The scientific method is based on a logical fallacy

No - the problem is with the wording, not the words (or something). The hypothesis is that marsupials travelled from America to Australia via Antartica. If that hypothesis is true, we should find fossils in Antartica and America following a consistent pattern demonstrating radiation. We do.

quote:

---

In the Eocene marsupials radiated into Europe, North Africa and reached Asia by the Oligocene. However these groups rapidly became extinct. South America parted company with North America in the Eocene, effectively blocking the rapid radiation of placentals in North America at this time from spreading to South America. During the Eocene, marsupials reached Antarctica, which was attached to South America and Australia at this time. Marsupials could follow a belt of Northophagus vegetation all the way around from southern South America, across Antarctica into southern Australia. The first marsupials appear in Australia in the Oligocene via this route. Australia parted company from Antarctica in the Miocene, effectively isolating the marsupial fauna here.

​

Although there has been a marsupial fossil found in the Oligocene of Asia, it closely resembles the European form Peratherium, which is a didelphid, and has little affinities to Australian forms. Therefore colonization of Australia from the north is not considered viable. Australian marsupials (extant and extinct) share many affinities with South American marsupials and extinct Antarctic forms, indicating a southern migration route for marsupials and explaining the lack of placental mammals in Australia. By the time South America redocked with North America in the Plio-Pleistocene, South America was already separated from Antarctica and Antarctica from Australia. So the reintroduction of placentals into South America couldn't continue on to Antarctica/Australia. Note: this does not preclude any placentals from reaching Australia, just significant numbers of them.

---

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/marsupials.html

I'm a little confused too. Ned says that the current theory of gravity might be falsified; almost certainly in the same way that relativity falsified Newtonian mechanics.cavediver said that the Newtonian law of gravity was "falsified", but not entirely thrown out since it is still accurate enough in most situations.The two statements don't disagree. They both referenced Newton's work being overturned by Einstein's - and that the overturning wasn't so much an erasing of the old, but more of a 'filling out' of the old. Ned goes on to say that this is the most likely future of our current theory of gravity (should it be ever be shown to be erroneous).Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.