Posted: Nov 07, 2011 12:21 am
Sovereign wrote:Brain Man, why haven't the alt science people ever produced testable theories? Give me one that is supported by observed and/or experimental data.
how about this. Myers calls fleury a crackpot, and does the best job possible of misrepresenting fleury in so many ways we could make a list. Also Out of 45 pages of fleuries online visual book he picks out the one image that fleury (who is not an artist) could not find a good image to communicate his concept to interested parties. In other words Myers cannot be trusted to represent others work as an objective communicator.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... ain_be.php
Fleury, replies as politely as possible considering myers nonsense, asks no more than his full image bank where he posts up lab data is allowed to be posted. His colleagues then over the next two years produce a new technique to film their lab results.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 101740.htm
Not that fleury is a creationist but this weakness in our interpretation of evolution and neophobia over anything that questions it is yet one weapon the creationists have been employing.
Myers and dawkins have since backed down on this one.
Now again from another lab, new genetic evidence has found that structuralism is at play.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153943.htm
Nothing in structuralism proves god. Its just an idea creationists like.