Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge

Hi Peter, and others, from a long-time lurker.
You wrote:
-----------------
Kind = any group of organisms with compatible DNA that is able to produce offspring through mixture --either natural or artificial-- of their DNA.
-----------------
Peter, could you describe in outline a controlled experiment to support/falsify this position? I can't think of one.

Since the most debated among kinds are humans vs apes, then I propose this highly unethical expemriment.Crossbreed a human with a Pan paniscus.

Dear Chavalon,That is the good part about the definition. Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Budikka,You say:Finally, someone gets down to business!Borger: "Kind = any group of organisms with compatible DNA that is able to produce offspring through mixture --either natural or artificial-- of their DNA."So you are saying that "all" organisms are the same kind, since they all have the same DNA building blocks and through artifically adjusting this DNA, we can produce mixtures of any two organisms?In short, your definition defines nothing. You are saying a "kind" is a "kind"!My reply:
Excellent conclusion. Tautologies sound familiar, isn't it?You say:What do you mean by "compatible DNA"? All DNA is compatible since it is composed of precisely the same base pairs and amino acids in different mixtures.No, compatible DNA is compativble only when it can give offspring --either by natural or artificial means. The offspring may be vertile, since that can be explained by loss of information from the secondary DNA associated code. Who knows. At present, nobody. It is my hypothesis.Define "compatible DNA". Give some examples of organisms that, in your view, constitute the same "kind" and contrast them with other organisms that, while seemingly alike, do not constitute the same "kind", otherwise your "definition" is worthless.My response:
Lions and tiger produce viable --natural-- offspring by DNA mixing. Other members of the cats can be artificially cross bred is my prediction from the MPG hypothesis. Time wil tell, soon.
Korals probaly comprise only one/a few kind(s) exchanging DNA all the time. (I will look up the reference). Likewise, prokaryota comprise one (a few) kinds.YOU:
Since evolution between "kinds" is also relevant here, you need to address the next issue along with this issue. What is the mechanism which prevents one "kind" from evolving into another "kind" and what is the scientific proof that there exists such a mechanism?I say:
Histon code and differential gene regulation. See my other thread. Do a search on histon code. You will find plenty of evidence.YOU:
You cannot sepearate the one from the the other. If you cannot define such a mechanism, then how can you even define "kind"?I say:
Why is it not possible to discriminate between these. As soon as we elucidate all ins and outs of the codes regulating transcriptinional and posttranscriptional control, we will.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-07-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Chavalon,

​

That is the good part about the definition.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

​

---

*****************+The good part of this definition is that you cannot propose an experiment to test this hypothesis?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Chavalon,

​

That is the good part about the definition.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

​

---

​

*****************+

​

The good part of this definition is that you cannot propose an experiment to test this hypothesis?

---

Most philosophers of science (eg Popper) would say that the definition is thus - by definition - unscientific.

Hi Percy,

quote:

---

P: Fred, might I suggest that, independent of who is at fault in the exchange between you and Budikka at your site, that issues of fairness and objectivity can't help but be called into question when the same individual is both debater and moderator.

---

I think you miss the point. Recall our exchange about a certain past creationist on your board I had a sincere question about? Imagine what you would think if I posted on this board your response (not to imply it wasn't sincere and respectful, which is beside the point). I’m sure you would agree it would be totally unprincipled on my part to post your private comments, and you would have every right to remove them. So you need to know this is exactly what Ian Wood did on my board. Ian’s claim that he was merely trying to get a hold of Chris Bohar means he either has a horrible memory or is lying. I have his original guestbook entry to prove it. He posted a portion of Bohar’s email that was totally unecessary in an attempt to embarrass him about something he mentioned about another creationist. He stooped to this unethical behavior despite having been warned on several prior occasions not to post private email messages to my guestbook.My treatment to Ian has been extremely fair. I did not moderate a single portion of our lengthy debate, nor have I edited or moderated any of his guestbook entries except for those containing private emails. The rules of my guestbook are simple and easy to comply with. Ian seems to be the only one who has trouble following them out of the scores of evolutionists who have posted there over the last 5 years.I won't comment on this any further, and I apologize for this waste of bandwidth on the board.

Then congrats, you have just made Peter Borger unscientific.

When you get a clue, let me know. I'll mark the date on my calendar.And when I start up a clueless web site full of lies and control it with an iron fist so that the entire site is an exercise in bias, then let's talk about "bitter". Until then, consider the massive plank in your own eye before you even try to lecture me about the insignificant mote in mine.Budikka

Well if this isn't familiar ground, I don't know what is. Once again we see the creationist dance away from the issues without even properly addressing them - again. Why am I not surprised?So I said that "In short, your definition defines nothing. You are saying a "kind" is a "kind"!", and your only response is to agree? ("Excellent conclusion. Tautologies sound familiar, isn't it? (sic)")In other words, Borger, you lose. I ask for a definition, you do not give one, and when I challenge you on it, you say, "Tough"? If this is what you call responding to challenges, then let's forget it right now, because I am tired of your flaccid responses to serious questions. If you are going to pursue this, then you need to get down to brass tacks, and quit making excuses for your inability to grapple the issues.Borger: "No, compatible DNA is compativble (sic) only when it can give offspring --either by natural or artificial means. The offspring may be vertile (sic), since that can be explained by loss of information from the secondary DNA associated code. Who knows. At present, nobody. It is my hypothesis."This is nothing but the "kind" tautology dressed up in fancy clothes. it does not do the job. You even admit that this is nothing but another of your beliefs.And you have failed to address the issue of natural vs. artificial. I do not doubt for a minute that science will very shortly be able to produce whatever cross-breeding it wishes between different organisms using artificial means. Scientists are already freely transplanting genes from widely differing organisms into one another.Does this mean your definition of "kind" changes to match current scientific technology? If a scientist were, for example, able to cross breed a dog and a cat using "artificial means" would this then automatically mean that they are the same kind? What if scientists produced an animal where 50% of its functional DNA was plant DNA? Would this make the animal and the plant the same "kind"?Borger: "Lions and tiger produce viable --natural-- offspring by DNA mixing."Once again we seem to be getting confused about what is natural vs. what is artificial. To my knowledge, lions and tigers do not interbreed in the wild - this is why they are classified as separate species. Although they do not naturally interbreed, there are circumstances where they can be *induced* to breed and produce viable offspring. Are you saying that this is natural? In what sense is it natural? If this is natural, then what do you mean by aritifical?Please, do not progress beyond this point and do not post any more material in this thread until and unless you are prepared to offer some serious, solid, definitions, as opposed to more incoherent rambling.To help you, I have prepared this short list of things you have failed to properly define in the context of this thread:"kind"
compatible DNA
artificial
naturalBorger: "Other members of the cats can be artificially cross bred is my prediction from the MPG hypothesis. Time wil (sic) tell, soon.
Korals (sic) probaly (sic) comprise only one/a few kind(s) exchanging DNA all the time. (I will look up the reference). Likewise, prokaryota comprise one (a few) kinds."I see "hypothesis" in there. I see "my prediction" in there. I see "time will tell" in there. I see "probably" in there. In short, I see nothing but unsupported opinion in there.What I was asking for was solid defintiions and examples. Is this supposed to be some sort of serious response, or are you simply passing the time of day by rambling on about *your* perspective, and *your* ideas, and *your* beliefs yet again?If you can define "kind", as you have strongly indicated you can (but have yet to do so), then listing some solid examples of organisms that are definitely of the same kind, and contrasting them with other, similar organisms that are definitely not the same "kind" ought to be the simplest thing in the world.Borger: "Histon code and differential gene regulation. See my other thread. Do a search on histon code. You will find plenty of evidence."No! I am not going to do your work for you. If you want to post here, then *you* need to do the work. Throwing out six-word sentences and pretending that they offer any kind of response, explanation, or solution is not good enough. Casually tossing off vague hints at solutions and (*yet again*) offering no references/URLs whatsoever, is not going to do it.If you cannot or do not provide references, then your material is worthless and will not be considered. I am *not* simply going to take your word for it. Neither am I going to waste my valuable time flying around the web in the desperate hope that *I* can find some material to support *your* beliefs. Please, get a clue.You need to explain, in detail, in layman's terms if possible, right here in this thread (or provide a *specific reference* to some place else where you have detailed this), exactly how "Histon code and differential gene regulation" prevent one "kind" (which you still need to define) from evolving into another "kind".Borger: "Why is it not possible to discriminate between these."Because if you are going to put yourself in the position of declaring that one "kind" cannot evolve into another "kind", then you need to establish what a "kind" is to begin with, and if you are going to differentiate between "kinds", then you need to establish a mechanism that keeps them separate. I am still waiting on you (or, for that matter, any creationist anywhere on planet Earth) adeqately defining these two things.Borger: "As soon as we elucidate all ins and outs of the codes regulating transcriptinional and posttranscriptional control, we will."So this entire last message from you is simply a very wordy way of admitting that you can neither define "kind" nor offer a mechanism which prevents one "kind" from "varying" into another "kind"! All you are able to say is that you desperately hope that your belief will be confirmed by the hard work of real scientists at some point in the future!Are you prepared to admit that you have nothing to offer now? That you cannot adequately or competently define "kind" or detail the mechanism which keeps "kinds" strictly deparated? I don't want to hear any more "probably"s, or "time will tell"s, or "as soon as we elucidate"s. If you are declaring now that there are separate "kinds" you need to offer the evidence that you have *now* - not that might just possibly show up at some point in the future, if you are lucky.Evolutionists have spent 140 years solidly establishing their position with multiple and diverse lines of evidence published in hundreds of papers, and this is still happening *now*, here in the real world.You are on record as arrogantly declaring that you know that "NDT has fallen" yet here you are, being challenged on your evidence, and you have none! All your "evidence" apparently boils down to is a bunch of "let's wait and see"s, hypotheses, beliefs, and "probably"s. No wonder you haven't published.I'm sorry, but your lousy excuse for a response to a challenge has evaporated. If you wish to continue this, then let's see some solid definitions. And I do not want to see any more vague directions to go find the evidence. You need to present the evidence here, or at least offer URLs to it.Budikka

Williams: "Ian’s claim that he was merely trying to get a hold of Chris Bohar means he either has a horrible memory or is lying."Let's be perfectly clear who the liar is between the two of us, since I am not the one who hosts a web site chock full o' lies, as is demonstrated in another thread on this board.If I were not serious about getting in touch with Bohar, why have I gone to the trouble of opening this thread and dealing with all the creationist nonsense, arm-flapping and irrelevant trivia that has been posted in it, including yours?I fully explained in that post to your guestbook and again in this very thread exactly what happened. Your post calling this a "story" is of the same kind of cheap shot as your web site stories, and does nothing better than to illustrate how out of touch with reality you are.Once again, for the learning impaired: A cowardly creationist sent me an uninvited email, challenging me to a debate. He frequently referenced you and your web site. I responded directly to him and the email bounced back.**In an attempt to reach him** I posted a response to him in your guestbook, specifically because he had referenced you and your web site. In that response, I addressed his challenges and comments and offered to take him up on the debate whenever he wanted to get back in touch with me. In order to respond to him, I had no choice but to quote his comments. Duhh! I explained this before. I think we all understand your desperate need to censor or trivialise that which highlights creationist shortcomings, so none of your comments are really surprising.Williams: "He stooped to this unethical behavior despite having been warned on several prior occasions not to post private email messages to my guestbook."If I were you, I would steer widely clear of the word "unethical", Williams. Wasn't it you who was moderating his own debates anonymously (and denying that he was doing so) on another debate board not that long ago, along with Walter ReMine, where messages you didn't like would quietly disappear? Can you say, "hypocrite"?As I made it perfectly clear, even if I agreed with you about obtaining permission to post someone's email comments, such permission was not obtainable in this case since emails to Bohar *bounced back* as undeliverable. Since he has not even made an appearance in this thread, I can only assume that he is yet another cowardly creationist who cannot stand up for his beliefs. Do you get it now, Williams?There is, of course, another possibility. Perhaps there is no "Christopher Bohar" - perhaps he is nothing more than a creation of an even more cowardly creationist who hides behind a false identity for no other reason than to taunt me in email. Do *you* know who this Bohar is, by any chance?I don't recall you ever mentioning this email rule except on *one* previous occasion, and I disagreed with you then and explained why. But you didn't want that, did you? You want people to be able to post all the trash and insults they want about me in your guest book, and for me to not ever have the opportunity to defend myself, don't you? I am sure this same reason is why you insisted on having the last word in our debate. That's the Fred Williams method. How Christian is that, Fred? What happened to turning the other cheek, Fred? Ever heard of "practice what you preach", Fred?But you being a control freak is not the issue here. Remember, it is you, not I, who runs a web site routinely disparaging everything that evolutionists say and who supports a totally trivial guestbook where people who favor you are pretty much allowed to say what they want, but any evolution supporter who responds is subject to possible deletion. And those deletions do *not* hinge solely on whether or not someone's email has been quoted.But just to keep you super-happy, let me make a public announcement right now:Anyone who sends me an email loses all control of that email and any comments they make may be used in guestbooks, on web sites, in articles, in other emails, on bathroom walls, or anywhere I choose at my sole discretion. Anyone who doesn't agree with this rule should not send me any emails. Period.So can we now take it that this cheap excuse of yours is now null and void for all emails I recieve after the date of this message?Now are you going to continue to post irrelevant, self-serving messages in this thread or are you going to tackle the subject matter?

Hi Fred!Saw your mention of this site in your guestbook - thanks!I'm not questioning your site's policies or their enforcement. Lord knows we share the same difficulties. But Budikka evidently has an urgent desire to debate with you, and to avoid issues of fairness and objectivity that debate cannot take place in your guestbook. I know Budikka came to your site, but websites like ours are open places. All us website guys like traffic, but some visitors entail more overhead than others, and at times I'm sure we all feel like paraphrasing Bogie and saying, "Of all the evo/creo joints in all the world, he walks into mine."With regard to your website's guestbook, you can assume the guidelines will be violated from time to time, but if you're both contributor and editor then you can't avoid the fairness/objectivity issue. This isn't your fault, and it isn't something you have to fix or even should fix, but it's a reality nonetheless.I think a good canned response to entries in your guestbook that tend toward the inflammatory would be something along the lines of, "Thank you very much for visiting this site and for your energetic advocacy of the evolutionist position." If the entry is from someone who's a blowhard hothead then it speaks for itself, and so an even better response is none at all. Of course, this is my style, not yours, but the point I'm trying to make is the same one you make yourself when you say in your guestbook, "Please try to avoid using this guest book as a forum for debate..."--Percy

Dear Budikka,You say:
Well if this isn't familiar ground, I don't know what is. Once again we see the creationist dance away from the issues without even properly addressing them - again. Why am I not surprised?
So I said that "In short, your definition defines nothing. You are saying a "kind" is a "kind"!", and your only response is to agree? ("Excellent conclusion. Tautologies sound familiar, isn't it? (sic)")I say:
Apparently you are a new kid around the block. If you had read all my mails to this site you would have known that it was me who is going to set up a creationist's theory that explains all biological phenomena and that cannot be falsified. As an evolutionist that must sound familiar. A non-falsifiable theory of evolutionism has been attempted to set up by the evolutionists. It took them about 140 years. To bad, that contemporary molecular biology refutes evolutionism. Read my mailings on non-random evolution, genetic redundancies, the trick of reconciliation of gene- family trees, etc, etc, etc.You:
In other words, Borger, you lose.I say:
If there is anything I might lose it is my patience to rebunk evolutionist's stories.You:
I ask for a definition, you do not give one, and when I challenge you on it, you say, "Tough"? If this is what you call responding to challenges, then let's forget it right now, because I am tired of your flaccid responses to serious questions. If you are going to pursue this, then you need to get down to brass tacks, and quit making excuses for your inability to grapple the issues.I say:
I gave you a perfect definition of a kind. That you have a problem with it? Fine. I have serious problem with evolutionism's just-so-stories. So, you are free to redifine it. The one making up the theory also makes up the definitions. That's how it works. Easy to understand.Borger: "No, compatible DNA is compativble (sic) only when it can give offspring --either by natural or artificial means. The offspring may be vertile (sic), since that can be explained by loss of information from the secondary DNA associated code. Who knows. At present, nobody. It is my hypothesis."You:
This is nothing but the "kind" tautology dressed up in fancy clothes. it does not do the job. You even admit that this is nothing but another of your beliefs.I say:
Excellent conclusion.You:
And you have failed to address the issue of natural vs. artificial. I do not doubt for a minute that science will very shortly be able to produce whatever cross-breeding it wishes between different organisms using artificial means. Scientists are already freely transplanting genes from widely differing organisms into one another.I say:
'Artificial' could be translated as 'intelligent'.You:
Does this mean your definition of "kind" changes to match current scientific technology? If a scientist were, for example, able to cross breed a dog and a cat using "artificial means" would this then automatically mean that they are the same kind? What if scientists produced an animal where 50% of its functional DNA was plant DNA? Would this make the animal and the plant the same "kind"?I say:
If so, yes. However, I predict that these organisms are not one kind.Borger: "Lions and tiger produce viable --natural-- offspring by DNA mixing."You:
Once again we seem to be getting confused about what is natural vs. what is artificial. To my knowledge, lions and tigers do not interbreed in the wild - this is why they are classified as separate species. Although they do not naturally interbreed, there are circumstances where they can be *induced* to breed and produce viable offspring. Are you saying that this is natural? In what sense is it natural? If this is natural, then what do you mean by aritifical?I say:
As long as these organisms are able to produce offspring = one kind.You:
Please, do not progress beyond this point and do not post any more material in this thread until and unless you are prepared to offer some serious, solid, definitions, as opposed to more incoherent rambling.To help you, I have prepared this short list of things you have failed to properly define in the context of this thread:"kind"
compatible DNA
artificial
naturalI say:
See my respones above.Borger: "Other members of the cats can be artificially cross bred is my prediction from the MPG hypothesis. Time wil (sic) tell, soon.
Korals (sic) probaly (sic) comprise only one/a few kind(s) exchanging DNA all the time. (I will look up the reference). Likewise, prokaryota comprise one (a few) kinds."I say:
What are you counting? Lies?You:
I see "hypothesis" in there. I see "my prediction" in there. I see "time will tell" in there. I see "probably" in there. In short, I see nothing but unsupported opinion in there.I say:
No, all these assertions can be backed up scientifically. And as promissed the refernce (sic ) was in a German journal: Koralle 2002, volume 7, page 71, by Prof Dr J.E.N. Veron, and it was translated from English, so you can find it somewhere).You:
What I was asking for was solid defintiions and examples. Is this supposed to be some sort of serious response, or are you simply passing the time of day by rambling on about *your* perspective, and *your* ideas, and *your* beliefs yet again?I say:
To set up a new theory takes quite an effort, but I do it on the side. It is some sort of hobby of me. First step: show where evolutionism clashes with contemporary biology. I did that. Next step set up a theory that describes correctly what we observe. I don't need a atheistic worldview. Why would one be a priori be an atheist? Maybe you can answer that question.You:
If you can define "kind", as you have strongly indicated you can (but have yet to do so), then listing some solid examples of organisms that are definitely of the same kind, and contrasting them with other, similar organisms that are definitely not the same "kind" ought to be the simplest thing in the world.I say:
Darwin Finches have been demonstrated to be of one kind: they can produce offspring (I have the rference here somewhere, and I will look it up for you, it was very recent Nature --or Science--, I always confuse these two.)
Dinosaurs and mammals are definitely not of the same kind.Borger: "Histon code and differential gene regulation. See my other thread. Do a search on histon code. You will find plenty of evidence."You say:
No! I am not going to do your work for you. If you want to post here, then *you* need to do the work. Throwing out six-word sentences and pretending that they offer any kind of response, explanation, or solution is not good enough. Casually tossing off vague hints at solutions and (*yet again*) offering no references/URLs whatsoever, is not going to do it.My response:
If you wanna be part of a debate, you will have to read the stuff I mailed since I am not going to repeat myself. In particular, since you only recently registered.You:
If you cannot or do not provide references, then your material is worthless and will not be considered. I am *not* simply going to take your word for it. Neither am I going to waste my valuable time flying around the web in the desperate hope that *I* can find some material to support *your* beliefs. Please, get a clue.I say:
Till now I you haven't substantiated any of your letter with references.You:
You need to explain, in detail, in layman's terms if possible, right here in this thread (or provide a *specific reference* to some place else where you have detailed this), exactly how "Histon code and differential gene regulation" prevent one "kind" (which you still need to define) from evolving into another "kind".My response:
Transcriptional activation of genes --in particular those of eukaryota-- depends on moleculaes that are attached to the histones. At the heart of this model is the hypothesis that different patterns of histon tail modification either facilitate or prevent the binding of effector proteins to chromatin. The specific modifications of histone tails at a promoter region lead to either the binding or the dissociation of effectors that favor a permissive chromatin state (coactivators), or the binding or dissociation of effectors that maintain the non-permissive state (corepressors). Furthermore, some of these modifications owe their effects to preventing other modifications from ocurring. Importantly, specific histone tail modifications can act both synergistically and antagonistically. (ref: Trends in biochemical sciences, april 2002, vol27, p165). The histone code model holds that there are two waves of cofactors. The first wave of factors is to make appropriate covalent modifications to the histones of the promoter. As a consequence of the histone modifcation the second wave is recruitment of factors that change the local chromatin structure. Only than could recruitment of the transcriptional machinary and gene trancription occur. It is entirely plausible that the histone code differ in different species, and thus cannot activate each others transcriptional machinary in natural or artifical settings. No offspring can be generated en thus the organism are of distinct kind. Even if the organism have almost identical genetic makeup --like Drosophila species-- a differential order of activation of genes may prevent the production of offspring.Borger: "Why is it not possible to discriminate between these."You:
Because if you are going to put yourself in the position of declaring that one "kind" cannot evolve into another "kind", then you need to establish what a "kind" is to begin with, and if you are going to differentiate between "kinds", then you need to establish a mechanism that keeps them separate. I am still waiting on you (or, for that matter, any creationist anywhere on planet Earth) adeqately defining these two things.My response:
The mechanisms that keeps them apart is the histone code in combination with the coactivaor code of transcription. If they are not compatible: no offspring, different kinds.Borger: "As soon as we elucidate all ins and outs of the codes regulating transcriptinional and posttranscriptional control, we will."You:
So this entire last message from you is simply a very wordy way of admitting that you can neither define "kind" nor offer a mechanism which prevents one "kind" from "varying" into another "kind"! All you are able to say is that you desperately hope that your belief will be confirmed by the hard work of real scientists at some point in the future!I say:
Hard work of real scientist is elucidating these mecahnisms in a very high pace. This hard work has nothing to do with evolutionism. In contrast, it is very questionable that life on earth is the result of evolution. In my opinion, it is NOT.You say:
Are you prepared to admit that you have nothing to offer now?I say:
Is this some kind of joke?You:
That you cannot adequately or competently define "kind" or detail the mechanism which keeps "kinds" strictly deparated? I don't want to hear any more "probably"s, or "time will tell"s, or "as soon as we elucidate"s. If you are declaring now that there are separate "kinds" you need to offer the evidence that you have *now* - not that might just possibly show up at some point in the future, if you are lucky.I say:
As demonstrated above, it took only a little time to update you with most recent biological insights and to explain my vision on "kinds".You:
Evolutionists have spent 140 years solidly establishing their position with multiple and diverse lines of evidence published in hundreds of papers, and this is still happening *now*, here in the real world.I say:
Scientists spent almost 200 years to find the ether. Einstein said: there is no ether. End ether.You:
You are on record as arrogantly declaring that you know that "NDT has fallen" yet here you are, being challenged on your evidence, and you have none! All your "evidence" apparently boils down to is a bunch of "let's wait and see"s, hypotheses, beliefs, and "probably"s. No wonder you haven't published.I say:
What record? The "evolutionist's-pain-in-the-ass-record"? I consider it as a compliment from an evolutionist that he/she considers me arrogant, since it tells me that I am on the right track.You say:
I'm sorry, but your lousy excuse for a response to a challenge has evaporated. If you wish to continue this, then let's see some solid definitions. And I do not want to see any more vague directions to go find the evidence. You need to present the evidence here, or at least offer URLs to it.I say:
I am able to address all your questions and rebut all your rebuttals. No problem. It is easy to beat a theory that hasn't a proper foundation. And I will do that as long as it is presented as fact.Best wishes,
Peter

Peter B,

quote:

---

A non-falsifiable theory of evolutionism has been attempted to set up by the evolutionists.

---

You gotta be shittin' me! You, YOU, are the one, that at some time or another has claimed to have falsified almost every aspect of evolutionary theory! What blatant, utter, indescribable hypocrisy to at the same time claim it is unfalsifiable.Astounding.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

A non-falsifiable theory of evolutionism has been attempted to set up by the evolutionists. It took them about 140 years.

---

Peter, it's not just that philosophers of science profoundly disagree with this statement, asserting that a non-falsifiable theory cannot be scientific.Working scientists, a pragmatic bunch who generally ignore academic philosophy, would have not the slightest interest in such a theory, either. How could a theory have any relevance to a practically-minded person, if there is no possible experiment that shows whether it is true or not?Theories are regarded by empiricists as interesting, or not, according to the number of opportunities that there are to test them. Each test might confirm, partially confirm or disprove the theory. The best theories provide practically limitless opportunities for testing - and so for their own refutation. The best of all, of course, aren't disproved - at least for the time being.If you are confident of the truth of your assertions that 'kinds' exist, and you are a scientific creationist, then the theory must be cast in such a way that it can be tested experimentally.[This message has been edited by Chavalon, 11-10-2002]