![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tarver Engineering wrote:
"L Smith" wrote in message hlink.net... Please point out those parts of "Origin of Species" that are false. Chances are you'll either find out that scientists have already recognized the error, Yes, nearly all of science knows Darwin's "Origin of species" is completely false. That is why I provided you with two other brances of science: Physics demonstrating a theory with repeatable and demonstrable resilts applied to Cosmology, Geology falses Darwin's "Origin of Species" with hard physical evidence and then from within the church of Darwin itself, Jay Gould replaces Darwin's work with a thirteen hundred page treatise trying to reconcile the obvious undisputable falshoods within Darwin's "Origin of species". All of the scientific community knows what is being taught in school is a lie. Stop teaching Darwin's religion as science in public schools. So far, nothing in your response above even comes close to answering my questions. I asked you to point out where you believe Darwinian theory is in error. You respond with a bunch of hand-waving that claims "this group shows its false, and that group shows its false, and blah-blah-blah." Since I don't accept the "because they said so" argument from people who count (such as those in political office), why do you think I'll accept that argument from someone I don't know from Caesar? If you're unwilling to tell us where you think Darwinian theory is wrong, are you at least willing to tell us what you think Darwinian theory says? By the way, while repeatability is a significant component of a scientific theory, its not a necessary or even a sufficient component. Otherwise, there could be _no_ theories of the universe. The _necessary_ and _sufficient_ condition required in order for a hypothesis to become a scientific theory is that the hypothesis must lead to predictions that can be proven false. "The moon is made of green cheese", for example, meets this test. You can prove the theory wrong by going to the moon and seeing what it's made of. Can your favorite creation "theory" predict the development of anti-biotic resistant bacteria? Rich Lemert |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. | Bush Air | Home Built | 0 | May 25th 04 06:18 AM |
AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | April 26th 04 06:12 PM |
Photographer seeking 2 pilots / warbirds for photo shoot | Wings Of Fury | Aerobatics | 0 | February 26th 04 05:59 PM |