century-old hoaxes that were debunked by real SCIENTISTS, then we are going to have to quiz you very closely about those fake-human Paluxy river tracks.... Trust me, you don't want to have to justify that creationist hoax.
It is a remarkable fact that you can not observe our evolution occur hence it lacks the testability and falsifiability and observation aspect of the scientific method
this did not stop evolutionists from simply making up evidence for the theory. 1- Piltdown Man. 2- Nebraska man. 3- Peking Man. 4- Neanderthals, and 5- Archaetopryx.
Actually the beauty of the theory of evolution is that all its premises and all its predictions actually can be testified and there have been several huge studies that did so during the last few decades, the example from my evolutionary analysis textbook was a large study of Darwin finches, in which the theories premises (variation, environmental factors like ressources, heritability of traits and reproduction) were all tested for before the prediction (that natural selection happened) was. Surprise surprise, they found that natural selection did occur, which should be a no-brainer since in the end, evolution is nothing but the logical result of life on earths fundamental properties: Metabolism (leading to a need for ressources), reproduction and heritability of traits. Once you've got these things (and viruses don't even need the first one) evolution is inevitable. Denying that is equivalent to stating that exposed surfaces don't get wet when it rains.
What you're talking about is a remarkable lie, not a fact.
It was science that detected that Piltdown Man was a hoax. Through observation, tests (including falsifiability) they found that Nebraska Man was a classification mistake, that Peking Man was a Homo Erectus, that Neanderthals were cousins and that most non-Africans have Neanderthal genes so we interbred with them, and that Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur evolving into a bird.
That is how science works, nitwit, and the scientific method is used to prove evolution time and time again, perhaps even daily.
So, just ignore evidence, then? After all, if evidence might possibly someday maybe have some doubt cast on it, then it's apparently worthless.
You do understand that this is the underpinning of science, right? Evidence and reason? Then again, people like you likely believe that these things are the enemy because they make your worldview look bad.
Also, microevolution is observable, and has been observed. Macroevolution is a logical extrapolation with support from the fossil record. What have you and yours got?
“It is a remarkable fact that you can not observe our evolution occur hence it lacks the testability and falsifiability and observation aspect of the scientific method,”
“however, this did not stop evolutionists from simply making up evidence for the theory. 1- Piltdown Man"
“ 2- Nebraska man.”
"3- Peking Man.”
“4- Neanderthals,"
“and 5- Archaetopryx.”
“Why should we continue to rely on the "evidence" brought forth by evolutionists,”
“how do we know that the future evidence proposed or the current "evidence" will not be discovered to be hoax as well 20 years from now”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
