>Even outside of that challenge, Evolutionists come up with a fat nothing
>when
>it comes to explaining how Evolution could be falsified. Darwin came up
>with some
>ways, and holding to Darwin's word, Evolution has been shown false (e.g.
>there
>aren't "innumerable" transitional forms in the fossil record.)
I just love it when people claim that evolution is not falsifiable then say
that it has been falsified.
But, because
>Evolution is a nonscience, any time a prediction (no matter how fundamental
>to
>the theory of Evolution) is found to be false, they just create a new theory
>to
>get around the problem (the lack of transitionals is because of Punctuated
>Equilibrium -- a solution that is as blatantly false as the false theory it
>seeks
>to save Evolution from).
On what basis do you claim that falsification is the way to demarcate
science from nonscience?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Ph: 608-263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin
School of Medicine
600 Highland Ave
Madison, WI 53792
http://www1.bocklabs.wisc.edu/profiles/Clark,Steven.html