Replies

RE “Just post the published falsification criteria for the Theory of Evolution”
RE : “So you admit that there is no published falsification criteria for Evolution “

I found this online:

Here’s an opportunity to see how good you are at refuting evolution scientifically. That means using science, not faith. If you have faith that evolution is false, that’s great for you but has nothing to do with science

Type of Statement Points

Observation of spontaneous generation of a modern lifeform
either from nothing or from nonliving elements. 5

Explanation of how totally independent dating methods agree
so well if the dates they show are wrong. 5

Evidence showing that all remains of Earth are younger than
1 million years. 3

Example of total genetic discontinuity (polymerase chain
reaction) between two species considered closely related
by conventional science. 2

Example of two species considered separated by over 100
million years of time by conventional science found to 2
be contemporaneous.

Example of a fossil considered over 2 million years old by
conventional science showing the exact same genetic makeup as
a modern member of the same species. 1

Correct statement of the theory of evolution. 1

Any other single statement showing you understand evolution. 1

Any quote from secondary sources. -1

Any statement mischaracterizing evolution. -1

Misunderstanding of the difference between theory and fact. -2

Misunderstanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. -2

Misunderstanding of entropy, order, randomness or
complexity. -2

Misunderstanding of the use of C-14 dating. -2

Misunderstanding of isochron dating. -2

Misunderstanding of nuclear decay. -2

Misunderstanding of the speed of light. -2

Appeal to supernatural entities. Such is outside the
framework of science. -2

Misquoting or distorting someone’s statement. -3

Mischaracterizing a disagreement on the hows of evolution
as doubt of the fact of evolution. -4

Appeal to your own ignorance “I don’t see how else...”
is a description of your personal inadequacy, not that
of conventional science. -4

Outright lie. It doesn’t matter if you didn’t know it
was a lie. -5

Use of argument already thoroughly refuted. You are
responsible for looking these things up. -5

Appeal to moral consequences. That has no bearing on
truth value. -5

http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/anti-evo.htm