|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: why creation "science" isn't science | |||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: How can I rebut something that is not formalized?And what does "unbias is knowledge" mean? quote: Except that in science there must be potential falsifications for a theory. What are they for creationism?
quote: Then why are you not able to provide a theory? Or even better, why not identify a finding that creationists have discovered in modern biology using a creationist theory?
quote: That is nice. However, those interpretations come with potential falsifications. Please address them for evolution and provide them for creationism.
quote: So explain the history and diversity of life on Earth. That is what evolution does. How does creation science do it?
quote: And you are still deluded. While science professors do better than say those in the social sciences for some unexplicable mis prioritization, they aren't making millions of dollars.
quote: How can he be familiar if it isn't a formal theory. Perhaps you should identify the theory with a clear explanation of what it explains and what it does not. This should include testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications and not previously have been falsified.
quote: As I would emphasize you are completely confused about how science works. Science is about making inferences. If you want to say all inferences are relative, you are not partaking in science. Inferences are made to interpret the evidence. Those interpretations have to be able to be falsified. Saying that two mutually exclusive positions are okay to have around, is saying that science cannot make any conclusions reliably and therefore science is irrelevant. An operating table has little to do with biology in where the discoveries are coming from. Science makes inferences based on the evidence and if it can't do it reliably, it wouldn't be any more reliable in one are than in another.
quote: So what is the scientific theory of creationism? Or a theory that falls under that model? You seem completely oblivious to the fact that if there are alternative models, we can test those models based on their implications and determine which is more accurate. So far, there is no way to test creationism according to you because it fits all of the facts and all of the potential facts even.
quote: Yes, evolution can be observed and especially specific features of biology can be tested that fit with evolution. And they have been tested. How about creationism? Science relies on observations. Those observations aren't necessarily experiments, but tests of the implications of a theory. In the case of humans and chimps, given what we know of genetics, they should share more common genetic traits that are non-functional if they share a common ancestor. And surprise, they do. Evolution explains this, how does creationism? Cheers,Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
"No, you need to understand what sort of discussion is occuring. He made a specific claim regarding the finding of a fossil that would be problematic for evolution. I asked for a citation supporting that find. What exactly is unreasonable in asking for that? The claim is one of evidence and therefore logic and common sense are rather hard to use without some evidence to discuss that is nothing more than an assertion at this point."
True, the example I gave you is a poor one. However, if you review your posts you will see that you keep expecting citations and literature from TrueCreation. I simply don't think you should ask so much of him all at one time, as I'm sure this is not the only thread he is posting in. Besides, I don't think TrueCreation should have to spend alot of time debating in this topic, because I think this argument is one of the weakest and most hypocritical evolutionists have to offer. You keep saying that Creationists have no real theory because the theory does not have three supposed key features you deem neccesary to consider Creation a theory. Well, perhaps you should step back and decide whether or not evolution is a real theory under your guidelines. This means you must provide: 1. Testable hypotheses2. Confirming evidence 3. Potential falsifications I believe you will have trouble meeting requirement number 3. What exactly would falsify evolution? And for requirement number one, I expect that you have testable hypotheses for nearly all aspects of evolution. This includes the big bang, abiogenesis, and tests that prove (to at least a reasonable degree) that all of the minor changes in nature could lead to the formation of complex creatures (birds, whales, humans, etc.) After all, if evolution can't meet all of the requirements, it is completely hypocritical to suspect Creation to. I know in your reply to this you will counter this post to a degree that you are satisfied with, but I doubt you will be able to come up with answers that would be considered reasonable under the review of unbiased individuals. What am I saying? Should we stop studying the "evil" theory of evolution? Of course not. I'm simply saying that scientists should realize that many of the conclusions they make (however reasonable they may be) are outside the realm of traditional science. "So explain the history and diversity of life on Earth. That is what evolution does. How does creation science do it?" I'm sorry, but this does not seem to be a very reasonable question. Creationists explain history and diversity by an almighty God who has extreme power. This almighty God created everything. If you didn't know that then you should be studying up on Creation instead of debating in this topic (whether or not you believe Creation is "real" science.) However, if you meant by the question that you want Creation to explain the diversity of life by purely natural means, then surely the question can't be serious. Creationists don't think life CAN be explained by purely natural means, which is a perfectly reasonable assumption under current evidence. "Science relies on observations." No kidding. The fact that certain (tiny) bits of the theory of evolution can be observed matters little. Besides, most "observed" instances of evolution are definitely compatible with a Creation model. Speciation, mutations, change in allelic frequency, etc. all easily fall under the framework that the universe and it's life is designed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: I think you are confusing evolution as a theory and evolution as a concept here. The concept of evolution is that small changes add up to big ones.... Theory of evolution places more constraints on the types of change permitted. A cow impregnated by a bull concieving and giving birth to a pegasus (horse with wings) would falsify it. (something of an extreme example but I am sure there are other more likely ones.) [This message has been edited by joz, 01-22-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Do you fault scientists as biased for overwhelmingly accepting the evidence for the Germ Theory of Disease, or the Atomic Theory of Matter, or the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System? The ToE has at least as much evidence, and in some cases MORE evidence, to support it than any of these theories. Do you think that scientists "believe" in these theories just to keep their jobs? You must have a very low opinion of the integrity of scientists, then. As my husband is a scientist and many of my friends are, as well, I take issue with your baseless characterization. You seem to have a very strange view of how science is done. Science is very, very contentious. Careers are often made when old theories held to be very important and solid are refined and changed. Like Einstein did with Newton. Presenting your work to your peers is a harrowing experience if you don't have your act together, as there are competing ideas all the time, and those holding these other viewpoints will grill you on yours. (it's harrowing even if you know your stuff, actually) Consensus is reached over time, with repeated observations. Eventually, we get nearer and nearer to reality. Also, the ToE could be completely falsified tomorrow, but it wouldn't make Creationism correct IN THE SLIGHTEST. Positive evidence is nowhere to be found for Creationism. Creationism is not testable, as it makes no predictions and is not falsifiable. I have said this many times without ANY comment from Creationists. [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-22-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: There is bias against BAD WORK, yes. All peer review does is to check the logic, methodology, and mathematical accuracy of a paper. If all the numbers, logic, and methods checked out on a paper, it might well be published. The people reviewing the paper don't always agree with the premise or conclusions of the paper, and this is not a reason to reject it for publication. IOW, there are "out there" ideas that get published as long as the work is good. Oh, and one does not have to be a professional scientist to publish papers in scientific journals. Anyone who follows correct methodology and has relevent data to put forth may publish. OTOH, there are several people with advanced science degrees which work at the ICR and CRS. They rarely even bother to submit work to peer-reviewed journals.
quote: ROTFLMAOPIMP!!!!! I am truly laughing so hard that I have tears in my eyes here!! LOLOLOLOL!! Most university Biologists do not make very much money, dear. We are talking in the tens of thousands of dollars for most of them. You don't even get into six figures unless you are ver important in the field. Sure, there are people like Gould who make more, but they are rare, and I would say that he makes most of his money through popular press books, not from Harvard. Every graduate student must struggle with the choice between going into industry, where they won't be able to research what they want to but will make more money, and in staying on the university track, where he will have more intellectual freedom, but will not make much money. The reason, at the end of the day, that Biology and science is supported over Creationism is because of science's enormous predictive power. Cerationism has no predictive power, because it makes no predictions which haven't been falsified.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Here is a list of 29 evidences for "mcro" evolution, complete with potential falsifications:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: Truecreation has chosen to do two things. Open multiple threads and then post assertions over and over again. There is nothing unreasonable about asking him for citations for the assertions he makes. If he can’t cite what he is asserting, then one has to ask why is asserting it in the first place.
quote: Several things. In relation to specific lines of evidence, an excellent source for potential falsifications can be found at the 29 lines of evidence for common descent:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Picking out one example here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#pred22 Genetic change is a perfect example for how one could potentially falsify evolution. If we could demonstrate that the mechanisms of evolution were inadequate to produce change it would be falsified. To falsify the overarching TOE there are two basic strategies. One would be to identify the key evidences amongst the 29 or to falsify the mechanisms of evolution. In the first case there is a great deal of evidence supporting common descent and it is available above. In the second case, all of the mechanisms we understand currently have been tested in population genetics. Falsifying them could have occurred, but didn’t.Some additional issues with the potential falsification of evolution are here: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/sep96.html quote: quote: First, abiogenesis and the Big Bang are not evolution they are separate theories. Either one could be wrong and have no bearing on the accuracy of biological evolution. Second, one of the recently verified tests of the Big Bang involves the testing of background microwave radiation which was detected when tested. Abiogenesis on the other hand is really several different theories and no where near as well developed or certain as is biological evolution or the Big Bang.
quote: See the note above about population genetics.
quote: Please cite specific conclusions found as stated in the peer reviewed research or at least work based in the peer reviewed research .
quote: It is an extremely reasonable question actually. Unless the evidence has been purposely tampered with, science should be able to study the natural world. Even if an event occurred that can’t be directly observed, it should leave all sorts of evidence lying around. Even if a supernatural event occurred, there should be evidence of said event occurring and having effects on the natural world. Where is the evidence?
quote: To make this assertion you must first identify a creationist model. Please do so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
A creation model is very simple.
An almighty being created the universe, the earth, and life. Soon after, He created man (in his own image.) Man sinned (big suprise) and as a result the almighty being decided to cast the first humans out of the perfect world and into a world in which one must struggle to survive. That is the world we live in today. The many species God created were created using the DNA code. He created them how he wanted them, with much variability. After the perfect world ended, errors in the code (mutations) began to affect all species. These errors along with the coded variation of species led to the world today in which we find many different species. The bible is a historical account. It was written by man, but the men were inspired by God. Therefore, the bible is the closest thing to the word of God. Under this very vague model, one can see easily how mutations, speciation, and change in allelic frequency all fit in easily to the theory. This model also agrees with another scientific idea in an alternate way. Common descent can easily be exchanged with common designer. "Abiogenesis on the other hand is really several different theories and no where near as well developed or certain as is biological evolution or the Big Bang." Abiogenesis is very important. If abiogenesis cannot be explained, neither can life by purely natural means. Besides, as I pointed out earlier, most (if not all) biological concepts fit fine with a Creation model. I have to go now, I will address your other points later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: So how does one test this model? What is the evidence of this theory that confirms it? How would one know if it is false? This is a scientific discussion, not a discussion by assertion. Please offer up more than vague assertions
quote: Assertion--please support it with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and how it could be falsified.
quote: How so? To make this claim you would have to have a scientific theory that is testable, has confirming evidence and can be falsified. You have not identified such a theory. Please do so. Saying the evidence fits both models is an assertion, you need to support this assertion by providing a scientific theory that does what you assert. To date you, nor anyone else, has been able to.
quote: Evolution doesn't claim that. It does claim that since the first life we are able to detect, evolution accounts for the history and diversity of life on Earth. How that life started is largely irrelevant to evolution. Abiogenesis, panspermia, divine intervention, intelligent intervention, all could have started life on Earth and not affect the evidence for evolution.
quote: You have asserted it before. You have not demonstrated that this is true by identifying any theory. Perhaps you could explain how identical retroviral insertions in humans and chimps are explained by the 'creation model.' Also, this is a strange statement given that the unifying concept of biology is evolution and yet you seem to think it can be separated from the field on a whim. Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
"So how does one test this model? What is the evidence of this theory that confirms it? How would one know if it is false? This is a scientific discussion, not a discussion by assertion. Please offer up more than vague assertions?"
The evidence lies mostly in the extreme complexity of life. And for the most part, any evidence against evolution is essentially evidence for Creation. The universe either made itself, was made, or a combination. If the universe was either made or made using methods of itself (combination), then the basic principle that we were created by an intelligent being is correct. Therefore, flaws and huge gaps in evolution are evidence of a creator. Abiogenesis (despite your admittance to this being an important part of evolution) is a great example. Even you admit that Abiogenesis does not have alot of evidence going for it at the current time. "Assertion--please support it with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and how it could be falsified." How about you use common sense instead? "How so? To make this claim you would have to have a scientific theory that is testable, has confirming evidence and can be falsified. You have not identified such a theory. Please do so. Saying the evidence fits both models is an assertion, you need to support this assertion by providing a scientific theory that does what you assert. To date you, nor anyone else, has been able to." "Evolution doesn't claim that. It does claim that since the first life we are able to detect, evolution accounts for the history and diversity of life on Earth. How that life started is largely irrelevant to evolution. Abiogenesis, panspermia, divine intervention, intelligent intervention, all could have started life on Earth and not affect the evidence for evolution." You're fooling yourself. If life wasn't created by natural means then it was created by intelligent means. This intelligent being would likely be God. Unless of course you state that aliens brought first life here. Two problems with that theory: 1. Life would of had to start on some planet at some point in time.2. The idea that aliens brought the first cell to earth sounds much more like a fairy tale than the story of the bible, in my opinion. So if one can say that (almost definitely) life did not start by aliens throwing the first cell on our planet, then we can assume beyond reasonable doubt that life had to of been started by an intelligent designer. "Also, this is a strange statement given that the unifying concept of biology is evolution and yet you seem to think it can be separated from the field on a whim." What is wrong with that assumption if the evidence fits into my model? [This message has been edited by Cobra_snake, 01-22-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
I am reading through "29 evidences for Macroevolution." I will discuss them in groups. First up:
"One True Polygenic Tree" #1 "According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life." FALSIFICATION: Thousands of new species are discovered yearly, and new DNA and protein sequences are determined daily from previously unexamined species (Wilson 1992, Ch. 8); each and every one is a test of the theory of common descent. Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. Well, to tell you the truth, I don't want to falsify this claim because it fits perfectly to a Creation model. I strongly predict that a foreign, non-nucleic acid of genetic material will be found as well. My reason? Common creator, common system of creating. There is no reason to suspect God would stray to far from the near-perfect system of DNA he created when he developed new species. # 2 "Therefore, since common descent is a genealogical process, common descent should produce organisms that can be organized into objective nested hierarchies." CONFIRMATION: Most existing species can be organized rather easily in a nested hierarchical classification. This is evident in the use of the Linnaean classification scheme. FALSIFICATION: It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings. As for the confirmation, I don't find it a big suprise. On a side note, Linneaus was a Christian (which you probably knew). As for the falsification, firstly I doubt evolutionists would stop considering macroevolution fact if some mammals had wings. Secondly, I don't see why scientists think God would of done it any other way! Anyways, this point is another moot one because it fits a Creation model. # 3 "If there is one true historical phylogenetic tree which unites all species in an objective genealogy, all separate lines of evidence should converge on the same tree (Penny et al. 1982; Penny et al. 1991). Independently derived phylogenetic trees of all organisms should match each other with a high degree of statistical significance." FALSIFICATION: In fact, in the absence of common descent or any other reason to suppose that these two types of trees should be similar, the most likely result by far is that they will be radically different. This is precisely why it is possible to falsify the macroevolutionary prediction that independently derived phylogenies should be similar. The problem with this is that the current tree that evolutionists propose now could easily be replaced by other trees. So if evolutionary assumptions lead to a certain tree, what is to say that these evolutionary assumptions are correct? Therefore, the idea that it can be falsified is not neccesarily true, because any new evidence would cause the tree to change instead of cause scientists to doubt the idea of common descent. I think you can find alot more at trueorigins.org # 4 "Any fossilized animals found should conform to the standard phylogenetic tree. If all organisms are united by descent from a common ancestor, then there is one single true historical phylogeny for all organisms, just like there is one single true historical genealogy for any individual human." CONFIRMATION: In this example, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Sereno 1999). All have the expected possible morphologies, including organisms such as Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, and Caudipteryx which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with feathers (Chen, Dong et al. 1998; Qiang, Currie et al. 1998). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds. FALSIFICATION: Any finding of a striking mammal-bird intermediate would be highly inconsistent with common descent. Many other examples of prohibited intermediates can be thought of, based on the standard tree. First of all, the falsification is not really very good. Even the author admits that a mammal-bird intermediate would be merely "highly inconsistent" with the theory. Secondly, I find it very odd that Archaeopteryx is the only example with a link. Therefore, one can only assume Archaeopteryx is the best example available. But when I look at the Archaeopteryx, I see fully functional feathers. How did these get there? Thirdly, I don't see why an intermediate would not be created by an intelligent designer. Archaeopteryx seems like a wonderful creation, and if God made reptiles and birds, why should he be expected to not make an organism that has (fully functional) characteristics of both? I will add # 5 to my list when I have time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[B]I am reading through "29 evidences for Macroevolution." I will discuss them in groups. First up: "One True Polygenic Tree" #1 "According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life."... Well, to tell you the truth, I don't want to falsify this claim because it fits perfectly to a Creation model. I strongly predict that a foreign, non-nucleic acid of genetic material will be found as well. My reason? Common creator, common system of creating. There is no reason to suspect God would stray to far from the near-perfect system of DNA he created when he developed new species.[UNQUOTE] "stray too far", "near-perfect system". Well I suppose that provides plenty of wriggle room. But how does that reconcile with the reality of variation in the genetic code? Robin D. Knight, Stephen J. Freeland and Laura F. Landweber (2001) "REWIRING THE KEYBOARD: EVOLVABILITY OF THE GENETIC CODE," Nature Reviews - Genetics. 2: 49-58. This is a paper which consolidates the variations which have been found in the genetic code used a number of organisms. For exmple, the UAA and UAG codons have been reassigned from Stop to Gln in some diplomonads , in several lineages of ciliates and in the green alga Acetabularia acetabulum. A diagram of the relationship between the variants and the standard genetic code is at http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7705_pr89_10182001__di_fails_aga_10_18_2001.asp This raises some interesting questions for creation and/or design. Why would the designer make some variations of the genetic code for some taxa? Is it intelligent to have slightly different codes operating across taxa? Were the organisms created with the variant codes or did their divergence from the standard genetic code occur after their creaton? Why would an intelligent designer create a "near perfect" genetic system when, presumably with a little more effort, a perfect genetic system could surely be provided? Does this mean that the capacity for mutation is designed into the genetic system? What would be the purpose of facilitating mutation? To provide variation within species to enable them to be more fit for their environment? Cobra, you may need to revisit this piece of evidence before charging onto the others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by wj:
This raises some interesting questions for creation and/or design. Why would the designer make some variations of the genetic code for some taxa? Is it intelligent to have slightly different codes operating across taxa? Were the organisms created with the variant codes or did their divergence from the standard genetic code occur after their creaton? Why would an intelligent designer create a "near perfect" genetic system when, presumably with a little more effort, a perfect genetic system could surely be provided? Does this mean that the capacity for mutation is designed into the genetic system? What would be the purpose of facilitating mutation? To provide variation within species to enable them to be more fit for their environment? Cobra, you may need to revisit this piece of evidence before charging onto the others.[/B][/QUOTE] First of all, you are in no position to question the way God made species if in fact he does exist. However, your points are still easily discarded. I really don't see your point in the first paragraph. Even if genetic code differs slightly, it is still relatively the same. This is not EVIDENCE for a creator, but simply saying that it is EVIDENCE for evolution is completely ridiculous. Your second point goes nowhere. First of all, you can't prove that a better system than DNA is possible. Besides, it is very likely that the system WAS perfect when God first created life. Mutations occured AFTER the sin of man. And mutations are a good idea given God's position. Seriously though, don't spend too much time lingering on this one idea. Evolutionists have much more challenging oppositions to creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: How do we test this? And how is it falsifiable? You have declared creationism correct because of the current state of the worldnot by any testing with this statement.
quote: Incorrect. A theory should be able to support itself without even mentioning another theory. A theory rests on positive evidence for it, not the lack of evidence for another theory. You should be able to describe the scientific theory of creation and its supporting evidence without even mentioning evolution if it is indeed, a scientific theory. Now, after doing that you might want to compare the theories for parsimony or other aspects, but to describe the basic theory evolution should be irrelevant.
quote: Again, evolution doesn’t concern itself with the universe as a whole. It does explain the history and diversity of life on Earth. Scientific theories don’t explain everything, the explain specific phenomenon. Your insistence on continuing to claim it does is nothing more than a strawman argument.
quote: No, if such flaws existedand you are completely unable to point them out without resorting to a strawman argumentit would be falsification of evolution. You must provide positive evidence of a theory for it to be accepted, not negative evidence of one alternative.
quote: No, it is a horrible example. It shows how devoid of content your argument is. If abiogenesis doesn’t account for the beginning of life on Earth, it is simply false, not evidence for another theory.
quote: Because common sense has little to say here. Common sense isn’t a scientific tool. You make the claim that creationism is scientific. Support that assertion. If you want to say that creationism is correct, but not scientific, you are welcome to your faith. However, you have claimed it is scientific and science has standards.
quote: 1) there are potentially other natural means besides abiogenesis2) You need to provide a testable theory to support you contention if you are going to claim it is scientific. 3) I am not fooling myself, I am pointing out that you don’t understand science and have made erroneous statements regarding creationism being scientific. quote: Assertion. Do you have a scientific theory that can test this? Yes or no? If so provide. If not, admit creationism is not scientific.
quote: Assumptions in science are generally testable and usually have been tested previously. Just assuming something without good scientific reason is not science. It is wishful thinking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: To make this claim you would need to have a scientific theory of creationism. It may be true that some evidence could be equally handledhowever, there would have to be a competing theory to judge such an issue. Please provide said theory.
quote: So am I and a person’s religion is largely irrelevant to the scientific evidence.
quote: Some do. I have no idea why you made the above claim. External features such as wings or fins are not at issue, but more at issue would be a shark and dolphin sharing identical features internally.
quote: What creation model? Fine, it fits the creation model. Could you be bothered to provide said model instead of just asserting that it fits everything?
quote: You are confused over what the line of evidence states. The TOE as it is formulated, postulates one true phylogenic treeand that is what we find. If we didn’t find that the TOE that is being argued for by science today, would be false. Perhaps there could be two trees or something, but that would be an entirely different theory. You are confused because you have conflated falsifications of evolution as being evidence of creation. They aren’t, they are evidence of the current theory as formulated. The current theory could be falsified, and then other theories would be formulated. Those theories may be similar to evolution as formulated, but they would be different in key points. Your argument is silly because it is based on the assumption that creationism is correct. If creationism is correct, then you should be able to produce a theory. Because there is a successful theory that explains part of creationism claims to explain, does not mean that if that successful theory were to be falsified, that the other alternative is only creationism.
quote: So such a finding would certainly falsify the tree we are working with. What is the problem here? I have no idea why the falsification is not goodbecause we don’t observe it is only a sign of the accuracy of evolution.
[QUOTE]
Secondly, I find it very odd that Archaeopteryx is the only example with a link.
quote: It isn’t. And the references are there so why is a link the standard? I find it strange you are complaining given the references are available and a link to land mammals and whales is also included.
quote: Why would you assume that? Why don’t you bother to go and read some sources actually instead of making poor assumptions? Additionally, you don’t bother even addressing the example? Why not?
quote: Scales that were selected for over generations?
quote: 1) Then it wouldn’t be an intermediate2) I have no idea since there is no way to evaluate claims concerning what an intelligent designer would or would not doyou don’t have a theory and everything seems to fit with what an intelligent designer might do 3) an Ider would then seem to be planting evidence to fool us. quote: So again, all evidence fits the designer? You have the responsibility of explaining such cases in the framework of a scientific theory. Please do and stop this, well God could have done it this way argument that does nothing in supporting a scientific theory.
quote: When you do, why don’t you address the science this time?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024