Evolutionary science is fraudulent and/or inaccurate?

Who says because I am a creationist, I think scientists are liars? Isn't this a harsh assumption? I might not find fault or innacurate data, but this doesn't mean assumptions and conclusions are correct, pertaining to the philosophy of the evolution story.This itself doesn't prove much for you, unfortunately Shraff.Your point seems to be, that because there are no errors in methodology, or the facts are straight then evolution is true and creationists are found wanting, therefore our data is accurate, which means creationists can't offer another conclusion. Am I right?But you can only conclude that the fault doesn't reside within the methodology, but infact it can still be at fault pertaining to how one concludes as to what is meant by one's findings.For example, if I find a stuck-in-a-rut species, like a dragonfly, whom has a fossil identical to it's present day morphology, Do I conclude that this fits with the creationist explanation, or do I stick with my evolutionistic paradigm, and let the philosophy never be shaken by creating my own ideologically comforting falisification structure? Thus guaranteeing that I have biasedly confirmed evolution in my mind, where there is no confirmation.Think about it. We don't argue with your findings, just your conclusions and think that the fallaccy of exlusion is prevailent amongst the mainstream.

Please, no replies, this is off-topic. --AdminThis isn't an accusation. It's an independent observation of logical endeavour. I thought criticism was most welcomed in science? Well then, I'm sure the big guy can take it.Look at it logically.Apparently the theory says, If evolution happened then we should see many transitional forms.In that logical form, If you get none-transitional forms = no evolution. because falsification is necessary.But isn't it infact an illogical endeavour that happens? Don't the mainstream say, "oh well, let's see how evolution explains none-transitionals".OFCOURSE you won't get mention of none-transitionals, As the evolutionary assumption is that they're not there. Hence evolution answering to the falsification overides the falsification. So instead the evo says, "evolution made these none-transitionals aswell, we'll call it normalised selection".The fact that a none-transitional species, which has not evovled, (proven by the evidence of fossils from hundreds of millions of years), should be enough to make you conclude that this falsifies the evolution claim, and is the denial of the consequent. But this doesn't happen because evolution is your baby that you love too much.So please tell me what would falsify evolution Shraff. Thanks. Because apparently any evidence against it is simply explained away rather than adressed, IMHO. This isn't an accusation, it's simply people getting comfortable because they treat evolution as a given. That's why you'll only find evidence against the ToE at AIG.You could find ten thousand so believed "transitionals" but only if the theory says they should be transitional, do you say they are. The fallacy of exclusion shows that if you take the evidence against evolution into account, then that should tell you that these aren't infact transitional species.With great claims must come great evidence. Since a none-transitional genuinely falsifies evolution.PS> If I am mistaken about the logical form of the Theory, show me a simple logical form, and how it could be falsified. Since I speak the language of logic, I submitt that I would be instantly convinced if there was a logical form that made sense. I've just never seen one.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 08-10-2005 01:24 PMThis message has been edited by Admin, 08-10-2005 02:28 PM

Please, no replies, this is off-topic. --AdminThis post is on-topic for reasons noted lower down in this post pertaining to the use of scientific data. - LINKShraff, I've highlighted my point in this thread. Here we have creationists coming to a creationist conclusion pertaining to evidence SCIENISTS find.Sure, I can't pin down the exact research data, but this shows that we infact use the very same scientific data that those scientists use, for our own creationist theory.All the examples above, are just a FEW examples of the evidence we use, that for us, falsifies evolution. It's because I am in the thread.I don't know if you've heard of me at this site, but each time I take part I am very closely watched, and usually reprimanded for the most trivial reasons imaginable to mankind. What the admin never realise is that usually I'm no trouble untill they start playing power games like this. I suspect there'll be no bannings, and you'll just get the sign "no respones to this message" untill I make a post like I am now. I'm the one they're fishing for. I've tried to answer your post in this post to Shraff.PS> Shraff, it's important to note that if the layman's eye recognizes a species then that is significant. for a layman doesn't have much knowledge of species YET he notices a fossil species as "recognizable". So logically, infact his lack of knowledge makes my point even stronger Shraff.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 08-11-2005 09:11 AMThis message has been edited by mike the wiz, 08-11-2005 09:12 AMThis message has been edited by Admin, 08-11-2005 09:31 AM

Hey phatz, why did you pull up this old topic? I thought I had been permanantly suspended again when I read through and seem Percy's post. For a minute I was wondering what on earth I'd done wrong. Lol.