Paul: 1 revision

2014-05-30T07:59:46Z

1 revision

at 07:59, 30 May 2014

2014-05-30T07:59:46Z

Paul: 1 revision

2014-05-30T07:40:05Z

1 revision

at 07:40, 30 May 2014

2014-05-30T07:40:05Z

Paul: 1 revision

2014-05-30T07:30:23Z

1 revision

at 07:30, 30 May 2014

2014-05-30T07:30:23Z

Paul: 1 revision

2014-05-29T14:28:27Z

1 revision

at 14:28, 29 May 2014

2014-05-29T14:28:27Z

Paul: 1 revision

2014-05-29T13:32:50Z

1 revision

at 13:32, 29 May 2014

2014-05-29T13:32:50Z

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 ==References==
 <references></references>
-  [[Category:Umasking Evolution]]
+  [[Category:Unmasking Evolution]]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ==The Facts Are ..... ==
-(1) Genetically speaking, logic decrees that natural selection would tend to select for a greater number of offspring, and not the length of the animal's life. Evolution should not select for complexity, longevity or even quality of life, but the more simple survival habits of the length and fertility of reproductive periods. What is actually observed, is that animals which are supposed to be 'higher' (more complex) on the evolutionary scale are generally more vulnerable to extinction. These animals have a small number of offspring and a limited period of reproduction. [based on logic]
+{{Fact|1}} Genetically speaking, logic decrees that natural selection would tend to select for a greater number of offspring, and not the length of the animal's life. Evolution should not select for complexity, longevity or even quality of life, but the more simple survival habits of the length and fertility of reproductive periods. What is actually observed, is that animals which are supposed to be 'higher' (more complex) on the evolutionary scale are generally more vulnerable to extinction. These animals have a small number of offspring and a limited period of reproduction. [based on logic]
-(2) "Why will many predictably persist in their acceptance of some version of chemical evolution? Quite simply, because chemical evolution has not been falsified. One would be irrational to adhere to a falsified hypothesis. We have only presented a case that chemical evolution is highly implausible. By the nature of the case that is all one can do. In a strict, technical sense, chemical evolution cannot be falsified because it is not falsifiable. Chemical evolution is a speculative reconstruction of a unique past event, and cannot therefore be tested against recurring nature." Written by biochemists Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L.
+{{Fact|2}} "Why will many predictably persist in their acceptance of some version of chemical evolution? Quite simply, because chemical evolution has not been falsified. One would be irrational to adhere to a falsified hypothesis. We have only presented a case that chemical evolution is highly implausible. By the nature of the case that is all one can do. In a strict, technical sense, chemical evolution cannot be falsified because it is not falsifiable. Chemical evolution is a speculative reconstruction of a unique past event, and cannot therefore be tested against recurring nature." Written by biochemists Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L.
 Bradley & Roger L. Olsen as a statement that biogenesis (chemical evolution) is an unprovable theory, and not a fact, in their book "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories", Philosophical Library: New York, 1984 p:186
-(3) The basis of Darwinian evolution, according to biologist, Steven Jay Gould, is an " a priori
+{{Fact|3}} The basis of Darwinian evolution, according to biologist, Steven Jay Gould, is an " a priori
 assertion" - ie. something that is believed beforehand. Evolution originated, therefore, as an expression of the cultural and political biases of nineteenth century liberalism. This belief was not based on any evidence, but has been passed on as fact for over 100 years. Paleobiology, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1977 p:115
-(4) "Consequently, the primary evidence for evolution is the assumption of evolution!" Written by Scott M. Huse in his book "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1983 p:14
+{{Fact|4}} "Consequently, the primary evidence for evolution is the assumption of evolution!" Written by Scott M. Huse in his book "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1983 p:14
-(5) "The molecular evidence therefore fails to confirm either the reality of the common ancestors or the adequacy of the Darwinist mechanism. In fact, testing Darwinism by the molecular evidence has never even been attempted. As in other areas, the objective has been to find confirmation for a theory which was conclusively presumed to be true at the start of the investigation. The true scientific question - Does the molecular evidence as a whole tend to confirm Darwinism when evaluated without Darwinist bias?
+{{Fact|5}} "The molecular evidence therefore fails to confirm either the reality of the common ancestors or the adequacy of the Darwinist mechanism. In fact, testing Darwinism by the molecular evidence has never even been attempted. As in other areas, the objective has been to find confirmation for a theory which was conclusively presumed to be true at the start of the investigation. The true scientific question - Does the molecular evidence as a whole tend to confirm Darwinism when evaluated without Darwinist bias?
 - has never been asked." Written by Professor Phillip Johnson of the University of California, in his book "Darwin on Trial", Intervarsity Press: Illinois, 1991 p:99
-(6) "We must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudo-scientific (metaphysical) ..... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test." Written by evolutionist Dr Colin Patterson in "Evolution", British Museum of Natural History: London, 1978
+{{Fact|6}} "We must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudo-scientific (metaphysical) ..... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test." Written by evolutionist Dr Colin Patterson in "Evolution", British Museum of Natural History: London, 1978
 p:145-146
-(7) Evolution is a uniformatarian belief - ie. the past can be totally understood by reference to present day events. In New Scientist, zoologist Mark Ridley describes uniformatarian as not being "an empirical principle: it is trusted because of its obvious logic ..... the theory of evolution stands or falls with uniformatarian." By being non-empirical, uniformatarianism is therefore, by definition, untestable. This means that evolution is actually non-scientific, and must be classified as a belief system. New Scientist, June 1982
+{{Fact|7}} Evolution is a uniformatarian belief - ie. the past can be totally understood by reference to present day events. In New Scientist, zoologist Mark Ridley describes uniformatarian as not being "an empirical principle: it is trusted because of its obvious logic ..... the theory of evolution stands or falls with uniformatarian." By being non-empirical, uniformatarianism is therefore, by definition, untestable. This means that evolution is actually non-scientific, and must be classified as a belief system. New Scientist, June 1982
 ==References==
 <references></references>
   [[Category:Umasking Evolution]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:32, 29 May 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:

−	~~=The Logic Of Evolution=~~
	{{Evolution Says\|Evolution is logical and every thing about it has been proved by logic. It should be believed because it is logical. }}		{{Evolution Says\|Evolution is logical and every thing about it has been proved by logic. It should be believed because it is logical. }}
	==The Facts Are ..... ==		==The Facts Are ..... ==

← Older revision	Revision as of 07:59, 30 May 2014
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 07:40, 30 May 2014
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 07:30, 30 May 2014
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 14:28, 29 May 2014
(No difference)

The Logic Of Evolution - Revision history

Paul: 1 revision

at 07:59, 30 May 2014

Paul: 1 revision

at 07:40, 30 May 2014

Paul: 1 revision

at 07:30, 30 May 2014

Paul: 1 revision

at 14:28, 29 May 2014

Paul: 1 revision

at 13:32, 29 May 2014