hooberus, much devotion to YEC-ism seems to have made you into either someone without apparent intellectual processing ability, or without intellectual honesty. Twice now I've answered your question in a simple manner, and twice now you've ignored the points. So let's try number three, eh?
You originally asked:
::: What experiment or observation would falsify evolution?
Among other things I answered:
:: Finding human and dinosaur skeletons mixed in the same fossil bed.
Now that's a perfectly good and true answer, because if such skeletons truly were mixed together, then the geological time scale would be demonstrated to be wrong, and in fact, evolution would be proved not to have happened.
What you're studiously missing is the point that the mere fact that it's possible for people to find ways to ignore certain evidence related to a theory doesn't mean that the theory is in principle unfalsifiable.
This is a very simple point, hooberus, but you're either too dumb or too dishonest to admit understanding it. If you admitted understanding it, you'd have to trash arguments made by your moronic YEC mentors.
Let's see how you miss the point. You replied to my last attempt to clue you in, in this way:
: The first two points below are "excuse" scenarios which could be proposed to deny the apparent relationship.
: 1. the human fossils are stratigraphic leaks
: 2. the dinosaur skeletons are reworked specimens
Yes, these potential excuse scenarios exist, but it does not follow that evolution is therefore unfalsifiable.
In your next comments you again claim that the fact that excuses can be found means that evolution is in principle unfalsifiable:
: However the last two points below are points which easily could save evolution even if "scientists found absolutely solid proof that humans and dinosaur skeletons were mixed in the same fossil bed" Evolution would not be falsisifed it would be modified.
: 3. dinosaurs survived into more recent times
: 4. redraw evolutionary trees with mammal evolution occurring earlier than now believed
Again, the points are not whether evolutionists would modify the theory in the face of such evidence, but whether such evidence can exist, and whether the existence of such evidence falsifies evolution in principle.
There's a big difference between whether something will be done and whether something can be done.
:: So, hooberus, why didn't you answer my simple question? Let's try again:
:: What experiment or observation would falsify creation?
:: The reason you failed to answer the question is that the standard of falsifiability that you want to apply to evolution proves that the notion of creation is not scientific -- which goes against everything that you so-called "scientific creationsists" want the world to believe. You've accepted this standard, and you don't want it to be applied to your religious belief. Don't you know that holding double standards is dishonest?
: The reason why I didn't answer your question is because I have asked what experiment or observation would falsify evolution.
To which I gave you a perfectly good answer. Having answered your question, I posed another.
: If evolution is really so "scientific" and vulnerable to falsification as is often claimed, then evolutionists should present scenarios which would really falsify it.
They do that regularly in the course of research and writing papers and critiquing others' ideas. No one is going to publish elementary ideas like what I've stated above because they're trivially true.
: Moving the subject to creation does not prove that evolution is a falsifiable theory.
Duh. You're right, it doesn't. But I can still ask any questions I want. And the fact that you consistently refuse to answer hard questions proves that you know that YEC-ism is unfalsifiable and unsupportable except by blind belief. Your response here is a thoroughly dishonest tactic.
Do I have to start a brand new thread dedicated to you before you'll answer my question? Or will you continue to ignore it?
: As for "double standards" it should be kept in mind that it has been the evolutionists here that started the practice of attempting to use the issue of "falsifiability" as a weapon against creation being considered equally with evolution. Therefore I am simply asking them to apply their own standard to themselves.
Which they do, and which I've shown is quite easy to do.
:: The fact is that evolution is falsifiable in principle by means of experiment and observation.
: If it is then provide evidence.
I've done it three times now. Let's see if it sinks in.
:: Hooberus, your intellectual dishonesty continues to please me. You make my job of showing that young-earth creationists are generally dishonest so much easier.
: Personal accusations against critics of evolution (a standard tactic).
Stating demonstrated facts is not a personal attack. The fact that you've twice completely ignored the answers I've given proves that my statement is correct.
AlanF
