Of course you did when you accepted neo-Darwinism. How we got here is either a guided or an unguided process - make up your mind! And know that guided can be a mix with randomness (we currently include randomness in our designs).
Let’s just say you are simply uninformed. Therefore, I invite you to get informed:
Darwinism and its neo is very much testable and it fails all tests:
Gradualism fails – http://nonlin.org/gradualism/
Natural selection fails – http://nonlin.org/natural-selection/
Divergence of character fails – http://nonlin.org/evotest/
Speciation fails – http://nonlin.org/speciation-problems/
DNA “essence of life” fails – http://nonlin.org/dna-not-essence-of-life/
Randomness fails – http://nonlin.org/random-abuse/
Abiogenesis fails – http://nonlin.org/warmpond/
Science against Religion fails – http://nonlin.org/philosophy-religion-and-science/
And let’s test it again and make sure it fails again and again: http://nonlin.org/evotest/
You don’t disappoint. Nothing more than a blanket denial was expected from you. Why do you even bring up the topic?
I’m informed just fine. Thanks.
If you continue posting using the tone you are using and the insults you will receive a posting limit. Followed by a suspension. Then an all out ban. Your move.
Of course it’s your website and you can call whomever whatever. Does that make you right? No. A little dictator? Yes. Well, good luck with that.
Um, I do not accept neo-Darwinism. No one in science does. Neo-Darwinism was falsified in the 1960s with Haldane and Kimura.
Are you seriously a moderator here and you’re making fun of someone’s post?
9 posts were split to a new topic: On the Meaning of Neo-Darwinism
Where did I do that?
There is no way to distinguish between God-guided Natural Selection and Godless Neo-Darwinism.
So your wager will inevitably be wrong.
The link I replied to. I think this will take you there: Is Evolution Speculation?
I would think you could always add a parenthetical statement to the sentence above: “(as a scientist I can’t prove it but as a Christian I can still expect that it is true)” .
So you’re upset that I was being sarcastic to a person who just called me and other people who accept evolutionary science brainwashed and frauds and has questioned my reading comprehension? Okay.
Also he had to step down from being moderator so I really need to change his title.
I agree. Especially as a moderator you have a big stick. No need to be sarcastic.
All you have presented are accusations with no evidence to back it up. Until you present evidence there is nothing to deny.
Okay. YEC creationism actually is saying evolutionism is not a theory of science. its an untested, relative, hypothesis. It is claiming to be a theory of biology but has no biology evidence. instead it has other subjects evidences as far as they go.
There is no evidence, bio sci, for evolution. or make your three top points. or one.
7 posts were split to a new topic: Why Todd Woods Matters
More probably scientists will forget the public claims they made and act as if whatever replacement is found is the consensus…
And turn failure into a virtue of how science self corrects.
Currently, even though Darwinism was falsified long ago, scientists don’t have a marketable story of evolution to take to the masses. As soon as they find one, Darwinism will be taken off the explanatory shelf.
Scientific communication to the public is not science… it’s about prestige and ego and being correct …