Are scientific refutations of the evolution theory ignored s
Subscriptions | sitemap

Are scientific refutations of the evolution theory ignored s

[From: Biology] [author: ] [Date: 01-07] [Hit: ]
Are scientific refutations of the evolution theory ignored so that parasites on public money (evolutionary biologists) could keep their jobs?......

Are scientific refutations of the evolution theory ignored so that parasites on public money (evolutionary biologists) could keep their jobs?


MARK say: "Are scientific refutations of the evolution theory ..."
Cite just ONE in a peer-reviewed science journal and we can take it from there.

No matter how many puerile questions you pose you will never alter the fact that evolution is true.
Venus 1485AD say: There are no genuine scientific refutations of evolution. You just don't even begin to comprehend it. The Pope accepted it in 1950, and so do all intelligent and educated theists. Only pathetically ignorant creationists feebly deny it.
Riley say: No. There is no evidence that shows evolution is not true. Evolution is a fact.
oikoσ say: Well, that WOULD free up money for the parasites on the credulous theists.
? say: “Scientists have discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; AAAS 2006; GSA 2009; NAS 2005; NCSE 2012; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data. “

Please give a few examples of what you consider a scientific refutation. Odds are they will fit into one of the 4 catagories above.

Here consider these refutations of why the Bible cannot be literally true:


1. There is not enough water on the planet to submerge everything.
2. If there was such a flood, it would be largely salt water, but not saline enough for most of the ocean creatures, and too saline for most of the free water creatures, meaning Noah had to host all these as well, plus roughly 99% of all terrestrial plants and animals down to the microbes. Like 2 of very whale. Two at least of the fresh water yabbies no one else knows about. He would be lucky that he could ignore salt water crocodiles as they are happy in fresh water, but they need stuff to eat.
3. There simply is not a big enough volume in his ark to host the land animals that he knew about alone. Try keeping a white and black rhino, and see how they can bust right through the side of a boat. They get very angry, and have a deadly weapon that smashes wood. (I laughed at a mosaic I saw in Sicily at a Roman Villa depicting rhino being led aboard the ark. The artist actually showed the rhino being demurely taken aboard on a short cord.)
4. Then we have all the insects that needed a home.
5. Then we have the animals not known to Noah from all over the world. How did they get to Noah, how did they get back home, like all the Australian marsupials, none of which are found on any other continent, had to be found, at a time when no one had actually discovered Australia, and they had to get home again.
6. Then there is the unique foods needed. I gather he was afloat a long time, and take koalas, they only eat fresh leaves from just some eucalypts, but its not some species of eucalypts, they pick and chose in a forrest of the right type, and won’t eat some trees. So now he has to bring along some eucalypts and keep those alive.
7. And if you managed to have a zoo boat that had all these animals, you likely would have a staff of 200 to 300 people. Maybe a lot more. And they need accomodation and food and clean drinking water.
8. We know how to build wooden ships. The ark, as described, is not seaworthy and would have quickly been twisted apart by wave action
If you can’t see the problem, nothing will ever help you.
Elaine M say: Why would anyone close off an avenue of research just because it's not applicable to everyone?
frank lynn say: No, they are ignored because they do not disprove the theory. We all know the processes of evolution work, we can see it we cannot prove it. That's why it's called the Theory of Evolution, just like it's called the Pythagorean Theorem. Pythagoras and many since have yet to prove his theorem yet we take it as law that the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of each side. It's not called Pythagoras' Law, but it's still true.
say: "scientific refutations of evolutionary theory"
ha! that would be an oxymoron.

keywords: ,Are scientific refutations of the evolution theory ignored s
© 2008-2010 science mathematics . Program by zplan cms. Theme by wukong .