http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 3141#93141
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 4331#94331Moderator InterventionI will remind jcrawford of the rules.jcrawford wrote:No, because in order to go along with the evolutionist's "scientific" program of mental and religious indoctrination, they dare not question or falsify evolutionary theory as creation scientists are free and habitually wont to do.Furrowed Brow wrote:Don't you think the accusation that they are not thinking for themselves is itself a tad arrogant.
The myth of evolution is easily falsified by cognitive scientists, since it is nothing but a tautology consisting of circular reasoning within more circular reasoning.Also: myths cannot be falsified; evolution can.
The theory is incapable of predicting anything because the presupposed transmutation of species has never been observed.Myths don’t make testable predictions. Evolution theory is predictive.
Jcrawford wrote:That is called progressive morphological evolution, and is correlated to the chronological progression.
Just date the fossils in reverse and presto, devolution!The dates are made up to fit the theory.But a lot of work goes in to trying to get the dates as accurate as possible. The dates aren’t made up on a whim.
Jcrawford wrote:Or take one out of its chronological order and place it in another sequence, and presto, some regressive evolution, which is more in keeping the theory since mutation is random and not intelligently ordered by evolutionists performing natural selection on the fossils.
Rather than cooking or burning some books they just push their books while censoring and banning others in public schools.Are you suggesting evolutionist are cooking the books?
Yea. It is similar to the massive Marxist propaganda which was imposed on the former USSR for 70 years, until it's collapse.That it is one huge indoctrination programme stared at school, and requires massive inaccuracies, and slipshod methodology to give itself credibility?
That's pure theory, which if true, may account for racial differences in humans.Also: as you say mutation is random. but it is slipshod to forget to mention that for a mutation to spread , requires multiple generation, time and natural selection.
Yea, since they only result from the loss of genetic information.Mutations can be selected against, and this will be the case most times.
Natural selection is not a biological process like genetic selection, transmission and reproduction is, but merely a theory about the survival of species which are not extinct.Natural selection is the non random process.
In particular.
Most of the statements in the preceding post are blanket statements and not supported by any evidence. Some are quite extraordinary charges, for example, that scientists deliberately falsify evolutionary dates to fit the theory.The Rules wrote: 5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.
The moderators typically are not draconian about enforcing this rule, but this particular post seems to be an extreme case, packing quite a few extraordinary and unsubstantiated statements in a short span.
A 1000 token fine has been levied.jcrawford wrote:As per the rules, please lighten up and lay off the personal attacks on me, since there is no evidence of any intelligence in anyone's brain, including the brains of living neuroscientists, mathematical physicists like Albert Einstein or everday posters on the forum like you and I.micatala wrote:Moderator Note
As per the rules, please refrain from personal attacks.jcrawford wrote:No evidence of any intelligence in your brain.cogitoergosum wrote:Still mistaken all these are done in your brain.
Please avoid attacks on other people, esp indirect attacks and blanket statements against any group. And when others request supporting evidence, please provide those or else refrain from making unsupportable statements. Finally, any challenges to moderator actions should only be done via PM.
