It stands that evolution (not chromosomes, fossils, dna, etc which are not evolution) has never been observed, tested or recreated of which all are part of the requirements of the scientific method which real science stands on. Continuing this further is merely beating a dead horse.
12 comments
Give it up fools, the man said you are beating a dead horse.
I thought you hippies hated harming anything other than a human fetus.
Yet another dude backing up his idiot argument with "facts" he's actually pulled out of his ass, rather than bothering to check up on them. Probably out of fear that he'll be proved wrong... which in this case, he would have been. Dipstick.
Rom's 'real science' presumably doesn't include atomic theory (like anyone's ever seen an atom), electronics (duh, wires are solid metal, so how would 'electrons' flow through them?), germ theory of disease (sure people with diseases have germs, but have you seen ever a germ cause a disease?), a heliocentric solar system (have you ever recreated a solar system, cuz I sure haven't?)...
In fact, apart from the junior school stuff with weights and springs, I can't think of much that does meet these requirements. Unless the weights and springs businesses are vastly undereporting their profits, I guess all those 1000s of scientists must be paid to sit in their laboratories and browse p0rn all day.
The Lenski experiment. DDT-resistant mosquitoes. Antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea. MSRAs.
You lose.
By the way, the millions of transitional fossils that we have are evidence of evolution, whether you like it or not.
“It stands that evolution (not chromosomes, fossils, dna, etc which are not evolution) has never been observed,”
Well, sure, throw out everything that shows evolution and claim nothing shows evolution.
And If i discount the queen, the bishop, and the rook threatening my king, I haven’t yet been faced with Checkmate.
But while we have observed evolution (every single flu season), we don’t HAVE to observe it for science.
Science includes ‘repeatable observations,’ but doesn’t require ‘eyewitness testimony.’
“tested or recreated of which all are part of the requirements of the scientific method"
If that were true, then we couldn’t consider it science to study star formation. I don’t want MIT trying to recreate a stellar nova in my state, thanks.
“which real science stands on.”
Try again, bubbles. You’re trying to define evolution away but you’re using a mockery of the definition.
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.