Clete said:
For "emerged" read "popped into existence out of nowhere". The point is that you have non living inanimate objects which suddenly are alive according to evolution.
Not necessarily suddenly. We really aren't quite sure how it happened, and until new evidence comes in we won't be able to narrow the scope of possibilities by very much.
As I said - unfalsifiable.
We were talking about observations, not falsifiability. Moreover, evolution is not unobservable, exactly, but simply has not yet been observed.
Large and inticately complex chagnes are entirely out of the question. So says Darwin himself.
I'm not sure how you define "large" and "complex," but the changes that take place in evolution certainly vary as to their impact.
No it hasn't. It's been ignored. It's been swept under the rug and laughed at but it has not been discredited in any scientific manner.
It has never survived peer review, nor has it been accepted by the scientific community. Various responses by experts have been published which discredit ID and IC alike. There's not much else to do about bad science.
Look at the image I posted in my previous post. That system cannot be "minus certain attributes" and still work at all. It is irreducably complex. That means there is no simpler version possible that would still work.
Well, I'm not a bacteria expert, so I can't refute your claim in too much detail. I can tell you that the mother species needn't have been "minus" any attributes, but rather "plus" them. The attributes themselves might have been a bit different, rather than simply nonexistent. There are any number of possibilities, all of which disprove IC.
No. That's not what I'm talking about and you know it.
The scientific community turns an intentional deaf ear to any argument or evidence against the theory of evolution. It is impossible to falsify because those who espouse it won't entertain the idea that it is false. It is not a theory it is a dogma.
That claim pops up now and then, but there's no proof for it. Science consistently reinforces the principles of evolution, and so scientists consistently believe it to be true. There's no dark conspiracy within the scientific community to hide the horrible truth of creationism. There's no evolutionist "religion." Scientists almost always strive to stay unbiased and honest, hence the reliability of their collective conclusions.
Oh yes they do. Try to purchase the Nova program on IC and see if it can be bought. It can't! At least not from PBS. They won't air it any longer, they won't sell the episode, they'll barely acknowledge that it even was ever produced. IC has been shelved, by the scientific community and it will continue to be ignored for God only knows how long.
About the Nova special, it may have been pulled because it presented false information. Maybe PBS had another reason, though. Who knows? In any case, the discontinuation of a television program is not evidence that the scientific community is suppressing ID or IC.
No way! You can't possible beleive this. If such a fossil were found one or the other would somehow be proven to be something else other than what it obviously is.
Why would you think that? It would obviously be a huge find, published in all media outlets and fought over by scientists. It would require a major re-adjustment of established scientific principles. Of course, none of that would ever happen because, while evolution is falsifiable, it is most certainly not false.
There is such evidence in existence by the way. Human foot print right next to obviously dinsour foot prints. And guess what? It doesn't convince any one of anything. It's explained away or simply ignored as "interesting but less than proof" or some other such nonsense.
I'm afraid you've been taken in. If you're interested, I suggest reading
this short article which concisely relates the story of the Paluxy prints, and how they came to be associated with creationism. In short, the so-called "human footprints" were actually no such thing. Even creationists usually concede that. Nobody ignored the find, but creationists misrepresented it and even lied about it.
