Status Report: The Invulnerable Refutation of Darwinism

Science says Genesis is correct: we originated from the first man, Adam.Scientism says we originated from an ancient ape ancestor, that at some point, millions of years ago, began to morph into a man.I noticed that you, like all evolutionists, avoided the Darwin quote like the plague. LOL!Ray

How long has it been now since you stopped beating your wife?Ray

It's been quite a while since I posted anything at EvC. I just wanted everyone to know that production is still on-going. Yes, but this is not T.O., this is EvC Forum where I have not posted in quite a while. I didn't want anyone here to think that anything has changed. I did not know that. Never heard of this site.Ray

This comment says there is no evidence in existence that harms evolutionary theory.Before Darwin evolution was a pseudo-science. In fact, in England, before 1859, there was not even one practicing biologist who was a transmutationist----not even one. Darwin simply reinterpreted and reexplained existing evidence----evidence that had been seen as supporting Creationism-Design.After 1879 there was not one respectable biologist in all of North America who was a creationist----not even one.Are we to believe a reexplanation and reinterpretation of previously existing evidence converted the entire biology community in less than 20 years?Apparently so.I am only burdened with explaining why Darwinian evolution was accepted since the evidence was 99 percent unoriginal and already uncovered. Even natural selection was a reexplanation. Both Malthus and Paley had already said that selection and superfecundity would prevent (not drive) evolutionary change.So when you claim that there is no evidence that contradicts evolution you are admitting ignorance of the History of Science.If there is no evidence that contradicts evolution then you are saying that evolution is not falsifiable.Creationism is falsifiable; if evolution is true then Creationism is falsified. Of course evolution is not true; the evidence does not support the claims. Over half of all adults in the U.S. agree. Evolution is pro-Atheism ideology packaged as science.Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : punctuation

Which creationism, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Mayan, Egyptian, Hellenic, Roman, Jewish, Muslum, Chinese, Algonkian, Incan....

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

quote:

---

If there is no evidence that contradicts evolution then you are saying that evolution is not falsifiable.

---

Not only do you display ignorance of the ToE, you are also demonstrating quiet clearly that you don't understand the concept of falsifiability. Falsifiability does not mean that there is in fact contradictory evidence. It means that there is possible evidence that, if found, would prove the theory wrong.For example, there is no evidence that can disprove last Thursdayism, the idea that God made the world as it exists, including us, last Thursday, complete with implanted memories of events from before that time. Any possible evidence that you can imagine can be reconciled with last Thursdayism.There are countless possibilities of evidence that could be found that would disprove evolution. I shan't waste my time giving examples as you have already amply shown that you don't understand the ToE anyway, so falsifying evidence would be lost on you as well.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It's a bad idea to play the "misunderstanding" or "you do not understand" card since, if objectively applied, could mean that you are the one who is misunderstanding evolutionary theory.It's better to say that you disagree. It is a well known fact that Creationists and Evolutionists disagree.Ray

quote:

---

It's a bad idea to play the "misunderstanding" or "you do not understand" card since, if objectively applied, could mean that you are the one who is misunderstanding evolutionary theory.

​

It's better to say that you disagree. It is a well known fact that Creationists and Evolutionists disagree.

---

That's sweet.Nothing whatsoever addressing my main point, that you obviously don't understand what falsification is.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

You are quoted there, though. Immortalized, even.

We may as well give up. There's no stopping Ray once he's in full kemmer. --Percy

Please show me?Ray

As phrased no evidence thus exists.You need to stop playing games. Everyone knows what falsifiability means. Evolutionists have stuck their foot in their mouth by claiming no evidence exists that contradicts evolution. This belief is prima facie evidence supporting the general claim that evolution is a religion. Your comments prove that it is you who does not understand falsifiability. The same simply means ideas and tests specifically produced and applied against a scientific claim to test its veracity.Ray

Reference, please.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

quote:

---

Your comments prove that it is you who does not understand falsifiability. The same simply means ideas and tests specifically produced and applied against a scientific claim to test its veracity.

---

Wrong, as usual.Read here for enlightenment, if that's possible.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Hi, Ray. Ray, falsifiability means that you could theoretically prove it false by finding contradictory evidence. Falsifiability does not require that contradictory evidence actually exist. Think about that: what you are saying is that, in order for something to be considered scientific, we must have evidence that it's not true.Evolution could easily be proven false by, for example, showing that there is no sequential pattern in the fossil record (e.g. you could find advanced mammals in Cambrian sediments). The fact that no such evidence has ever been found, while heaps and heaps of evidence that is fully consistent with evolutionary history have been found, is the reason evolution is an accepted scientific theory.However, even if creationism were completely wrong, you could never prove it was wrong, simply because any contradictory evidence can simply be ascribed to some esoteric purpose of the designer that is, by definition, beyond our capacity to understand.There, I've said my piece. It probably won't do much good here, but, at least now it won't be because of my failure to do anything about it.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.