Evolution 'proved' wrong

[wolf39us]

Yeah when an article opens up with something to the degree of well it's just a "theory" then I can just dismiss the rest lol

[LostLocke]

The first sentence....

"The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct."

... allows you to dismiss everything else that comes after it.

In order to debunk evolution, you must first understand evolution, which that first sentence proves they do not.

[Chas]

The first sentence....

"The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct."

... allows you to dismiss everything else that comes after it.

In order to debunk evolution, you must first understand evolution, which that first sentence proves they do not.

Actually, it's worse. They have created a straw man. They have muddied the waters with mischaracterizing 'theory' as 'law'.

[Dragonetti]

They are using verbiage kung-fu! These people are not scientist, and do not want to be scientist. They hate science, because it goes against their core beliefs in the almighty book of hatin!

[Whateverist]

They lied, because they are dishonest, and more interested in proving evolution wrong than in being factually correct.

More likely they just lied because they approach the subject on a mission to confirm what they believe. Their conclusion is settled. Now they look for printed words and facts which they can weave into narratives which confirm their beliefs.

Their interest in science is not motivated by any desire to understand the world on its own terms. So they aren't interested in science for the right reasons. Perhaps they are dishonest with themselves about why they're discussing science. Or maybe they just don't reflect on it at all.

[vodkafan]

"The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct."

You can turn that statement right on it's head:

A religious law or theory does not have to be 100% correct

[Anomalocaris]

Didn't even notice that! i saw UCG didn't get the meaning. my bad.

Rephrasing the question: Can evolution be disproved?

Theoretically, yes. If a theory which better explains and predicts the available data comes along, sure. Hard to imagine how anything radically different than evolution could accomplish that. More likely refinements will continue, but nothing major.

A theory which merely better explains and predicts the available data does not disprove evolution. It suggests that evolution is less likely to be right than this new theory based on available data. It does not prove this new theory to therefore be right and evolution wrong.

By rigorous standards you would need to show this new theory is overwhelmingly better at explaining and predicting than evolution.

To disprove evolution conclusively one must disprove there is negligible chance of evolution occurring.

[psychoslice]

If the theory of evolution is to be proved wrong, it certainly won't be by a group of Christians.

[Duke Guilmon]

I was debunking this but when I was half way done I xed the page out and lost most of my work. I will make a series of post debunking this page a day.

[Cyberman]

From what I've seen you didn't miss anything important.