Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [anti-CED] The Robust Theory of Creationism Version 1.0

Expand Messages
  • atomicbohr@aol.com
    [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
    Message 1 of 43 , Jun 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      [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
    • Dave Oldridge
      ... Breeding experiments plateau when the original genetic variation in the alleles of the original breeding stock are exhausted. But if you continue long
      Message 43 of 43 , Jun 10, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On 9 Jun 2006 at 2:23, hjbluebird2002 wrote:

        > --- In anti-CED@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:
        > >
        > > In a message dated 6/2/06 12:57:13 AM Central Daylight Time,
        > > wayfaringman@... writes:
        > > Harry: Creationism has great predictive power. And is
        > falsifiable.
        > >
        > > 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
        > that
        > genetic
        > > change is limited.
        > > *************
        > > Pi:
        > > One cannot prove that genetic change is unlimited. On the
        > other
        > hand, one
        > > could produce a mechanism limiting the accumulation of genetic
        > change.
        > >
        > > We're still waiting for that one......
        > >
        > [harry]
        > 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.

        Breeding experiments plateau when the original genetic variation
        in the alleles of the original breeding stock are exhausted. But
        if you continue long enough, you get NEW variation from
        mutations.

        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.

        --

        Dave Oldridge
        ICQ 1800667
        VA7CZ
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.