Darwin's Illegitimate Brainchild

[jerryR34]

 

 

Great point.  We've had 150+ years to disprove his theory.  Attacking the man is irrelevant and screams to any reasonable person of a lack of evidence contrary to his theory.

 

 

Actually, the Official Time of Death for darwinian evolution was 1972 with Punctuated Equilibrium......... = Ad Hoc Hypothesis

 

Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDO-scientific objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

 

PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions.

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience

 

Please falsify evolution via peer reviewed research and claim your Nobel.  Otherwise, you are grasping at straws.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

Great point.  We've had 150+ years to disprove his theory.  Attacking the man is irrelevant and screams to any reasonable person of a lack of evidence contrary to his theory.

 

 

Actually, the Official Time of Death for darwinian evolution was 1972 with Punctuated Equilibrium......... = Ad Hoc Hypothesis

 

Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDO-scientific objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

 

PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions.

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience

 

Please falsify evolution via peer reviewed research and claim your Nobel.  Otherwise, you are grasping at straws.

 

The only way to "falsify" the evolution hypothesis is to teset it empirically, which can't be done.  The evidence of evolution would be in the fossil record.  The problem is that the fossil record doesn't provide any evidence of animals evolving from one kind of animal into a completely different animal.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Right, I agree with you that the science is much different than it was during Darwin's day. This is where I'm confused about your line of reasoning. Shouldn't the focus be on evolution as founded on modern understandings of genetics etc, rather than Darwin's initial research and ideas?

 

 

Great point.  We've had 150+ years to disprove his theory.  Attacking the man is irrelevant and screams to any reasonable person of a lack of evidence contrary to his theory.

 

It's not a theory, scienticially speaking.  Evolution is an untested hypothesis that so far, has only been assumed true.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

Great point.  We've had 150+ years to disprove his theory.  Attacking the man is irrelevant and screams to any reasonable person of a lack of evidence contrary to his theory.

 

 

Actually, the Official Time of Death for darwinian evolution was 1972 with Punctuated Equilibrium......... = Ad Hoc Hypothesis

 

Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDO-scientific objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

 

PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions.

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience

 

Please falsify evolution via peer reviewed research and claim your Nobel.  Otherwise, you are grasping at straws.

 

 

Peer Review.....................: http://creation.com/articles#journal_archive

 

Not interested in a Nobel, I already have my Prize..... and it had nothing to do with evolution.

 

 

Also, In your estimation or belief, HOW are we here?..... is it from:  Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD)  ?

[Guest shiloh357]

One of the biggest criticisms of scientists who are creationists is that they have no peer-reviewed research.  The problem is that any research that challenges evolutionists' claims is banned from peer-review journals.

[Enoch2021]

One of the biggest criticisms of scientists who are creationists is that they have no peer-reviewed research.  The problem is that any research that challenges evolutionists' claims is banned from peer-review journals.

 

The Journal of Creation is Peer-Reviewed: http://creation.com/articles#journal_archive 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

One of the biggest criticisms of scientists who are creationists is that they have no peer-reviewed research.  The problem is that any research that challenges evolutionists' claims is banned from peer-review journals.

 

The Journal of Creation is Peer-Reviewed: http://creation.com/articles#journal_archive 

 

That's true, but what I am talking  about are internationally recognized scientific peer-review journals from which scientists from a creationist paradigm are banned from being equal participants in the scientific community.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

One of the biggest criticisms of scientists who are creationists is that they have no peer-reviewed research.  The problem is that any research that challenges evolutionists' claims is banned from peer-review journals.

 

The Journal of Creation is Peer-Reviewed: http://creation.com/articles#journal_archive 

 

That's true, but what I am talking  about are internationally recognized scientific peer-review journals from which scientists from a creationist paradigm are banned from being equal participants in the scientific community.

 

 

Oh yea, No doubt.  The Paradigm must take Precedence!!

[jerryR34]

Great point. We've had 150+ years to disprove his theory. Attacking the man is irrelevant and screams to any reasonable person of a lack of evidence contrary to his theory.

Actually, the Official Time of Death for darwinian evolution was 1972 with Punctuated Equilibrium......... = Ad Hoc Hypothesis

Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDO-scientific objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions.

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience

Please falsify evolution via peer reviewed research and claim your Nobel. Otherwise, you are grasping at straws.

Peer Review.....................: http://creation.com/articles#journal_archive

Not interested in a Nobel, I already have my Prize..... and it had nothing to do with evolution.

Also, In your estimation or belief, HOW are we here?..... is it from: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD) ?

False dichotomy

Edited February 4, 2014 by jerryR34

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

Great point. We've had 150+ years to disprove his theory. Attacking the man is irrelevant and screams to any reasonable person of a lack of evidence contrary to his theory.

 

Actually, the Official Time of Death for darwinian evolution was 1972 with Punctuated Equilibrium......... = Ad Hoc Hypothesis

Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDO-scientific objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions.

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience

Please falsify evolution via peer reviewed research and claim your Nobel. Otherwise, you are grasping at straws.

Peer Review.....................: http://creation.com/articles#journal_archive

Not interested in a Nobel, I already have my Prize..... and it had nothing to do with evolution.

Also, In your estimation or belief, HOW are we here?..... is it from: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD) ?

False dichotomy

 

 

A False Dichotomy/Dilemma/Black or White Fallacy is:  two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

 

So for your Assertion to be TRUE....You have to show that there are other choices besides:  Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD).

 

Good Luck