http://www.amazon.com/What-Darwin-Wrong-...938&sr=8-1

As I've been saying, the evolutionary theories that are routinely taught, are logically wrong.

They certainly do more harm than good in raising the next generations of scientists.

(02-25-2010 05:03 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.amazon.com/What-Darwin-Wrong-...938&sr=8-1

As I've been saying, the evolutionary theories that are routinely taught, are logically wrong.

They certainly do more harm than good in raising the next generations of scientists.

What specifically is wrong that is being taught?

(02-25-2010 05:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 05:03 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.amazon.com/What-Darwin-Wrong-...938&sr=8-1

As I've been saying, the evolutionary theories that are routinely taught, are logically wrong.

They certainly do more harm than good in raising the next generations of scientists.

What specifically is wrong that is being taught?

Darwinian evolution.

What the philosophers got wrong in trying to debunk Darwin:

http://bostonreview.net/BR35.2/block_kitcher.php

Quote:Apparently unshaken by withering criticism of Fodor’s earlier writings about evolutionary theory, they write with complete assurance, confident that their limited understanding of biology suffices for their critical purpose. The resulting argument is doubly flawed: it is biologically irrelevant and philosophically confused. We start with the biology.

(02-25-2010 05:03 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  As I've been saying, the evolutionary theories that are routinely taught, are logically wrong.

You follow a religion whose founder is purported to be a cannibalistic zombie, and you're going to try and school me on "logic"? Have a nice day. (and btw, even the Vatican dosent dispute evolution).

(02-25-2010 05:52 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 05:03 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  As I've been saying, the evolutionary theories that are routinely taught, are logically wrong.

You follow a religion whose founder is purported to be a cannibalistic zombie, and you're going to try and school me on "logic"? Have a nice day. (and btw, even the Vatican dosent dispute evolution).

I must have missed that day in CCD class.

It's a theory that must adapt or perish.

Darwin speaks of cross species/phylum/kingdom etc. evolution. The Vatican doesn't support that. There is science that doesn't support that. This is what is taught in schools.

I don't think anyone can deny that evolution over the years happens (appendix, etc.), but if there WERE cross kingdom evolution, then where are the creatures on that border now? Is the grass not greener on the other side anymore?

Dr Torch posted a link a while back about something that was part plant, part animal.

You ever seen a platypus?

(02-25-2010 06:16 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  Darwin speaks of cross species/phylum/kingdom etc. evolution. The Vatican doesn't support that. There is science that doesn't support that. This is what is taught in schools.

I don't think anyone can deny that evolution over the years happens (appendix, etc.), but if there WERE cross kingdom evolution, then where are the creatures on that border now? Is the grass not greener on the other side anymore?

Huh?!? What Darwin are you talking about? And more importantly, what school teaches that theory?

It is called evolutionary "theory". Science will decide the facts. Thus far...I have no real reason to disbelieve it. That does not mean my view can't be changed. WTH....It has not been that long since we believed the world was flat.

(02-25-2010 11:11 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is called evolutionary "theory". Science will decide the facts.

The facts are what build the theory. Its worth noting that the scientific definition of theory is different than the one used in humanities, or most everyday life:

"A scientific theory is a type of deductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[2]

In the humanities, one finds theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment."

(02-25-2010 05:52 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 05:03 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  As I've been saying, the evolutionary theories that are routinely taught, are logically wrong.

You follow a religion whose founder is purported to be a cannibalistic zombie, and you're going to try and school me on "logic"? Have a nice day. (and btw, even the Vatican dosent dispute evolution).

Ahhhhhhhhhhh hahahahahahahahahha.

I nearly **** my pants. Well done, sir!

Science is real bad about claiming their BELIEFS as facts.

Science is real bad about claiming their BELIEFS as facts.

Link???? Source????? Any direct quotes? Who is this science fellow you speak of that is real bad?

Uh, global warming. Duh!!!

Links, sources and direct quotes have already been provided ad nauseam.

It is not micro-evolution that is in dispute. Micro-evolution is fact. Darwin's contributions here are remarkable.
Scientific challenges arise when extrapolating micro-evolution into undirected macro-evolution.

Darwininsm goes down in one thread, but no more Hummers in another thread.

(02-26-2010 09:41 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Links, sources and direct quotes have already been provided ad nauseam.

So a link to philosophy book on amazon.com with a sensationalistic title to appeal to a lunatic market who is desperately searching for any evidence that might support their cult counts as evidence?

Mission troll, accomplished!