Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Media Alerts and Destroying Evolution

Pages: (4) < 1 2 3 [4] >

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,10:34    Quote Someone remarked that only a minority of people in this country believe in evolution. you should adjust your approach along the lines of "understand and accept the evidence for" instead of "believe". I never "believed" the ToE, I was convinced of its usefullness through evidence and practice.  got nothing to do with belief. as to the minority issue... How many folks in this country do you think "believe" in quantum theory? pretty much a minority, I'd bet. think that has anything to do with the evidence for the theories in question? or does it have more to do with the very issue we raised here: that most folks simply don't want to bother to examine how the theories were formed the evidence in support, and the thousands of tests performed on the predictions and assumptions of the theories? which do you think more likely? when we use the term "ignorant", it isn't meant as an insult, but as a description. I'm as ignorant of the things that go into making a high-rise building as you are of the ToE. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,10:36    Randy, the only way to find out is just to start. If you have a counter-argument against the theory of evolution being the best explanation for the history of evolution, then present it. There is no other way to go about it.  And quite frankly, this is the way that scientists go about it.  Their discussions can get pretty darn heated (I know, I just defended... successfully!  Yay!  They argue; they bicker. But they support their contentions with sound arguments, and actual facts. I've already demonstrated why Behe's argument isn't valid (or sound, for that matter); and it's a demonstration that any layman can understand. If you have an argument, present it. If your argument is not valid, we'll tell you.  We won't simply say, "nah, nah - you're a poopy-head".  We'll explain. If your argument is valid, then everyone will be very excited and happy. Really!

rmagruder Posts: 20 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,10:42    Aw crap, sucked in again! (there's gotta be an anti-"must-look-at-web-page" medicine somewhere I can take!.. Last night when I tried to bow out of this, I immediately was hammered with someone mocking me saying "I know my arguments will be beat by a drum, so I will just declare victory and leave".).  This behavior was repeated more than once. I'm not claiming persecution, just trying to head off the inevitable... Randy

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,10:44    Quote I know, I just defended... successfully!   WOOT!!!  congratulations! wow, that's two thumbites who defended successfully this week. now the serious question: Why aren't you partying yourself comatose at this point, instead of posting here?? -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,10:47    Quote (there's gotta be an anti-"must-look-at-web-page" medicine somewhere I can take!.. if you find some, let us know... Quote I'm not claiming persecution, just trying to head off the inevitable... it's only as inevitable as you make it. you know how to not make it so. read, understand, present arguments based on evidence. that simple. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,10:53    Go do your necessary work, Randy, nobody wants you to get fired, and then afterward, come back and talk about the evidence if you'd like. Some suggested topics are How do scientists know common descent is true? What are some of the lines of evidence for 'macroevolution'? What are neutral mutations? Does evolution have a 'direction'?

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,10:54    Quote (Ichthyic @ June 15 2006,15:44) Quote I know, I just defended... successfully!   WOOT!!!  congratulations! wow, that's two thumbites who defended successfully this week. now the serious question: Why aren't you partying yourself comatose at this point, instead of posting here?? 'cause you can really do a lot from a phone!  And 'cause my "drinking partner" hasn't shown up yet!

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,11:00    Quote Some suggested topics are... actually, I'd like to see Randy point out where Coulter is wrong in her claims himself. so much of what coulter says is absolute BS to anybody who is conversant in even the most basic aspects of the ToE, it shouldn't be difficult at all. after all, coulter's ranting is what lead him here in the fist place, right? -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,11:17    I'd rather him start with scientific questions, rather than pseudoscientific nonsense, but either would be good if he'd switch to talking about science.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,11:21    yeah, I'm already quite bored of the persecution complex content. pretty much anything would be more interesting. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

AnthonyK Posts: 2 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,11:33    Congratulations on realising that this topic is a) very simple and b) extremely complicated.  The fact of evolution is beyond doubt, but the evidence behind it can be technical and difficult to understand.  I've been fascinated by it since a religious friend for whom I had a great deal of intellectual respect opined that "Evolution was only a theory" and directed me to A J "monty" White's book "What about origins" (I think).  The arguments in it struck me as absurd so I began digging to find out why. Now, I'm hooked - and I know why the arguments are absurd from a scientific point of view - or indeed any rationalist point of view. The great problem with the evolution/creation debate is that nearly all of those who oppose evolution do so because they are religious and do not wish to believe that we are, in fact, animals.  They feel that Darwin's discovery negates their God idea and so their whole being and belief system.  Of course it does no such thing (though evolution, cosmology, physics, and pretty much every part of modern science does reject the literal truth of Genesis and other creation myths).  Science long ago gave up trying to prove or disprove the existence of God - indeed which God would we investigate if we could?  Darwin himself was probably an atheist (possibly following the death of his beloved daughter) but he never publicly expressed this or urged any rejection of religion. But it is this which drives us absolutely mad.  How dare people who know nothing about science tell us what is real and what is not!  The assumption that scientists are atheists and that our (well I'm not a scientist, but I do have a degree in chemistry) agenda is a religious one, like theirs, is maddening and wrong. Science is completely unchanged by religious belief and does not depend on belief at all in order to function.  Evolution has stood the test of time and has led to countless useful consequences, and nothing we have encountered since Darwin (co)discovered the theory of evolution has changed that. I would recommend a couple of books - "The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins (long and very detailed, but fascinating) and another scarcely mentioned - E.O Wilson, the Harvard entemoligist's "The Diversity of Life" which, though not strictly about evolution per se is a beautifully written account of the earth's biological wonders (oh, and by the way that's "E.O", not "Edmund", Wilson who writes books of a very different kind, though just as offensive to creationists ). I hope that in coming to this site and discussing the issue with us ardent rationalists you will be inspired to at least understand why we believe what we do, and make the connection that the discoveries biologists have worked so hard to find are of a very different kind from the beliefs of creationists.  And, incidentally, you will be introduced to the real wonder of creation, not a simplistic fairy story immune, for all time, to revision.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,11:50    Quote It just seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong), that the first line of attack is "no scientist doubts the ToE", and if a scientist is brought forward who may have won a Nobel prize, or even just be a degreed and qualified researcher, you say "okay, no LEGITIMATE scientist doubts the ToE".  Instead of a debate, it's a smear.  You "win" the debate simply by tarring the opponent personally and everything they've ever done.   The reason that it seems that way is because of the way evidence and experiments work. Let's frame it in terms of religion: A christian says "you have to believe in god". "The bible says our god is the right god so that is why you should believe." There is not one good argument that goes beyond that. I have read augustine, aquinas, pascal, and etc. and they all, with out one single exception, begin their arguments/treatises with the assumption that the bible is accurate to some degree. Buddists claim that there is a spiritual experience that their methods can help you achieve. They ask you to perform the experiment yourself. In fact, they even go so far as to say that you can't get it without that. That is overly simplified I know. Christians might claim spiritual experiences too but they attribute them to god with zero evidence. Buddist make claims of reincarnation which is entirely untestable. But, in the overview, Buddist thought makes verifiable claims and christian thought makes unverifiable claims. When a scientist makes a claim, it is definitionally verifiable. When scientist B performs the experiment and gets different results, the experiment has at least cast doubt on the original assertion. More scientists will then try to reproduce the original or the secondary results until there is enough data to make a new claim or to prove/ disprove the original claim. So, if someone walks in and says "It ain't so". A lot of people ask why. If that person cant put up, they lose credibility. With no exceptions to date, the idea that evolution is the mechanism for speciation and that the mechanism for evolution is some combination of random mutation and natural selection has not been challenged succsessfully. And to top it off, most of the challengers who step outside the normal channels of peer revue make asses of themselves and get caught lying/fabricating/obfuscating/indoctrinating. I challenge you to find even one peer revued study that attempts to demonstrate that evolution is not the mechanism for speciation that hasn't been thoroughly discredited for bad science/deliberate falsehood/bad design of experiment. I could save you time and let you know that you won't find any but please, if such a thing escaped my notice (and the notice of the editors of every news outlet in the world- it would be front page stuff you know) I would be very interested to see it. I was fortunate enough not to have been dealt the vicious hand of religion when I was a child so I don't have to overcome the wasting damage it inflicts on so many. If you follow the evidence without preconcieved notions it is a lot easier to allow that your understanding of science is only as good as the best science available. It might need to change. You see, if we found a rabbit in the precambrian strata or if god came down and performed some real kind of miracle that we could see, I at least, and I suspect most of the folks who post here would immediately assimilate the new data into their understanding of whatever. But ALL of the evidence points the other way. We keep trying new things and it keeps pointing the same way. ALWAYS. That is a word you should never use, right? But so far... -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,12:05    Quote (oh, and by the way that's "E.O", not "Edmund", Wilson who writes books of a very different kind, though just as offensive to creationists ). well, E.O. also wrote a few treatises that also pissed off a lot of folks too. Sociobiology comes to mind -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

rmagruder Posts: 20 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,12:11    Confession - I had never been to Dembki's site until someone here posted something to the effect of "if you think we're censoring, you should go over to Uncommon Descent".  I actually thought it was an evolutionist site til I clicked on it and saw it.  I was familiar with Dembski at a surface level, but haven't read any of his stuff. So anyhoo...just clicking through the links, hopping back and forth between here and there, I feel like I just stepped into the middle of a giant shooting war armed with a pea shooter. Man, there is some SERIOUS bad blood between PT and UD. (ahh, now I know what UD stands for .... another mystery solved!.   Lots of fun reading...but wow...

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,12:23    *yawwwwnnnn* -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

awhite Posts: 8 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,12:28    Quote (rmagruder @ June 15 2006,17:11) Man, there is some SERIOUS bad blood between PT and UD. (ahh, now I know what UD stands for .... another mystery solved!.   Lots of fun reading...but wow... If you actually want to learn about evolution, I suggest spending more time on the basics, starting with some of the material suggested here, and less time on the shouting matches between discussion boards.  Thus far there has been a lot of talk about who is insulting who and very little about the evidence.

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,12:30    Randy, do you actually have any counter-arguments to evolution at the moment?  If so, why not post them.  If not, why complain about bias on our part? Just puzzled.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,12:41    If he's a programmer, he's probably on the west coast, and it's only 3:38 there so he might still be at work. I'll give him the rest of the night to start asking substantive questions about the evidence, rather than the social/political aspects of the situation.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,12:44    Quote (rmagruder @ June 15 2006,11:20) Okay, so just to try to make sure I'm not stereotyped, I'll just summarize my position: Yes, I'm a creationist, and by creationist I mean that I believe the universe was brought into being by a divine intelligence.   Actually, this belief doesn't make you a creationist. Plenty of scientists who support evolution also believe that the universe is the product of a creative intelligence. Many scientists who do not believe in God will concede that the evidence either way is equivocal. The general definition of a "creationist" is someone who does not believe that evolution (which is clearly a fact, as has been pointed out) cannot proceed without input from a creator god. If you don't believe this, you're not really a creationist. Quote Do I believe that evolution could have happened under divine guidance?  I believe it's the only way evolution COULD have happened, at least if we are to bet on the odds and what we know about nature.  I do not believe that naturalistic forces alone can get life from non-life, nor do I believe that random mutations get us from chemical soup to sentient beings.  I think the odds are just too long. Okay, this statement makes you a creationist. But given that neither you nor anyone else has anything other than a hazy notion for the odds of life arising from non-life, this is at best a belief based on faith, not on science. Quote There are basically two issues in play for me.  1) That evolution could happen and 2) That it did happen. Well, given that evolution definitely did happen (the evidence is utterly conclusive), I'm not sure what the issue  is with you. I suppose one could doubt that evolution happened without intelligent guidance, but it's absurd to doubt that evolution has happened. It clearly has.   Quote I'd also like to hear whether people feel that a scientific theory can be disproven in order to make it legitimate science.  Can evolution be disproven (even theoretically).  What would it take to disprove it?  What would it take to actually change anyone's mind about it? Yes, the Theory of Evolution (not the fact of evolution) can be disproven. I believe it was J. B. Haldane who, when asked what would disprove the Theory of Evolution, growled, "Precambrian rabbits." Quote So there you are.  I'm not thumping Genesis in anyone's face.  Just consider me a skeptic who reads a lot. Hmm. Sounds a lot like the last "skeptic" we had here. We haven't heard from him in a while. Could be because we gave him something to think about, but I'm guessing not. I'm guessing it was because he could tell he wasn't making any headway in his arguments against evolution. Quote So no, I'm not here to 'disprove' evolution.  I'm not here to attack people who believe it.  I'm here because I want to catch up on some reading, see what the current best arguments are, ask some questions, and see what's going on.  I don't have the time or energy to get sucked into the name-calling quagmire...so I'm trying hard to get out of that. Randy Well, if you're serious about learning more about evolution, I think you already know where to look. This site, for the most part, ain't it. As the title of the site indicates (Antievolution), this site is mostly for critiques of creationist arguments. AF Dave sure gives us plenty of fodder for that. But when you start out saying "evolution is laughable," and "there's no evidence to support it," you should expect to get a little push-back, which is pretty much what you got. And when people say they think evolutionary theory is a joke, the first question they get here is, "okay, what's your evidence for creationism?" So far, we've received mostly silence on that particular topic. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,12:50    Quote (rmagruder @ June 15 2006,11:27) I have some concerns about the current state of peer-reviewed science. There was an incident with regards to, I think it was Smithsonian magazine engaging in a so-called witch hunt on someone because they allowed to be published a paper that DID pass peer review, but seemed to call into question some tenets of evolutionary thought.  There were references to an investigation, and an investigation OF the investiga  This was alluded to in Coulter's book and I hadn't seen it elsewhere. Not positive, but I think you might be referring to Stephen Meyer's paper published in the Procedings of the Biological Society of Washington. A good summary of that whole debacle can be found right here. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,13:05    yes it refers to the publication of meyers article, but of course the specific issue revolves more around the supposed "martyrdom" of Sternberg in that whole mess. You know, the "anything to claim martyrdom" tactic of the IDiots? If Randy is curious, here is some clarification here: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/02/a_second_dimens.html Please note that regardless of the claims of Coulter that Sternberg was "martyred", he actually didn't lose his job. there are some cases on the OTHER side of the issue that biologists could better claim as martyrdom, but we see little PR value in it, other than as contrast to the claims of Coulter and others ignorant to the real issues involved. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,13:06    Quote (rmagruder @ June 15 2006,11:41) So evolution is falsifiable?  Hmm..I always thought it wasn't. You need to refine your terms here, Randy. Can "evolution" be falsified? Not really. Can the "Theory of Evolution" be falsified? Definitely, although by now, the chances of that ever happening are about the same as the chances of the Theory of General Relativity or Quantum Theory being falsified. I.e., basically nil. But yes, in principle, the Theory of Evolution can be falsified.   Quote The biggest problem in discussing this issue, in my opinion, is that it's very hard for any layperson (or even a fairly scientific literate person in another specialty) to be in any kind of position to debate some of these areas. Sorry, maybe I'm just getting cynical here, but it seems that the academics on both sides are just saying: "either get my degree and debate me, or take my word for it". Sorry if I'm unhappy with those options. Randy Yep. You're right. It is hard. Especially for non-specialists like me. But it isn't impossible. It can be done, and it really comes down to credibility determinations. Imagine that you're a judge in a courtroom. Judges have to hear tesimony on subjects they know nothing about all the time. How many judges do you think are experts in, e.g., semiconductor fabrication technologies? But they still have to make credibility determinations in cases with tons of expert testimony, from experts on either side who know way more than the judges do. But here's an example. Read some of Dembski's work on his Explanatory Filter, or Complex Specified Information. Both of these subjects involve information theory. Then read some critiques of Dembski's work by people who are experts in information theory. You'll find that Dembski makes some comical errors, like assuming that computational complexity is inversely proportional to information content (he's wrong; they're directly proportional). You'll also find that Dembski does not respond to critics' points, but rather either ignores them or mounts collateral attacks on peripheral issues. After you've read this stuff for a while, you can get a feel for who is credible and who isn't, even in areas you have no prior knowledge of. It does take a lot of work, Randy, I'll grant you that. I've been at it for almost 30 years, completely as an avocation (i.e., I don't get paid for it). But if you're willing to spend the time on it, and view the evidence and arguments on both sides dispassionately, you can separate the wheat from the chaff. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,13:16    Quote It does take a lot of work, Randy, I'll grant you that. I've been at it for almost 30 years, completely as an avocation (i.e., I don't get paid for it). But if you're willing to spend the time on it, and view the evidence and arguments on both sides dispassionately, you can separate the wheat from the chaff. there's also the possibility that Randy is perfectly happy to be used as a pawn by politicians relying on the vote of the religious right. Randy, does the timing of the release of Coulters book before the midterm elections spark any ideas in your mind? no? how about the timing of the release of the book Coulter released before this one? see a pattern yet? -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Crabby Appleton Posts: 250 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,21:29    Quote (rmagruder @ June 15 2006,15:02) None have identified themselves as such...so I have no idea how much of the abuse is being hurled from the heights of academia or from main st. usa. Perhaps if science has all the answers, it needs to learn to evangelize, pardon the term.   I see the constant fighting about what should be taught in school, and our kids are caught in the crossfire.  The evolutionary side argues it's the 'thin end of the wedge' to get Creation taught in school again.  And therefore, every possible means must be made to ensure that not even the tiniest sliver of doubt or questioning be allowed in the public school system.  The issue with the 'evolution is a theory, be open minded and critical'  (or words to that effect) sticker on the textbooks was a good example of that.  By itself, there was no mention of ID or creaiton there, but there was a lawsuit to get those stickers removed.  It's behavior like that that makes me wonder why the evolutionary side is so insecure?  It's the slippery slope argument I guess ("If today we let them question, tomorrow they'll be thumpin' bibles").   So, there's no room for doubt, no room for questioning, no room for personal decision making after weighing evidence.  There's just...dogma.    The sheer insistence that every child be forced to attend public school and every child be taught evolution as fact is what, I think, drives the wedge deeper.  Instead of persuading, you're antagonizing.  Instead of leaving room for a healthy debate, you're squashing it.   Many of my comments made about 'darwinism being religion' come from these kinds of incidents, where I seem to be seeing many forms of coercion, retaliation, and retribution aimed at FORCING My child to swallow something they can't avoid being exposed to (unless I have the $ for private school, of course, and sometimes not even then).   Far from wanting creation to be taught in the class room, I want my child to learn how to think, not WHAT to think.  If the case for evolution is so open and shut, this should not be a problem.  There are many parents in the same boat as me.  But rather than engage us, you antagonize us.  You attempt to humiliate and condescend towards us.  And I'm not an idiot.  As I mentioned somewhere before, I took a lot of physics and chemistry (emphasizing organic chemistry).  I've forgotten a lot of it, of course, but I DID learn it, and got good grades in it, so I dare say I don't believe I'm a backward scientifically ignorant hick the way I've been portrayed. But the bottom line is, you'll never get #1 best sellers on amazon or persuade the vast majority of Americans to rally to your side until you adopt the art of persuasion, not condescension. That's my 2 cents worth on the public debate issue. I've tried hard to be thoughtful and honest in this post.  I wonder what kind of reaction it will provoke. Randy Why do you assume that those who work at the "heights of academia" don't live on Main Street USA (or in Suburbia or down on the farm for that matter)? Science doesn't pretend to have ALL the answers, Creationists/Fundamentalists DO. Evangelizing/proseltyizing is a religious obsession. Teaching Creation is a Christian/Muslim Fundamentalist preoccupation that can and should be done in Saturday School (or Sunday School depending on your "flavor" of those religions according to DDTTD), NOT in Public Schools paid for with my tax dollars. Those stickers ARE a wedge to discredit good science, nothing more. The bottom line is science is driven by what we can test and replicate. If you want your child in a Public School to learn about Creation in a SCIENCE class then I INSIST you teach them the Earth Diver School of Creation along with your silly Genesis stuff and ALL the other Creation stories.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,03:46    Randy, Since you apparently paid attention to what I said when I gave you the link to UD, I'm going to ask you to do one more thing. As others have done here at this forum--ad naseum--I ask you to start talking about the issue. It surely must be apparent to you that the number one reason for many of us to not take any ID calim seriously is that none of its adherents EVER talk about the EVIDENCE and ARGUMENTS in a rational manner. If you do not start to present  evidence and rational arguments that are on topic, you too will be lumped into this category.  It will be your own fault and nobody will feel  sorry for you. You've been asked very kindly to stop crying and complaining--now it is time to do so...or accept the reasonable conclusion that you ARE, in fact, a baby that whines and complains and does little else. If you think this is a personal attack on you, I cannot help this.  However, please note that I gave you a very easy out--PRESENT YOUR ARGUMENTS.  If you do this, you are not a baby. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

stephenWells Posts: 127 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,07:39    Quote (ericmurphy @ June 15 2006,18:06) You need to refine your terms here, Randy. Can "evolution" be falsified? Not really. Can the "Theory of Evolution" be falsified? Definitely, although by now, the chances of that ever happening are about the same as the chances of the Theory of General Relativity or Quantum Theory being falsified. I.e., basically nil. That's a rather good way of putting it. "Evolution" is like "gravity" - it's a phenomenon in the natural world. "Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection" is like "Newton's theory of universal gravitation"- it's a model which gives a very good description of the phenomenon. Falsifying a theory doesn't falsify the phenomenon, any more than falsifying Newton's theory (e.g. anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury) made gravity stop working.

Pages: (4) < 1 2 3 [4] >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard