Evolution is not a scientific theory

[freediver]

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down Therefore, falsifiable

How is that any more falsifiable than my unicorn theory? Being able to dream up a scenario that might change your mind is not the same thing as being able to make a specific prediction that would disprove the theory if it didn't happen.

Falsifiable has a specific meaning in the context of the scientific method.

It's up to you to come up with alternate theory or disprove the accepted theory

Again IQ, I am not trying to disprove the theory. You still haven't even figured out what the topic is. Odd, seeing as you brought it up.

Most of which concern the next several hundred years in the predicted posted.

And if it did not happen as predicted? Would that disprove evolution?

You tell me.

Not as far as I can tell.

[IQS.RLOW]

No I don't.

http://www.skeptive.com/statements/10747" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Evolution should not be taught in high school science classes because it is not a scientific theory.

If you didn't add this statement then perhaps you need to clarify your argument better than you have been. Your position is not clear

Why do you not argue as strongly about the science of climate change?

[IQS.RLOW]

You still haven't even figured out what the topic is

I know what the topic is.

I want to know what your motive is

[IQS.RLOW]

Even scientific laws inevitably get disproven

All? Inevitably?
What was that about misrepresentation?

[IQ family rubbish collector]

Dear christ this family’s bins stink of shit!

FD, SN & IQ have no idea what a scientific Law is.

Boyles Law—describes the relationship between the absolute pressure and volume of a gas. You try it out, it works. Doesn’t explain, doesn’t predict based on some theory, just describes what happens.

Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, derived from and restating Kepler’s work again gives no theory of why and how gravity works. It just states two bodies exert force on one another.

Evolution is more a Law yet proffers natural selection as a mechanism. It just can’t be tested: science tests predictions not past events. So the Theory of Evolution is not phrased as a scientifc theory.

[IQS.RLOW]

National Academy of Science called. They said you are a dickhead

Go back to your blog Monk

[IQS.RLOW]

See, I can understand Monks argument because he is just an annoying pedant providing useless information in an effort to try and prove a pedant point. It's his normal mode of being a fucking cockhead.

Freeloader is not normally a complete fucking dickhead but he does seem quite preoccupied with trying to discredit the accepted science

[Rubbish tip]

Phew, that one truck always, christ it stinks! Not even the seagulls go there.

Codeine boy, you understand nothing! You truly are a fuckwit and a waste of space.

[IQS.RLOW]

Phew, that one truck always, christ it stinks! Not even the seagulls go there.

Codeine boy, you understand nothing! You truly are a fuckwit and a waste of space.

Monks pissed again

[Super Nova]

Dear christ this family’s bins stink of shit!

FD, SN & IQ have no idea what a scientific Law is.

Real wanker you are Monk.

Boyles Law—describes the relationship between the absolute pressure and volume of a gas. You try it out, it works. Doesn’t explain, doesn’t predict based on some theory, just describes what happens.

It's call a law has it describes the relationship between presure, volume and you forgot, temperature. It is ideal for engineering or applied physics. It is not absolute but for the purposes of application on thuis planet a good estimate of the relations. I guess you know what a "mole" is then.

Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, derived from and restating Kepler’s work again gives no theory of why and how gravity works. It just states two bodies exert force on one another.

Once again. A good solid summary of his equations and his theory. It not a law today as it is not true. Einstiens theory, equations and prooves superseeded it. However it is a good enough approximation that works here on Earth. NASA still use these equations as they are simple to calculate.

The orbit of Mercury did not exactly match what is predicted/calculated using Newtons equations.... so it is good enough for most things.... how can it be a real law of the universe when it is not 100% accurate at all times.

Evolution is more a Law yet proffers natural selection as a mechanism. It just can’t be tested: science tests predictions not past events. So the Theory of Evolution is not phrased as a scientifc theory.

It can be tested. Fast breeding flies have been used to test out evolution for years.

You refer to laws as if they are absolute truths. They are simple phrases that summarise a complex finding.