Let's say hypothetically, evolution is wrong...

[Lion Hearted Man]

Not one of those is specific, and can be interpreted otherwise -- (in my opinion).

Do you have something specific that will falsify the theory of evolution; like: 'rabbits in the preCambrian'?

If you don't, just keep yakking, so someone will eventually accuse me of hijacking this thread.

You're pretty lazy. That link he gave us full of examples.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're pretty lazy. That link he gave us full of examples.

No, I'm not lazy -- just one specific example will do.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

No, I'm not lazy -- just one specific example will do.

...click the link. It'll give you an example for each.

 

[AV1611VET]

...click the link. It'll give you an example for each.

No, thanks -- I'll pass.

By contrast, I was very specific in what I said falsifies evolution, and no one had to ask me ten times, either.

In fact, if I remember correctly, my answer was just one 4-letter word.

 

[Belk]

Not one of those is specific, and can be interpreted otherwise -- (in my opinion).

Do you have something specific that will falsify the theory of evolution; like: 'rabbits in the preCambrian'?

If you don't, just keep yakking, so someone will eventually accuse me of hijacking this thread.

Each of those reasons are specific AV. That you lack the understanding to know how they are specific is no ones problem but yours. Feel free to "Keep looking" until you figure it out. Or are you now going to move the goalposts as you have already attempted to do?

 

[Tim Myers]

Let's say, hypothetically, hypothetics is wrong.......

 

[Tiberius]

Geez, AV, you are ridiculous.

You ask for examples of things that would disprove evolution. You are given a list of things as well as a link which goes into more detail, and yet you ignore it, asking again for just one specific example.

you then answer your own question (citing rabbits in the precambrian, something which would devestate evolutionary theory if one were ever found!), and yet despite knowing that an answer exists - and knowing full well what the answer is! - you ask the question anyway, as though your position was unasailable! Despite the fact you yourself already brought up something which...

Gah, my mind is just boggling too much to even finish this...

 

[Tiberius]

Does that instantly make creationism the only valid theory?

If you think so, why?

If evolution was proven to be wrong, it would do nothing other than remove evoilution from the list of possible explanations. It would in no way add support for any of the other possible explanations.

Creationism is not a theory -- it is an historical fact.

Got any testable or verifiable evidence from the real world to support this, AV?

Sorry -- I don't qualify to answer, do I?

Hey, as long as you have evidence to support your claims, you're qualified.

 

[AV1611VET]

Geez, AV, you are ridiculous.

You ask for examples of things that would disprove evolution. You are given a list of things as well as a link which goes into more detail, and yet you ignore it, asking again for just one specific example.

you then answer your own question (citing rabbits in the precambrian, something which would devestate evolutionary theory if one were ever found!), and yet despite knowing that an answer exists - and knowing full well what the answer is! - you ask the question anyway, as though your position was unasailable! Despite the fact you yourself already brought up something which...

Gah, my mind is just boggling too much to even finish this...

Excuse me -- rabbits in the preCambrian will not refute evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Got any testable or verifiable evidence from the real world to support this, AV?

Ya -- right here:

Spoiler: right here

QV please

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Excuse me -- rabbits in the preCambrian will not refute evolution.

Is this your current pet rebuttal? I'm not impressed. We've gone over this already.

 

[Tiberius]

Excuse me -- rabbits in the preCambrian will not refute evolution.

How do you figure this?

 

[Tiberius]

Ya -- right here:

Spoiler: right here

QV please

Oh, how funny! A link that takes me to the same post! A big endless circle!

This is the best you can do when I ask you for testable evidence?

You're a moron, AV.

Reported for trolling. I urge others to do the same.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is the best you can do when I ask you for testable evidence?

You want evidence that creationism is not science?

For only about the 100th time: 1

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you figure this?

A little Wikipedia told me.

 

[Tiberius]

You want evidence that creationism is not science?

For only about the 100th time: 1

You must love that. You've developed something that covers up why it can't be tested, and darn it, that must mean it's real!

A little Wikipedia told me.

Care to actually provide something more than that?

 

[Greg1234]

Does that instantly make creationism the only valid theory?

If you think so, why?

First of all Creationism is not a theory. The first men didn't "theorize" that man was created. Intelligent Design is a theory and the one which the evidence fits when looking at what we may term a historical artifact.

Secondly, you need to relate what the demise of Darwinism means to the respective parties. Analogically, to those who don't and will not acknowledge Great Pyramid builders, the refutation of the idea that falling rocks can build the Great Pyramid means to them that a future purely naturalistic process will one day determine the origin of said structure.

To those who acknowledge Great Pyramid builders, it means that another one bites the dust. The Creation of the Great Pyramid is already true and the failure of a purely naturalistic unintelligent process does not hinder progress in the theory of intelligent design but adds to it.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

Excuse me -- rabbits in the preCambrian will not refute evolution.

A little Wikipedia told me.

Really AV... you're still lying about this?

It has been demonstrated to you already that what was said is that it was doubtful that it would overthrow the theory of evolution instantly. Not that it would definitely not refute evolution.

How do you justify this dishonesty? Is it OK to lie as long as you're lying for Jesus? I don't remember the bible mentioning that.

 

[Tiberius]

Intelligent Design is a theory

Really?

A scientific theory allows us to make predictions about what we will learn in the future. I can provide many examples of this if you wish.

I am curious. What predictions about what we will discover in the future does Intelligent Design allow us to make?

 

[TheReasoner]

First of all Creationism is not a theory. The first men didn't "theorize" that man was created. Intelligent Design is a theory and the one which the evidence fits when looking at what we may term a historical artifact.

Secondly, you need to relate what the demise of Darwinism means to the respective parties. Analogically, to those who don't and will not acknowledge Great Pyramid builders, the refutation of the idea that falling rocks can build the Great Pyramid means to them that a future purely naturalistic process will one day determine the origin of said structure.

To those who acknowledge Great Pyramid builders, it means that another one bites the dust. The Creation of the Great Pyramid is already true and the failure of a purely naturalistic unintelligent process does not hinder progress in the theory of intelligent design but adds to it.

Greg, this is somewhat unrelated but, in the other thread you said something about proteins that they would be disproven. Was that a joke or do you not believe in proteins?