Highly doubtful given the easily reftuable "arguments" you've been posting lately. Your irrelevant attacks (ie: abortion-related) also work well to illustrate someone lacking actual relevant arguments for an insightful debate.
I don't know if it's more funny or pathetic when Creationists retreat into their little fantasy world. From Dembski with his "Darwin doll crushed by vise" to Tedford the idiot's inane fantasy about how ToE is going to die "any day now". Looks like CH is going to climb into the delusions with them.
In lieu of actual science I suppose fantasizing is the only comfort they have.
As such, it could be more aptly titled, the future of those that cannot (or will not) evolve.
Cornelius evaluates evolutionary theory as if we've leaned nothing new that could effect it's predictions. His arguments suggest he thinks science hasn't evolved since naive empiricism, logical positivism or pragmatism. While we can create theories of atoms and the movements of objects, apparently we cannot create theories of biological complexity.
So, if anyone's future in science appears dim, it would be those of "cdesign proponentsists"
You've just made my point for me as, you keep presenting the same straw man of evolutionary theory over and over agin (Evolution is nothing but random mutations), which is based on naive empiricism, despite being corrected on both points, over and over again.
Highly doubtful given the easily reftuable "arguments" you've been posting lately. Your irrelevant attacks (ie: abortion-related) also work well to illustrate someone lacking actual relevant arguments for an insightful debate.
ReplyDeleteThe wit...
ReplyDeleteLot's of hot air in Darwin, but no service.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if it's more funny or pathetic when Creationists retreat into their little fantasy world. From Dembski with his "Darwin doll crushed by vise" to Tedford the idiot's inane fantasy about how ToE is going to die "any day now". Looks like CH is going to climb into the delusions with them.
ReplyDeleteIn lieu of actual science I suppose fantasizing is the only comfort they have.
Is This the Future of Evolution?
ReplyDeleteIronically, this photo was from an LA Times story titled: Darwin, Calif., left behind in evolution of the Internet.
As such, it could be more aptly titled, the future of those that cannot (or will not) evolve.
Cornelius evaluates evolutionary theory as if we've leaned nothing new that could effect it's predictions. His arguments suggest he thinks science hasn't evolved since naive empiricism, logical positivism or pragmatism. While we can create theories of atoms and the movements of objects, apparently we cannot create theories of biological complexity.
So, if anyone's future in science appears dim, it would be those of "cdesign proponentsists"
Scott, funny how the internet is the result of random mutations and natural selection and not intelligent design.
ReplyDeleteNeal, were your ears burning?
ReplyDeleteYou've just made my point for me as, you keep presenting the same straw man of evolutionary theory over and over agin (Evolution is nothing but random mutations), which is based on naive empiricism, despite being corrected on both points, over and over again.