Hooberus,
It's very simple and you've been missing the point all this time.
For a theory to be falsifiable does not mean that it can't be changed in the face of new facts. It just means the new change in the theory also must be testable. It can not then make the theory non-falsifiable.
Evolution (scientific thinking in general) meets this test. Creationism does not.
Take, for example, the fossils in the strata. It is true that if the fossils were found statically in our hypothetical example the current theory of evolution would be falsified. A new theory, such as the one you described, could be put forward... but here is the important part:
*It also has to be testable*
So you cannot just go and make an ad-hoc explanation to explain away the facts. You would have to have evidence that life could evolve from nothing to multiple modern forms within 300 million years. Without such evidence, the new theory is falsified. If there is evidence of such extreme rates of evolution, then the theory would stand until other tests were either passed or failed.
If there is no alternate testable theory to account for the facts all one can honestly say is "I don't know". You may wish to say "god did it" but that is only an opinion.
rem
God does exist...
by czarofmischief 348 Replies latest jw friends
-
rem
-
czarofmischief
For a theory to be falsifiable does not mean that it can't be changed in the face of new facts. It just means the new change in the theory also must be testable. It can not then make the theory non-falsifiable.
Sooo... Evolution periodically gets "new light???"
CZAR
-
Abaddon
Loves_Truth
you call on others to be "subject matter experts",
When those people consistantly cite websites and use arguments that reveal they don't understand what they are talking about, as I and others have demonstrated.
and berate those who have differing views,
As do you.
while on the otherhand, you believe your opinions,
Refute me if they are wrong. I've shown quite clearly that the tired parade of opinions you have dragged through here are easily refutable. You've not defended one.
and the opinions of your hand-selected "subject matter experts" superior
As has been demonstrated at great length; not ONE link you have provided actually falsifies evolution, proves the existance of god, or proves creation, yet you've said that they do!
Tyranny of Authority? Perhaps.
Nope; the poor quality of science or deceit of ALL the websites you have presented show our questioning of your sources to be reasonable.
I've already stated my background somewhat, and I obviously see nothing wrong with an Engineer or Physicist ripping any theory to shreds, we're quite good at analysis.
So, ARE you going to a carpenter next time you have tooth-ache? As for your analysis, I've shown that you prefer people who back your opinion to people who can show they know what they take about.
I believe in letting arguments be judged on their merit.
Oh, if they stood on their own merit that would be fine!
They don't, and I have to point out that you're following the typical defence moves of a creationist who's finding his sources are a big pile of poo. They go two ways; towards the light, and understanding, and learning... or towards the darkness which all the Creationist websites spread with their distortions and bad science... note, you've not been able to refute ONE example of this I have shown to be false.
You've yet to prove evolution is anything more than a silly, wishful, pipe ream.
No, you have failed to falsify evolution, time and time again; you even cite websites that support YEC, which I think from what you've said in the past you do not support. There are Islamic Creationist website too; want some links?
Do you really want me to go back to punch by punch (you said this, here's my retort) dissection of your so-called "refutations?
You've not bothered reading them have you? Ostrichism. Go on, show the websites you cited, that I have shown to post errors, misconceptions, distortions, misrepresentation, bad science or downright lies, are right afterall.
You've refuted nothing thus far.
That's just a lie. Very sad.
You simply hold a different opinion. And that opinion is on shaky foundation, or no foundation at all.
Which you have failed to demonstrate. Every single attempt to show that evolution is on a shaky foundation, or no foundation at all has been refuted. If it's so shakey, why do you consistantly fail to demonsrate this?
But I'll get to that later, in my response.
Will you?
Nonetheless, it appears you're (Abaddon, at least) suggesting you like that format better. I did address all of your issues in my last post, but for the sake of keeping the reply as short as possible, I left out your original quotes.
You've not made one comment on the distorted quotations, misrepresentation, and plain old ignorance of a subject (or downright deciet) that characterise EVERY link you've given.
Rather, you post more assertions or links. If you paid attention to the pile of reeking refuted rubbish you left in your wake, you'd have so much to do to defend those claims you have made that you'd be too busy to post new material until you had satisfactorily defended the old material.
This is another Creationist tactic.
-
hooberus
Re: my paraphrased quote of evolutionists beliefs: "Evolution is a fact the mechanisms that drive evolution are theory."
Which would explain why it appeared out of context and distorted. You have picked up the bad habits of the websites that you frequent hooberus... we can take this as a fact unless you are;
- gonna show me that your statment is a true reflection of what evolutionists say, and
- gonna show we that those websites are not full of distotions and/or lies and/or bad science.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
Biologists no longer question whether evolution has occurred or is occurring. That part of Darwin's book is now considered to be so overwhelmingly demonstrated that is is often referred to as the FACT of evolution. However, the MECHANISM of evolution is still debated.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.
Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.
-
hooberus
Okay, which part of "horse DNA in it's arse and human DNA in its head" don't you understand. There is no possible explanation in evolutionary theory that would explain this creature.
Since every cell in the body contains the same DNA, there would be no "horse DNA in it's arse and human DNA in its head" Every cell in its body would contain "centaur DNA". Evolutionists would simply propose various possible phylogenetic relationships between moden humans, centaurs, and horses.The fact that gene sequences which express the head are the same as expressed in humans, and the genes that express the body are the same as horses could be explained as being due to humans and horses sharring a common ancestor (the centaur).
-
hooberus
Hooberus,
Something like this would falsify Evolution:
Age of Earth 4.3 Billion Years
many trees, bacteria, horses, humans (present)
-------------------------------------------
more trees, bacteria, horses, humans (dated 4 million years ago)
-------------------------------------------
few trees, bacteria, horses, humans (dated 4 billion years ago)
The relative number of fossils is really irrelevant.Take, for example, the fossils in the strata. It is true that if the fossils were found statically in our hypothetical example the current theory of evolution would be falsified. A new theory, such as the one you described, could be put forward... but here is the important part:
*It also has to be testable*
So you cannot just go and make an ad-hoc explanation to explain away the facts. You would have to have evidence that life could evolve from nothing to multiple modern forms within 300 million years. Without such evidence, the new theory is falsified. If there is evidence of such extreme rates of evolution, then the theory would stand until other tests were either passed or failed.The evidence that life could evolve from nothing to multiple forms within 300 million years would be said (by evolutionists) to be found in "the fact that the earth is 4.3 billion years old and that we have diverse life in rocks as old as 4 billion years." The "fact" that life evolved so much in this amount of time would even be presented as proof of the high probablity of life evolving !
Sagan used a similar argument as evidence of the high probablity of the origin of life:
"... the time available for the origin of life seems to have been short, a few hundred million years at the most. Since life originated on the earth, we have additional evidence that the origin of life has a high probability."
Carl Sagan, Scientific American, 1975, 232(5), pg 82.
-
rem
LOL, nice out of context quote, Hooberus. Carl Sagan was talking about the *origin* of life - not the speed of evolution. Last time I checked, Carl Sagan wasn't a biologist, so I'm not sure why his opinion would mean much to you anyway.
You sure like to deal with hypothetical examples which turn out to be pseudoscience. If that's the best argument you have against Evolution, then you've already lost. Face it, you are a dinosaur.
rem -
hooberus
LOL, nice out of context quote, Hooberus. Carl Sagan was talking about the *origin* of life - not the speed of evolution.
I wrote that Sagan was talking about the origin of life. Here are my words "Sagan used a similar argument as evidence of the high probablity of the origin of life:" While Sagan was talking about origin of life, his argument is similar to one that evolutionists could use (and probably would) to provide "evidence" for the probability of modern life forms evolving in only 300 million years. "... the time available for the origin of life seems to have been short, a few hundred million years at the most. Since life originated on the earth, we have additional evidence that the origin of life has a high probability." Sagan on the origin of life*
"... the time available for the evolution of life seems to have been short, 300 million years at the most. Since life evolved on the earth, we have additional evidence that the evolution of life has a high probability." Evolutionist using similar argument as evidence for evolution*
Last time I checked, Carl Sagan wasn't a biologist, so I'm not sure why his opinion would mean much to you anyway.
But he was a popular evolutionist, and his origin of life quote shows how those with an absolute commitment to naturalistic origins will interpret all data (even seemingly hostile) as evidence for their beliefs.
You sure like to deal with hypothetical examples which turn out to be pseudoscience. If that's the best argument you have against Evolution, then you've already lost. Face it, you are a dinosaur.
You came up with a hypothetical fossil situation which you implied could be a falsification test for evolution, I showed that not only would it not falsify evolution, but that (as Sagan did) evidence which should be contrary to naturalistic origins can be used by evolutionists as evidence for the "high probability" of the theory. *I realise that many evolutionists consider abiogenesis and evolution as separate issues. My "Sagan example" was not here intended to directly link evolution with the origin of life, but to show how reasoning similar to Sagans (on the origin of life) could be used by future evolutionists (arguing for the probablity of evolution), if your hypothetical 300 million year situation were to come to pass.
-
hooberus
rem, do you really think that given a choice between believing that life:
- evolved from nothing to multiple modern forms within 300 million years (with no known possible mechanism) or
- accepting creation
that evolutionists would truly consider evolution to be falsified ?
I think that they would still continue to embrace the fact of evolution.
-
Abaddon
hooberus
Yet again, comprehension of even the extent to which you use 'spin' eludes you; the context you used this phrase in was;
- a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
If such a mechanism were found it would not falsify evolution. since "evolution is a fact; the mechanisms that drive evolution are theory." Thus such a mechanism would not falsify evolution, since according to evolutionists, evolution is not falsifiable by mechanism (though individual meachanisms may be).
Now, the fact that there are a succession of diffent organisms attested to in the fossil record and that these broadly speaking get increasingly complex is indeed a fact. This is why people say 'evolution is a fact'. It means there are bones in the ground that show development over time.
If however the theories that explain this fossil record were invalidated or falsified, the theory of evolution would indeed be falsified.
There would still be a succession of diffent organisms in the fossil record that broadly speaking got increasingly complex.
Either you do not comprehend what we are discussing, or you are falsely claiming that evolutionary theory cannot be falsified when all the quote you use says is there are bones in the ground and that ain't changing.
Thus I feel my claim that you are doing exactly what the Creationist sites I have shown to do; use deceit intentionally, or simply not understand what they are talking about and deciev out of ignorance, is justified.
Either way it is the blind leading the blind. And not one bit of rebuttal of the dendrochronology that falsifies the Flood account. And not yet one rational explanation why these Creationist website who supposedly are right have to act in such a underhand or ill-informed way to protect the 'truth' as they see it.
You display similar behaviour in dealing with the following way of falsifyng evolution;
- true chimaeras; i.e. organisms which combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs);
Now, desite the above, which is quite clear in its grammar and syntax, you say this would not falsify evolution as 'Since every cell in the body contains the same DNA, there would be no 'horse DNA in it's arse and human DNA in its head" Every cell in its body would contain "centaur DNA'.
BUT you ignore the fact that it would not fall under the designation 'true chimaeras; i.e. organisms which combined parts from several different and diverse lineages' unless it did have different DNA in its constituent parts.
You distort what the original point was about true chimaeras to suit your defence, or you simply don;t understand the point.
Back to trees; unless you have 'seen the light' and become an OEC, you are still an YEC. There are reliable dendrochronological records that not only indicate trees alive today were alive before the possible dates of the Flood, there are reliable overlapping dendrochronological records which indicate trees were alive before the Biblically endorsed date of Creation.
Now, if you can't refute that evidence you have to either adjust your beliefs or claim that god gave the trees the appearance of age. As you like to kid yourself you have a scientifically justifiable viewpoint, I am interested to see what you will do; thus far you've just evaded the point.
You have the cheek to constantly make ill-informed or distorted claims regarding evolution, when your own beliefs stand exposed as fairy-tales.
Ball's in your court hooberus
Czar
Sooo... Evolution periodically gets "new light???"
Well, science discovers can new evidence which requires changes to theoretical models, or find weaknesses in theoretical models that means the models have to change to match observed reality better.
It's just as well, as otherwise you would be sat ay a chair, staring into space, pumping your forearms up and down whilst flexing your fingers... well, at least that's what it would look like if the PC you are typing at was suddenly removed, as it would be if scientists didn;t change theoretical models to match evidence.
You, on the other hand, and many theists and most religionists, will not chnage a theological model even if it doesn't fit in with the evidence.
Thus your quip about new light only serves to expose the weakness of teleological paradigms when compared to scientific ones.
With you, hooberus and Loves_Truth acting as the defence for Creation et. al., proving how insubstansial and ill-informed Creationist beliefs are is even easier than it would be without.