Tanndarr writes:
I'd like to put that concept to bed right now. Science changes as our knowledge grows; it is never final and complete despite several announcements that there is no more to learn. Consider a predecessor to your example of toxins as medicine:
Why are you just repeating what I said using different words Tannbarr? What makes something you say correct but when I say it, it's wrong? Here is how I said it in post 103.
Because what I said is not what you said. You single out evolution when the hypothesis-test-repeat cycle is common to
all science:
Only in evolution science must they revamp the current thinking and redefine it constantly based on new and undeniable observations which completely negate prior beliefs.
See? These are two very different statements. You want to treat biology like it's a different kind of science than say physics when it's pretty much the same.
I did notice that you totally dodged the point that I was trying to make: The methodology of science is not, in itself, fraudulent in any way whatsoever. There is no vast global conspiracy to push untested science onto students, we're just teaching the best science we have right now.
Your examples would be damning if people still taught children that Nebraska man is a predecessor to H. sapiens. Instead, if Nebraska man or Piltdown man appear in a textbook at all they appear as object lessons in how people may fake evidence or the popular press can inflate reasonable claims to make big news. It's a non-starter. On the other hand the same old tired PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) appear on creationist web sites with stunning regularity...why aren't your accusations of fraud falling there?
Your concept of
True science is the old no true Scotsman falacy...science you like is true science and science you don't like isn't. You can't define it in any other manner and even if you could you wouldn't be able to find a recognized body of scientists who would agree with your definition.
I think what you're trying to say, and I apologize for putting words in your mouth, is that the facts...the truth if you will...never change. What does change though is the depth of our understanding of the facts, as our understanding improves then our explanations must change to take it all into account.
...since you can't offer one iota of evidence that life as you state came to be spontaneously some 3.5 billion years ago as you claim. That is one hump you evos will never get over with me as you continue to focus on minutia rather than dealing directly with the challenges I throw at you,
This topic is about the fraudulent basis for evolution, not proof of abiogenesis. The challenge here was presented to you and you, to your credit, took up the challenge. Unfortunately you've failed to make your point stick and now you're reduced to thrashing out the standard "evolution can't explain X" arguments in the hope that it will somehow make your position sound more reasonable.
Please try to return to the topic and show us how modern evolutionary synthesis rests on a fraudulent foundation. If you want to go to another topic and discuss the things you think evolution can't explain feel free to do so, but it doesn't support your argument here.