Was Darwin Wrong?

[trunks2k]

Oooo...you are not supposed to attack Darwin. Now, you're asking for it.

There's nothing wrong with attacking Darwin per-se. But attacks on Darwin are usually done as a way of trying to argue against evolution itself. What gets people annoyed is that such an attack is incredibly misguided and demonstrates a huge misunderstanding of the subject. If you want to argue against evolution, going after Darwin is a moot point.

 

[Gilyon]

Newton was "wrong" too but nobody picks on him

 

[Baggins]

Newton was "wrong" too but nobody picks on him

Yes in fact arguably Newton was more wrong, but he doesn't challenge a central pillar of some people's Christianity.

I don't think it is fair to say that either was wrong really, they just weren't completely correct.

Nearly everything both of them wrote was correct it just wasn't the whole story, how could it be, but very little they wrote was actively wrong.

That wasn't very elegantly written

 

[BlackAndy]

Micro - yes.
Macro - no.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Newton was "wrong" too but nobody picks on him

Creationists decided Newton's discoveries did not threaten their delusions about the nature of the universe. Darwin is no "sacred cow" of science. Nothing is. If anything it is the sacred cow of Creationism who feel that in attempting to discredit a man of science, they somehow discredit the science itself. The irony is that they highlight the importance of and strength of the scientific method in doing so. Further displaying both their ignorance and lack of substance for their own flawed viewpoint.

 

[Blackness]

*editing post hold up*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcCWA-3VFZM

 

[SiderealExalt]

Here we have a classic example of absolutely no argument and a simple grasping of straws to have something smart sounding to say.

Either demonstrate with evidence why this is a "classic example of absolutely no argument." or understand you are engaging in nothing but ad hom.

Take that up with Merriam-Webster then if you have a problem with my definition.

Then you'd know scientific theories(not hypothesis, often Christians mistake one for the other) are not proven or disproven.

 

[Tenka]

Take that up with Merriam-Webster then if you have a problem with my definition.

It was never the responsibility of a general purpose dictionary to educate you on what a scientific theory is. Coy is as ill a fit on you as smugness is.

 

[The Princess Bride]

Either demonstrate with evidence why this is a "classic example of absolutely no argument." or understand you are engaging in nothing but ad hom.



Then you'd know scientific theories(not hypothesis, often Christians mistake one for the other) are not proven or disproven.

I'm going to say this as nicely as possible....stop building straw men, it won't benefit you in the long run, and if you have a problem with my posts, feel free to use the ignore feature, won't break my heart.

It was never the responsibility of a general purpose dictionary to educate you on what a scientific theory is. Coy is as ill a fit on you as smugness is.

All this over a simple use of quotation marks. My, my....I'm sorry you were so distracted by them you were unable to comment on the differing perspectives of Darwin's vs. Lamarck's theories.

 

[Jere209]

MOD HAT ON:
THREAD CLOSED AT OP'S REQUEST