Re: [anti-CED] The Robust Theory of Creationism Version 1.0
- [HARRY] The truth is that the only thing protecting the evolutionism model of origins
from competing theories in the public school class rooms is the federal courts
John. But now there is a move away from public schools to home schooling.[MIKE] The truth, Harry, is that there are no competing scientific theories of evolution. Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is not science and it is not a theory. Things that explain all the existing facts which creationism does not, without invoking miracles, which creationism cannot, are at best alternate scenarios not theories.A scientific theory has to have some predictive power which creationism does not.Even if, for the sake of argument, you managed to punch some huge holes in the Standard theory of evolution, creationism would not be the heir apparent.Creationism is a belief foisted on the credulous by flim - flam men.Mike
"Choices in life are very often not between good and evil but between the lesser of two evils." Niccolo Machiavelli
- On 9 Jun 2006 at 2:23, hjbluebird2002 wrote:
> --- In anti-CED@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:Breeding experiments plateau when the original genetic variation
> > In a message dated 6/2/06 12:57:13 AM Central Daylight Time,
> > wayfaringman@... writes:
> > Harry: Creationism has great predictive power. And is
> > Drew: How could it be falsified?
> > [harry]
> > It can be falsified by showing by scientific experiment that
> genetic change
> > is unlimited. But of course animal breeding has already shown
> > change is limited.
> > *************
> > Pi:
> > One cannot prove that genetic change is unlimited. On the
> hand, one
> > could produce a mechanism limiting the accumulation of genetic
> > We're still waiting for that one......
> Unlimited in the sense of bacteria to man. Actually showing by
> experiment that genetic change is limited would falsify
> evolution. That's why breeding experiments are excellent
> examples of this. And then there are also the fruit fly
> experiments. They involved induced mutations which the evols
> hoped would validate evolution. I didn't of course.
in the alleles of the original breeding stock are exhausted. But
if you continue long enough, you get NEW variation from
The fruit fly experiments proved that pushing the mutation rate
too high does not produce new species but rather tends to damage
the health of any population. On the other hand, the experiments
using NATURAL mutation rates showed that there is ALWAYS new
variation in any characteristic. You might want to take the
latter FACT into account in your deliberations.