Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In Forums

Quote# 67405

Each time an objection was made to the theory of evolution on scientific grounds a modification was introduced. Normally, any standard scientific theory would have been abandoned after two or three legitimate objections had been raised. This was not, however, the case with evolution. The continuing series of ‘ad hoc’ modifications made since the theory was launched in 1859 to this day distinguishes it from any theory claiming to be scientific.

Guy Berthault, CNSNews.com 51 Comments [11/12/2009 10:13:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 21
Submitted By: Tom S. Fox
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
#1054919
k4jun

Articles with no examples or citation are very convincing.

11/12/2009 10:25:07 AM
#1054923
Tom S. Fox

Creationists seem to have this strange idea that scientific theories have to get everything right at once and must never change.

11/12/2009 10:29:57 AM
#1054926
Doctor Whom

Normally, any standard scientific theory would have been abandoned after two or three legitimate objections had been raised.

Then there would be no "standard scientific theories" left, even gravity.

11/12/2009 10:33:42 AM
#1054933


Uh, no, that's how scientific theories work.

11/12/2009 10:37:35 AM
#1054938
Caustic Gnostic

Cite your sources, please.

11/12/2009 10:41:22 AM
#1054943
Cathasach

I can't think of ANY scientific theory that has not been modified multiple times as new evidence is discovered. That's how science progresses, you nimrod. You're just making shit up to support you're argument.

11/12/2009 10:42:01 AM
#1054950
Mister Spak

Goddidditt makes much more scientific sense, and hasn't been changed in 6000 years.

11/12/2009 10:47:06 AM
#1054972
Man Called True

Someone went to Bible school. Or, barring that, failed every science class from elementary to college.

11/12/2009 11:10:40 AM
#1054990
werewolf

Well, that's how science works. And we know it works because we live longer, work better, worry about bigger things than mere survival, and carry multifunction cell phones.

11/12/2009 11:26:16 AM
#1054996
AuraTwilight

Science is self-correcting, you dolt.

11/12/2009 11:29:18 AM
#1055010


Normally, any standard scientific theory would have been abandoned after two or three legitimate objections had been raised.

Guy needs to learn what any standard scientific theory is.

11/12/2009 11:35:59 AM
#1055016


I don't know why I expect these people to understand scientific definitions, they don't understand science.

11/12/2009 11:41:11 AM
#1055018
David B.

Er, the "Standard Model" anyone? The periodic table? Special Relativity?

11/12/2009 11:41:47 AM
#1055040
John

Normally, any standard scientific theory would have been abandoned after two or three legitimate objections had been raised.

We abandon theories when objections are raised all the time. When we discovered problems with Newton's Laws, we replaced them with a modified version that took into account the speed of an object relative to an observer.

Your complaint is not that we don't abandon theories. It's that we replace them with something reasonably close, instead of some completely discredited, Bible-based alternative.

Here's a news flash. We've certainly found far more than two or three legitimate objections to the Bible's version. No matter what errors we find in the ToE, we'll never go back to Genesis. That's already been discredited. Why haven't creationists follwed your own advice and abandoned it?

11/12/2009 11:50:37 AM
#1055054
Kamism

"Normally, any standard scientific theory would have been abandoned after two or three legitimate objections had been raised."

Um no, the theory would just be changed or even expanded on. Such as Newtonian mechanics failing to work on a large scale. Then Einstein came along and expanded on it with relativity.


11/12/2009 11:55:24 AM
#1055057
aaa

You still fail science forever.

11/12/2009 11:57:00 AM
#1055060
Dr. Novakaine

Let me give you a quote:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

Who said this? Perhaps Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens? Michael Shermer? The Amazing Atheist? Nope, it was Todd Wood, a Young Earth Creationist. He doesn't believe in evolution, but he still doesn't argue the scientific merit of the theory.

You have no grounding for your accusation. Evolution is strong and sound science and nothing you say can change that. You are wrong.

11/12/2009 11:58:56 AM
#1055071
again...

[size=30]SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY![/size]

11/12/2009 12:04:11 PM
#1055081
Mayhem

As opposed to religion, where ojections are responded to with torture and murder?

11/12/2009 12:11:36 PM
#1055094
Old Viking

This perfectly encapsulates the fundy idea of science.

11/12/2009 12:20:46 PM
#1055095
Old Viking

This perfectly encapsulates the fundy idea of science.

11/12/2009 12:21:15 PM
#1055105
Doubting Thomas

Um, I thought that modifications to a theory make it more scientific? Especially since the scientific method means throwing out any data which has been proven false in favor of data which has been proven to be accurate? That's the kind of science I want, not "The answer is Goddidit, and if you have any questions, just go back to Goddidit."

Shall we go back and see what the church did to a scientist by the name of Galileo who discovered that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice-versa?

11/12/2009 12:28:41 PM
#1055530
GodotIsWaiting4U

This is how scientific theories work. If part of the theory is wrong, you change that part.

11/12/2009 4:04:07 PM
#1055567
Shifty eyes

Kuhn supercedes Popper. You lose

11/12/2009 4:38:06 PM
#1055573
ConCat

I'm guessing you don't know anything about the scientific method.

11/12/2009 4:46:13 PM
1 2 3