Re: Huge Creationist Paper


Frank J wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
(snip)


Frank, I have a Hypothesis clearly stated after the Title and title
description. I have invulnerably explained, refuted and falsified
natural selection, time for you guys to find a new livelyhood.

You falsified NS?? I hope your paper explicitly tells the creationists
that their work has been all for naught. As you know they keep saying
NS is unfalsifiable.


When Creos say NS is unfalsifiable they are talking about Evos who
explain everything by saying "NS-did-it". But forget Creos, your own
geneticists admit the obvious:

http://bevets.com/equotesl3.htm#rlewontin

Harvard Professor Richard Lewontin:

"....Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some
environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection
of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure
to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has
not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about
nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the
difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then
revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection
explains nothing because it explains everything." "Testing the
Theory of Natural Selection" Nature, March 24, 1972 p.181


Did you also falsify "macroevolution" too, IOW did you address any of
Douglas Theobald's potential falsifiers?


Yes, I have falsified macroevolution, and I never heard of Douglas
Theobald.

I have clearly and invulnerably falsified:

1. NS

2. Macroevolution

3. Human evolution

4. Gradualality

5. Theistic evolutionism (my personal favorite). I am going to
humiliate Ken Miller and the Clergy Letter Project and enjoy every
moment.

6. Common ancestry

7. Charles Darwin will be taken to task like no one has ever seen
before.

There are horribly ignorant Darwinists who do not understand how the
19th century effects things today. When I destroy the foundation
everything built on it goes with it.

In addition, I will PROVE that:

1. Special Creation is true.

2. design = Designer. Paley remains true.

This
very important section is already written. I have missed so many
deadlines that I am afraid to set anymore. God has now enabled me to
spend full time on the project that He has given me. My goal is no
later than November, but obviously I cannot make any promises.

Without giving anything away (because I am thoroughly looking forward
to the shock value) my theory, based on the totality of available
evidence, says the general ToE is a valid explanation of biological
reality, but wholly and demonstrably incorrect.

Ray

Well I hope that you are not giving anything away, because all I can
detect from your comments is the same old argument from incredulity
wrapped in a bait-and-switch with the argument from design.

If this claim had any merit then you would have taken the time to
actually explain and apply it to something I said.

SNIP....

and that you will surprise
us with something that no anti-evolutionist has given us to date - a
hypothesis that stands on its own merits, and not on a precieved (or
fabricated) weakness in any other one.

I promise that I will deliver exactly what you state above: an
absolutely original and unique thesis and the extraordinary evidence to
back it up. After Huxley read the "Origin" he remarked: "How stupid of
me not to have thought of that." I believe Creationists will say the
same after reading my work, and evos will be enraged.

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Huge Creationist Paper
    ... Frank, I have a Hypothesis clearly stated after the Title and title ... natural selection, time for you guys to find a new livelyhood. ... Douglas Theobald's potential falsifiers? ... wrapped in a bait-and-switch with the argument from design. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Huge Creationist Paper
    ... Frank, I have a Hypothesis clearly stated after the Title and title ... The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes ... Now we come to the quote proper. ... are indistinguishable from the point of view of falsification. ...
    (talk.origins)